One of the few issues that can unite across the RW v LW and authoritarian v libertarian divide but this one – albeit for different motives 😉

Good idea

Simple and transparent
Treats people adults rather than kids of the state
Cash – not benefits in kind
Less disincentive to work
Reduce poverty(perhaps)

Not such a good idea

Conflicts between objectives of simplicity, cost and disincentives
Universal basic income simple BUT potentially more costly than current system
Negative incomes is less costly BUT complex dis-incentivises work
Supplements hardly improve on current system
Etc, etc

So interesting idea with plenty of case studies but not the slam dunk that many suggest

that’s the whole point, P-Jay – any amount of paid work will return an improvement in lifestyle. Under the current systems, that’s not the case.

Rachel

The Green Party were proposing £80 a week or £4160 year. I think the suggestion of £12k included housing benefit. The Green Party was proposing to keep housing separate, which makes sense given the enormous discrepancies in cost you have around the country.

I’m liking the theory more and more. Speaking as one of those “soon to not be needed” civil servants, unless I move across to do the retained disability benefits.

Herein lies the biggest problem as I see it – you actually have to set the base level pretty low, to the point that it becomes close to poverty, or you have a stonking high tax rate that will discourage many to make the effort to work.

This.

The fundamental problem is for most people work is unpleasant. In fact it’s so bad you have to be financially compensated to do it. If you pay non-workers it has to be at a level where their lifestyle is worse than getting up at 6am 5 days a week, commuting and grafting at least 38 hours with 4-5 weeks leave. Plus the stress and responsibility. (And the health consequences of sitting at a desk all the time or the risk of working with machinery etc.)

I question if even £71 is low enough to avoid shirking. Some couples with paid off mortgage and a bit of ingenuity could manage on £142 a week and have a better lifestyle than they did on 80k pa between them. (I heard a couple on the radio who cycled around the world on a budget of 9k a year which I make to be £75 pw each.)

allthegear – Member
that’s the whole point, P-Jay – any amount of paid work will return an improvement in lifestyle. Under the current systems, that’s not the case.

I think that applies to some at the moment, not all.

The difference being at the moment some people (those with few outgoings paid by the state, the young living with parents for example) get back almost every penny of their minimum wage when they get a job. Under the proposed CI system they’d get their CI and then get taxed a lot more on their wage.

The question is, is that a big enough group to matter? And would it grow if the system was changed to favor them?

I say no.

raise the basic rate of tax so it is more attractive to work.

change corporate tax levels so companies can afford to pay the living wage

therefore remove tax credits and simplify the welfare state

force corporations to pay the appropriate levels of tax

only support people that actually need it on the welfare state – such as disabled or permanently ill. Only support able-bodied people for the time needed for them ‘to get back on their feet’

remove/reduce child benefit if you can’t afford kids then don’t have them.

fine people using A&E for non-emergencies

people can only be in the national health scheme if they make some effort, acknowledged by their GP, to look after their health.

Herein lies the biggest problem as I see it – you actually have to set the base level pretty low, to the point that it becomes close to poverty, or you have a stonking high tax rate that will discourage many to make the effort to work.

And this is the devil in the detail and the part where my understanding runs out, hence asking the views here.

force corporations to pay the appropriate levels of tax

I’m going to chomp right down on that bit of bait.

If a company does not pay the tax its due it’s called tax evasion and being illegal that company would then face charges in court.

All companies pay the tax that’s due. The problem, where there is one, is that the tax that’s due is not as much as you would like. But that’s not the company’s doing. It’s not even the UK government’s doing. It’s internatinal Tax law and the rates at which each soverign state decides to set its corporation tax rate at.

Companys will pay taxes where its cheapest and where the law allows (indeed they are required to act in this way by law).

1) I bet the proposed efficiencies never materialise.

2) If the total benefits pot is staying the same, then surely to give middle and high earners their £70 odd quid the lower brackets will lose out?

3) There are always unintended consequences e.g. it could result in a higher divide between lower and middle class as it could lead to inflation on demand led items like cars and houses (as Trail-rat previously alluded to).

My 2 cents. Attractive sounding idea which does not make sense financially , people paid something for nothing and tye same for every man,mwoman and child ? Not means tested ? All bad.

Standard family of husband, wife and 2-3 kids I think there would be many who’d give up and/or take sabaticals for a year or two or longer. Have some more kids and get a council house, work cash in hand on the side ? Yup sounds great doesn’t it, in fact far too attractive based on the numbers above.

force corporations to pay the appropriate levels of tax

@Turner I’ll comment. Complex tax avoidance is here to stay, in fact its the norm. We can never solve it, its fundamentaly imbedded within the EU. We use our rate of corporate tax as an incentive to attract companies, the Irish and Luxembourgers do the same. Its as much of a problem in the US too, Apple has $200bn held offshore which has never really been taxed. The fact is today the only way to tax appropriately is via consumption, ie VAT and/or import duties.

In this simple system where will the politicians get their backhanders (in the form of directorships etc…) in big corporate management consultancies paid to implement complex tax & welfare systems?

I.e. what’s in it for the politicians?

“Who” pays tax? Clue: it’s not companies.

TG, why does raising the basic rate of tax make it more attractive to work? Or were you talking about the threshold? plus sounds like you are opposed to a core pillar of the welfare system – the notion of universal benefit.

force corporations to pay the appropriate levels of tax

This is nonsense. Corporations don’t pay tax. People pay tax.

What you’re asking for is money to be taken from employees, customers and shareholders.

[video]http://youtu.be/xtpgkX588nM[/video]

Geetee, what were you listneing to? Was it Money Box?

This is nonsense. Corporations don’t pay tax. People pay tax.

While we seem to agree violently with the underlying principle, ironcically, companies in their incorporation are indeed regarded as if they were a person with all the responsibilities and rights that go with that designation. It is why a company can be helf culpable for wrong doing.

Geetee, what were you listneing to? Was it Money Box?

Not sure as I came in towards the end but the presenter wasn’t Paul Lewis so I don’t think so.

<Edit>

Turns out it was Money Box

Attractive sounding idea which does not make sense financially , people paid something for nothing and tye same for every man,mwoman and child ? Not means tested ? All bad.

Oh, so you are also totally against free bus passes, free TV licences and the winter heating allowance for Pensioners then? As they aren’t means tested.

CI is obviously an interesting idea, though it’s not entirely clear that it will work as well in practice as its proponents claim.

I hope the tests in other countries produce good results. If it works, it would hugely improve life for many people. Just think of the encouragement and support for socially useful but currently uneconomic work, part-time work, etc….of course it’s hard to be sure I’m not just biased in favour because it would be beneficial to me…

In favour of CI. As long as it’s paid for by a commensurate Land Value Tax and other taxes such as income tax are done away with.

From one angle this can be viewed as a carrot v stick debate. We all get the stick idea, it’s in full swing and historical examples are many and brutal…I believe someone has already mentioned workhouses. If work, in and of itself, is such a good thing then why do so many people feel it can only be properly incentivised via a big stick?

CI is really a carrot idea and that’s why I said that I thought imagination was key. Consider the difference in attitudes if work was truly a choice. The ability to strike differing work/life balances, risk a start-up venture, make voluntary and part time work more attractive, etc, etc.

A liveable CI paid to all and financed via the taxation system and tax increases at properly progressive rates. But I’d also remove any and all business taxation and place the entire burden on the individual. As has already been pointed out we end up paying for the business taxes anyway. Business taxation strongly favours the larger organisations as they are better able to minimise their exposure.

Oh, so you are also totally against free bus passes, free TV licences and the winter heating allowance for Pensioners then? As they aren’t means tested.

Yes. They are another example of over complication of the tax and benefits system. Increase the pension by an annual amount and trust pensioners to prioritise their spending.

Anyway those things add up to maybe £20 a week depending on the value put on the bus pass but just because £20 a week for a section of the population who have previously worked and paid taxes for decades is affordable doesn’t mean £70 per week for everyone is.

Personally our household would be £210 per week better off from a £70 per week CI. So if households like us are that much better off then people on lower incomes/unemployed will be worse off or the scheme will cost more.

So going off the figures on the first page, as a family we would be £16,000 pa better off.

And it’s reckoned to be cost neutral? My muscular butt it is.

I’d need a payrise of around £30,000 to get that kind of net increase of salary.

So I’m for it.

We can never solve it, its fundamentaly imbedded within the EU

Nonsense, if there is sufficient political will it would be relatively simple to solve, you change the law – require per country reporting and tax each countries profits at that country’s rate. Current tax legislation is dictated by corporations, hence why it so easy to ‘avoid’ paying tax and just transfer profits overseas.

Footflaps you do realise that regardless of where you recognise the profit, you do still pay tax on it, so that the issue isn’t whether you do or don’t pay them, just where you pay them?

Regarding the ‘political will’ well sure you’re right but given that each country will always act in its own self interest, and given that all countries are quite different, where do you see the harmonisation of political will coming from?

That said, this has been the trend over the last decade or so; there has been a greater move towards transparency and accountability of tax regimes around the world, with many of the classic ‘tax havens’, like the Channel Islands, Luxembourg, Bermuda etc, coming under pressure to change their tax laws to make them more equal and less opaque. Ultimately you have to respect the sovereignty of an individual state and that state has every right to try and create something like a competitive advantage that attracts external investment, allowing it to exist and support its citizens. If you’re Guernsey for example, where your economy was previously built on both financial services and tourism, and now your tourist industry is largely moribund, then it’s perfectly reasonable to try and make up the shortfall by promoting your FS industry. Unemployment might be almost non-existent on the island, but that illustrates the value of being able to offer something competitive to outside investment.

Personally our household would be £210 per week better off from a £70 per week CI. So if households like us are that much better off then people on lower incomes/unemployed will be worse off or the scheme will cost more.

Not if the better off families pay slightly more tax, to cancel out the CI.

I’d be £70 a week better off if I got given an extra £70, clearly. But if I paid an extra £70 in tax I’d not be, equally clearly.

Something that doesnt’ seem to be discussed much:

With guaranteed liveable income, just imagine how many people would be able to give up work or reduce hours to pursue a dream. Like be an artist, a writer, a musician, an inventor, a scientist (universities might be able to offer unpaid research posts), a sportsperson or an entrepreneur; people could volunteer for charity or community work; people could care for others more easily, and so on. Or any combination of work and dream. People would not be quite so dependent on jobs, so would be more able to bargain for better conditions at work or better work/life balance because you could afford to just walk out if you had to. Your employer would not own you.

Given all those things would be possible, can you imagine how much HAPPIER the country would be?

It’s for that reason that I am most definitely in.

molgrips, those are part of the reasoning behind the Utrecht trial – especially charity and community work.

So even if it costs more – who gives a shit if it makes everyone happier?

If it encourages people to wonder what the point of it all is and wether or not we should accept the generally promoted idea in politics that personal wealth is the only thing worth pursuing, then it could be even better.

Rich and miserable or poor and happy? Citizens income allows you to make up your own mind and find your own solution.

So even if it costs more – who gives a shit if it makes everyone happier?

We could become the new Bhutan 😀
Sadly I think the miserable efcks in Westminster won’t go for it.

ninfan – Member

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtpgkX588nMJust watching that, the Negative income is another interesting idea. Particularly interesting in the sense that it’s set at 50% of the tax threshold, so currently you are talking about £5,300 so £101 per week.

I think i can see the sense in it. Guess it depends on whether a CI would be viewed as supplementing people incomes or if it was viewed as a boost to peoples incomes. Obviously if the former than that is just a subsidy for business.

I can see the sense in the negative income.