UK state should pay for housing, food, transport and internet

Home Forum Chat Forum UK state should pay for housing, food, transport and internet

Viewing 40 posts - 81 through 120 (of 337 total)
  • UK state should pay for housing, food, transport and internet
  • fifeandy
    Member

    You need to go to work to afford luxury items.

    But not for very long. When all my basic needs are being provided, I only need to work for a month to get a flat screen tv, console and a basic MTB. Another month for a 2 year supply of tyres, sealant, energy drink and a few games for said console.
    And that’s me sorted for 2-3 years.
    Reckon I could handle working 1 month a year.

    Premier Icon seosamh77
    Subscriber

    Can anyone point me at any literature that explains the concept fully?

    Not having to work for things that are considered essentials for life. if you want the bells and whistles you can still go out to work. No-one would be stopping you. It’s about saying right, here’s what a human need to have a basic standard of living (what those things are are up for debate), lets make those a basic human needs become a human right, ie you don’t need to sell you self just to exist.

    If you want the latest tech, bike, to spent every night down the pub, you go out and work for it.

    The capitalist system would still be in place. just some things would be exempt from that system.

    Premier Icon Coyote
    Subscriber

    So. Where is this £500 per month coming from?

    Also if too many people decide that they can exist on the £500 where does the money come from to fund the £500.

    With more people taking than putting in who will fund the NHS? Public services?

    Nice idea but massively over simplified and totally unworkable in the current framework.

    Premier Icon molgrips
    Subscriber

    The ‘state’ should be as small as possible. Personal responsibility equates to freedom, and the opposite to freedom is the religion of victim hood – otherwise known as socialism.

    Bollocks.

    Personal responsibility does not equate to freedom at all. What the hell does that even mean?

    The state needs to allow freedoms ,but prevent peopel from being taken advantage of by those with the means to do so. That is the biggest problem we have now.

    Premier Icon seosamh77
    Subscriber

    Coyote – Member
    So. Where is this £500 per month coming from?

    general taxation.

    It might be Poe’s law in action, but a few people (Weeksy, trail-rat) should probably go and see I Daniel Blake. Yes it’s not a documentary, but it’s very close to the mark if you’ve ever had the missfortune to have to sign on.

    There number of people desperate for work far outnumber the Jeremy Kyle/Shameless contingent. Yes they exist, but it’s not the average.

    Internet though? That’s not an essential.

    So the question is, do you wish to be a Morlock or an Eloi?

    Premier Icon seosamh77
    Subscriber

    we’re mixing up UBI and this idea btw, not that they really should be separate mind you, UBI is probably the idea with some traction at the moment, the idea in the article is probably an extension or evolution of the UBI idea.

    Premier Icon seosamh77
    Subscriber

    perchypanther – Member
    So the question is, do wish to be a Morlock or an Eloi?

    haha, great book. 😆

    outofbreath
    Member

    Yes but you wouldn’t even have that – you’d have NO ready cash at all. You’d have to do at least some work, however small, to get that.

    Yeah, I might do the odd fortnight every now and then if I wanted something special, I’m sure some retired people already do exactly that. But broadly speaking I wouldn’t go to work. and with 60 extra hours a week in my life I’d to a lot more barter jobs. (I chop my neighbours logs and he rebuilds my wheels in exchange. I’d deffo take up fishing and eating the catch.)

    …and I’d never need to pay a penny tax ever again.

    Premier Icon seosamh77
    Subscriber

    the (state owned) machines will pay your tax for you.

    Premier Icon seosamh77
    Subscriber

    hisisnotaspoon – Member

    Internet though? That’s not an essential.

    I disagree, access to knowledge should be universal.

    Premier Icon Coyote
    Subscriber

    Coyote – Member
    So. Where is this £500 per month coming from?

    general taxation.

    If more people take than contribute then this doesn’t work.

    Premier Icon richmtb
    Subscriber

    I’m all for embracing automation, but it should be done to everyones benefit, not to a few.

    You are aware of how the current world works? 🙂

    Automation will start having a significant impact with 15 years, you read it here first!

    It would be nice to think it would usher in a new egalitarian utopia but I’m not holding my breath

    Premier Icon seosamh77
    Subscriber

    If more people get put out of a job due to automation or whatever, and the profits go to a few offshore tax havens, then the current system doesn’t work either.

    Premier Icon jam bo
    Subscriber

    Automation will start having a significant impact with 15 years, you read it here first!

    nah. tomorrows world told me that 30 yrs ago.

    plyphon
    Member

    seosamh77 – Member

    Not having to work for things that are considered essentials for life. if you want the bells and whistles you can still go out to work. No-one would be stopping you. It’s about say right, here’s what a human need to have a basic standard of living (what those things are are up for debate), lets make those a basic human needs become a human right, ie you don’t need to sell you self just to exist.

    If you want the latest tech, bike, to spent every night down the pub, you go out and work for it.

    The capitalist system would still be in place. just some things would be exempt from that system.

    Right, but all that happens is companies raise the prices to what the market will tolerate. Rolex have been the masters at doing this for years – they know exactly what their target market will pay for their brand, and as the upper-middle class has gotten richer, their watches have risen in relative price. (Despite Rolex introducing more automated manufacturing in their watches, with the costs per-watch getting “cheaper” as a result)

    The same will happen in your scenario. If someone works for a month and get’s £1000 of which they can spend fully on exactly what they want, suddenly a pair of nice shoes costs £1000. It’s only a months work right? How badly do you want those shoes?

    Santa Cruz would still go the high end market, so suddenly a Santa Cruz bike costs £200k because thats what the high end target market can afford now their living costs are £0.

    So you’ve ended up working the same amount of time to save up for the same thing.

    And don’t even begin to think that companies wont raise their prices to meet what the market can afford – because that’s one of the core concepts of capitalism.

    oldtalent
    Member

    So. Where is this £500 per month coming from?

    The magic socialist money tree.

    Premier Icon seosamh77
    Subscriber

    richmtb – Member
    I’m all for embracing automation, but it should be done to everyones benefit, not to a few.
    You are aware of how the current world works?

    All too aware, but it isn’t set in stone and when a change happens it’ll happen quicker than people think. whether that’s for go or bad will depend on how it’s planned for.

    Premier Icon jam bo
    Subscriber

    oldtalent wrote:

    The magic socialist money tree.

    is that planted next to the magic DUP money tree?

    Premier Icon seosamh77
    Subscriber

    oldtalent – Member
    So. Where is this £500 per month coming from?
    The magic socialist money tree.

    Tory sound bytes, of course how silly, definitely the answer.

    access to knowledge should be universal.

    Quite.

    However, wouldn’t this mean restrictions to only permit users to access ‘suitable’ resources?

    outofbreath
    Member

    If you want the latest tech, bike, to spent every night down the pub, you go out and work for it.

    Well yes, if you want those things you have to work but for very short periods of time. I still think most of us would find we could manage without the latest bike in exchange for a lie in every morning and precious time spent with the kids.

    …and if you don’t need a job you don’t need education. So even more savings. No student loans, more time with family. Everyone wins.

    Premier Icon seosamh77
    Subscriber

    CaptainFlashheart – Member
    access to knowledge should be universal.
    Quite.

    However, wouldn’t this mean restrictions to only permit users to access ‘suitable’ resources?

    steady on kim jong.. 😆

    Premier Icon seosamh77
    Subscriber

    outofbreath – Member
    If you want the latest tech, bike, to spent every night down the pub, you go out and work for it.
    Well yes, if you want those things you have to work but for very short periods of time. I still think most of us would find we could manage without the latest bike in exchange for a lie in every morning and precious time spent with the kids.

    …and if you don’t need a job you don’t need education. So even more savings. No student loans, more time with family. Everyone wins.

    you’ve got quite a low opinion of people, eh?

    Santa Cruz might would still go the high end market, so suddenly a Santa Cruz bike costs £20k because thats what the high end target market can afford now their living costs are £0.

    Except in now costs £40k because the labour costs to design, manuufacture and distribute have gone through the roof in order to tempt the workers who tend the robots who make the bikes off their arses into the factory. … and so the cycle ( pun intended) continues.

    outofbreath
    Member

    If more people take than contribute then this doesn’t work.

    You’re just getting hung up on the detail.

    I’m taking the helicopter view. No more work. No more tax. Just happy days spent living the good life.

    Premier Icon Sandwich
    Subscriber

    1.45 million people are unemployed in the UK at the moment…

    that’s those that are allowed on the books. I suspect the real number is somewhat higher. Definition of unemployed for this purpose is someone of contributing (to society) age without a job/ worthwhile activity that benefits the community.

    Who doesn’t deserve a roof over their head and food on the table?

    It’s a tough one.

    Sick/disabled?

    Witches?

    Homeless people?

    Refugees?

    Children of immigrants?

    Grandchildren of immigrants?

    Feckless ginger yoovs on mopeds?

    outofbreath
    Member

    you’ve got quite a low opinion of people, eh?

    High opinion, you mean. Or or you saying spending time with my family is a lesser choice than working when I have no need to?

    Premier Icon seosamh77
    Subscriber

    outofbreath – Member
    If more people take than contribute then this doesn’t work.
    You’re just getting hung up on the detail.

    I’m taking the helicopter view. No more work. No more tax. Just happy days spent living the good life.
    We could just continue the happy days of living off the backs of others.

    Premier Icon jam bo
    Subscriber

    outofbreath wrote:

    You’re just getting hung up on the detail.
    I’m taking the helicopter view. No more work. No more tax. Just happy days spent living the good life.

    fancy a job as a brexit negotiator?

    Premier Icon seosamh77
    Subscriber

    outofbreath – Member
    you’ve got quite a low opinion of people, eh?
    High opinion, you mean. Or or you saying spending time with my family is a lesser choice than working when I have no need to?

    You just going to sit round the table with your family singing songs?

    outofbreath
    Member

    fancy a job as a brexit negotiator?

    😀

    outofbreath
    Member

    You just going to sit round the table with your family singing songs?

    If I didn’t have to work? Yes, I would deffo spend a lot of evenings doing that. I suspect my whole neighbourhood would too. If we didn’t have to work I’d be betting on a lot of social gatherings. Why not?

    Premier Icon seosamh77
    Subscriber

    Well because your beloved capitalist system would still exist(albeit somewhat restricted from profiting on human essentials). Want would not disappear.

    plyphon
    Member

    outofbreath – Member

    If we didn’t have to work I’d be betting on a lot of social gatherings. Why not?

    Because your Universal Needs TM vouchers don’t cover “social gatherings” as cheese and pineapple sticks and mini sausages are seen as luxuries, so therefore you need to go to work to afford them, and then why would you want to share your hard earned breadsticks with the lazy fekkers next door who do nothing all day?

    (albeit somewhat restricted from profiting on human essentials).

    Who is going to build and maintain this massive Social Housing stock?

    I can assure you that I would be very much profiting from this.

    plyphon
    Member

    FWIW i’m into the idea I just don’t see how it could ever work unless we are at a Star Trek level of technology, but lets not forget thats a work of fiction.

    Premier Icon seosamh77
    Subscriber

    anyhow, what’s the point youse are making, that capitalism can only exist when it exploits basic human essentials? Here was me thinking the market was more robust than that….

Viewing 40 posts - 81 through 120 (of 337 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.