[QUOTE="Wikipedia"]A [B]basic income guarantee (also called a [B]universal living wage, [B]universal wage guarantee, [B]basic income or [B]citizen’s income) is a proposed system[SUP][URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen%27s_Income#cite_note-1"][1][/URL][/SUP] of [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_security"]social security[/URL] that regularly provides each citizen with a sum of money unconditionally.[/B][/B][/B][/B][/B][/QUOTE]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income_guarantee[/url]
Rather than be mandated to work or look for work, each and every citizen of the nation is given a basic income to meet their basic needs, unconditionally. This would in essence establish a permanent safety net. No one made redundant, unable to find work, sick/disabled, etc would fall into abject poverty and then be unable to survive. Neither could they be sanctioned for being unable to meet work-related requirements for social security issued by the state. Rather, they would be granted their means to survive indefinitely and would no longer have the fear of falling into abject poverty. Proponents for suggest that it would increase the overall well being of the population, while those against suggest that it would cause a disincentive of work and reduce the overall work ethic of a population. While employment rates may fall somewhat, it would provide more freedom to the citizens of a population, with the advantage of eliminating abject poverty (there may still be few exceptions, far few more than previously however if such a program were implemented).
I suppose crime rates would fall, that fewer constrains on minimum wage would be necessary. To address the problem of increased prices of sustenance, those prices could be capped relative to the needs of the population -- government could assume the role of maintaining equilibrium. It would also value the jobs of those who provide the basic needs of a society, making those jobs look more attractive. Luxuries would be acquired from working, and it would still be the choice of the free market with regards to how the rest of the money flows.
Why work when I can just live off this base salary? Also, where would this money come from and how would it affect the prices of the basic needed products? Also, what is a product that is a requirement for life? The internet? Phones? Housing? Why work when I can have all this for free?
The British government gives you what they consider enough to survive when you are out of work. If you're a single person living at home with parents it starts at £50 a week, if you're married it's higher, if you're disabled you get more, if you have a house you get more, if you have children you get more.
It's enough to survive and nothing more, you don't need the internet, a car, new clothes, branded food, etc to survive.
If the government starts paying more then it comes from the pockets of those actually working, who will start to wonder why they're even bothering when the government is covering them anyway
[QUOTE=matt.ant;39993542]The British government gives you what they consider enough to survive when you are out of work. If you're a single person living at home with parents it starts at £50 a week, if you're married it's higher, if you're disabled you get more, if you have a house you get more, if you have children you get more.
It's enough to survive and nothing more, you don't need the internet, a car, new clothes, branded food, etc to survive.
If the government starts paying more then it comes from the pockets of those actually working, who will start to wonder why they're even bothering when the government is covering them anyway[/QUOTE]
A serious problem with the lowest paid full time jobs. Why work your arse off for 30 odd hours a week and earn a small amount more than you would when sitting at home pretending to get a job.
[QUOTE=matt.ant;39993542]The British government gives you what they consider enough to survive when you are out of work. If you're a single person living at home with parents it starts at £50 a week, if you're married it's higher, if you're disabled you get more, if you have a house you get more, if you have children you get more.
It's enough to survive and nothing more, you don't need the internet, a car, new clothes, branded food, etc to survive.
If the government starts paying more then it comes from the pockets of those actually working, who will start to wonder why they're even bothering when the government is covering them anyway[/QUOTE]
It's not unconditional. If someone doesn't undergo work-related activity, it is sanctioned. They must appeal if they feel that it's an unfair judgement and appeal processes can be in excess of an entire month. Not to mention, there's water bills, rent and council tax that require money too. So it's not unconditionally free sustenance (bare essentials). Hence why there can still be homeless people dying from starvation/cold weather still occurring throughout Britain.
[editline]21st March 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Boss;39993742]A serious problem with the lowest paid full time jobs. Why work your arse off for 30 odd hours a week and earn a small amount more than you would when sitting at home pretending to get a job.[/QUOTE]
It's not a problem of the jobs, it's a problem of how the benefits are issued. Benefits shouldn't be cut if someone gets a job. [b]Money earned from a job should top up benefits[/b], not the other way round.
[editline]21st March 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;39993343]Why work when I can just live off this base salary? Also, where would this money come from and how would it affect the prices of the basic needed products? Also, what is a product that is a requirement for life? The internet? Phones? Housing? Why work when I can have all this for free?[/QUOTE]
Even if they were all free in a program of such, are you willing to advocate the compromise of universal sustenance of a nation? The consequences of such are that there would be increased homelessness and people dying of starvation/malnutrition. And it could still happen to you at any given time.
Either way, work should be rewarding. It should give you more than what you need, while your government should provide you your needs indefinitely. Definition of need should be adjusted according to the changes of living standards which should be relative to the development of a nation.
Food is incredibly cheap, no western nation has starvation because of capitalism. This free money also attracts the worst kind of people, leeches on the system.
This is a good idea, in theory, but what if everyone was so content with this system that everyone started to reproduce like rabbits and the physical resources of the earth could not put up with the demands? No amount of money would be able to fix something like that.
I guess a way of making sure that everyone that could work, worked, would be to only give the youngest and oldest this basic income guarantee and make anyone in between work till all the jobs are fulfilled.
Since there seems to be at the moment too few jobs per person, then maybe the time that each person should work could be slashed by half but still maintaining significant higher earnings and purchasing power than those on basic income. If not enough money could be given to those that worked then maybe they could be given a wide variety of products to choose from which matched that missing money. This would be possible if this variety of products was produced by other companies following this system and it would create a sort of ancient product for product exchange between companies that would give those that contributed to their company a good way of feeling compensated for their efforts.
Feel free to check any flaws you might see in this idea and suggest an alternative if possible.
onDemand, what???
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;39993928]Food is incredibly cheap, no western nation has starvation because of capitalism. This free money also attracts the worst kind of people, leeches on the system.[/QUOTE]
You seem incredibly naive. People do in fact die from starvation and malnutrition in Western nations.
[url]http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/life-on-benefits-the-starving-of-the-11-million-8448685.html[/url]
[editline]22nd March 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=OnDemand;39993936]This is a good idea, in theory, but what if everyone was so content with this system that everyone started to reproduce like rabbits and the physical resources of the earth could not put up with the demands? No amount of money would be able to fix something like that.
I guess a way of making sure that everyone that could work, worked, would be to only give the youngest and oldest this basic income guarantee and make anyone in between work till all the jobs are fulfilled.
Since there seems to be at the moment too few jobs per person, then maybe the time that each person should work could be slashed by half but still maintaining significant higher earnings and purchasing power than those on basic income. If not enough money could be given to those that worked then maybe they could be given a wide variety of products to choose from which matched that missing money. This would be possible if this variety of products was produced by other companies following this system and it would create a sort of ancient product for product exchange between companies that would give those that contributed to their company a good way of feeling compensated for their efforts.
Feel free to check any flaws you might see in this idea and suggest an alternative if possible.[/QUOTE]
If it is a problem of population growth, then it need to be asked of whether stress if a principle cause of reproduction. I mean, compare the population growths of Eastern nations to Western nations, or nations with greater stress (e.g. China, India, Africa), to those of less (e.g. Iceland, Germany, etc).
The problem is more so a redistribution of wealth. It's not the underclasses scrounging on essentials, but the hog of lower hanging fruit by the upper-classes. They could quite easily redistribute their nutrition -- sustenance -- to ensure that the underclasses thrive. People will certainly work if they're compelled to purchase luxuries, and most would certainly work just from peer pressure. There would still be a minority of those who won't work just as there are now, but are you willing to punish the whole for the faults of a minority? Besides, that could just merely be a temporary minority, or a sub-set of such rather. Either way, people want more and will thrive to gain more. Rich people still want more and thus try to get richer in process. Everyone in their own way wishes to strive.
Another great advantage of this is that it helps to keep things nice and stable.
Milton Friedman predicted that people made a lot of buying choices based on long term income, with buying obviously reduced when your wages are uncertain.
So, by giving people a basic minimum income to live from, there is a massive and reliable section of the population that will always demand basic goods (food, clothing, shelter, water, etc) that companies can rely upon because it will always be there.
The point of the system in this case, is to eliminate poverty at the root of the problem. You can argue that people will scrounge off the system, but given that it's a basic income, people are still going to find ways to make more money so they can buy desired items.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39995455]Another great advantage of this is that it helps to keep things nice and stable.
Milton Friedman predicted that people made a lot of buying choices based on long term income, with buying obviously reduced when your wages are uncertain.
So, by giving people a basic minimum income to live from, there is a massive and reliable section of the population that will always demand basic goods (food, clothing, shelter, water, etc) that companies can rely upon because it will always be there.
The point of the system in this case, is to eliminate poverty at the root of the problem. You can argue that people will scrounge off the system, but given that it's a basic income, people are still going to find ways to make more money so they can buy desired items.[/QUOTE]
If some are happy to live without luxuries or without additional luxuries and with just their most basic income for their sustenance, then let them. If you stress them, you'll only increase the likelihood of them turning to crime to acquire that sustenance.
[QUOTE=livelonger12;39995835]If some are happy to live without luxuries or without additional luxuries and with just their most basic income for their sustenance, then let them. If you stress them, you'll only increase the likelihood of them turning to crime to acquire that sustenance.[/QUOTE]
How are you stressing them?
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39995888]How are you stressing them?[/QUOTE]
If you threaten to remove the sustenance of someone if they don't commit to your bidding, then you will inevitably cause stress. It's very much akin to a parent who refuses to feed their child if the child refuses to do some type of work, however with the exception of a child who has grown to accept that this was unnecessary. In this scenario however, the state is the provider and has now started to threaten the removal of sustenance if the citizen refuses to undergo work-related activities. This would cause social stress.
[QUOTE=livelonger12;40005920]If you threaten to remove the sustenance of someone if they don't commit to your bidding, then you will inevitably cause stress. It's very much akin to a parent who refuses to feed their child if the child refuses to do some type of work, however with the exception of a child who has grown to accept that this was unnecessary. In this scenario however, the state is the provider and has now started to threaten the removal of sustenance if the citizen refuses to undergo work-related activities. This would cause social stress.[/QUOTE]
But basic income isn't removed. That's the whole point behind it.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;40005941]But basic income isn't removed. That's the whole point behind it.[/QUOTE]
I wasn't referring to a guaranteed income, I was referring to conditional benefits such as JSA/food stamps/etc.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
