A citizen's income of £71 a week per person would make Britain fairer - Polidicks

But you can't live off of that, so what do actual jobless people get if their benefits no longer exist??

[QUOTE=mobrockers;45729773]But you can't live off of that, so what do actual jobless people get if their benefits no longer exist??[/QUOTE] [quote]Contribution-based JSA is £57.35 per week if you are under 25 and £72.40 if you are 25 or over; but you may get less if you have part time earnings or a personal/occupational pension. It is difficult to say how much income-based JSA you might get.[/quote] Providing that you're over 25, you get £1.40 less through this system

[QUOTE=thelurker1234;45729755]Are bank accounts not free over there? or well uh, near free.[/QUOTE] yes but not everyone has one. no address, no account.

[QUOTE=mobrockers;45729773]But you can't live off of that, so what do actual jobless people get if their benefits no longer exist??[/QUOTE] If you look it says housing benefit and council tax benefit would still exist so that would help them to retain shelter and provide a bit more for food/drink/whatever

[QUOTE=mobrockers;45729773]But you can't live off of that, so what do actual jobless people get if their benefits no longer exist??[/QUOTE] you still get housing benefit

Can a smart person tell me whether or not this would just cause instant inflation that would make the whole scheme pointless?

[QUOTE=Stopper;45729743]Did you spend more than 5 seconds thinking this through? What happens when you want to save for a car? Or a house?[/QUOTE] Your making your own assumptions on how fast the money dissipates, as long as people think there losing money, not matter how little, there gonna spend that shit.

[QUOTE=BarnacleDrive;45729864]Can a smart person tell me whether or not this would just cause instant inflation that would make the whole scheme pointless?[/QUOTE] [URL]http://money.cnn.com/interactive/economy/minimum-wage-since-1938/[/URL] This isn't exactly what's in the OP. But there weren't really any huge raises in inflation correlating with raising minimum wage, and this is somewhat similar.

[QUOTE=BarnacleDrive;45729864]Can a smart person tell me whether or not this would just cause instant inflation that would make the whole scheme pointless?[/QUOTE] Well I could tell you but if you want a Smart person I think your in the wrong place.

[QUOTE=Superkilll307;45729708]Make all Currency have a time limit, that way people have to spend there money and you can give out all the money you want knowing people will actually spend it and not hoard it.[/QUOTE] holy shit what a terrible idea

[QUOTE=BarnacleDrive;45729864]Can a smart person tell me whether or not this would just cause instant inflation that would make the whole scheme pointless?[/QUOTE] the scheme is "give people tax money" not "give people printed money"

[QUOTE=Ryz0;45729975]holy shit what a terrible idea[/QUOTE] So was fucking your mum but your dad had to do it. [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Flaming" - Swebonny))[/highlight]

[QUOTE=Superkilll307;45730020]So was fucking your mum but your dad had to do it.[/QUOTE] you don't take criticism well do you

[QUOTE=BrainDeath;45730055]you don't take criticism well do you[/QUOTE] Really? I thought I was being quite restrained. [editline]18th August 2014[/editline] As an example I just resisted the urge to add a "Like ur mum" after the above sentence. [editline]18th August 2014[/editline] Like ur mum

[QUOTE=Superkilll307;45730020]So was fucking your mum but your dad had to do it.[/QUOTE] Stop

This would only work as a replacement for welfare if people are willing to let people deal with the consequences of wasting the money that they are given. (aka. If someone spends incorrectly and doesn't have money for housing, then they would just have to be left to live on the street) The problem is that in 10 years when there are still tons of people in terrible conditions for one reason or another the old style welfare will just start up again... except they would now be on top of this program.

Too bad within our Thatcherite "benefit scroungers" society & political climate, something like this won't even be considered.

[QUOTE=Superkilll307;45730020]So was fucking your mum but your dad had to do it. [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Flaming" - Swebonny))[/highlight][/QUOTE] how the fuck could anyone save anything noone can ever retire good stuff

[QUOTE=theblah12;45730812]Too bad within our Thatcherite "benefit scroungers" society & political climate, something like this won't even be considered.[/QUOTE] While there is a lot of that around I don't think it has quite overtaken more compassionate or understanding attitudes. Hate just tends to shout louder than tolerance and empathy. I think the fact it seems that way is more because of all the stupid right wing funded shit on TV and in the papers that seems to suggest or encourage the misinformed and callous attitude that benefits are only claimed by scroungers and fraudsters and should just be stopped and anyone who doesn't work should be left to starve or die.

[QUOTE=JustExtreme;45731358]While there is a lot of that around I don't think it has quite overtaken more compassionate or understanding attitudes. Hate just tends to shout louder than tolerance and empathy. I think the fact it seems that way is more because of all the stupid right wing funded shit on TV and in the papers that seems to suggest or encourage the misinformed and callous attitude that benefits are only claimed by scroungers and fraudsters and should just be stopped and anyone who doesn't work should be left to starve or die.[/QUOTE] The popularity of UKIP is just going to make all the political parties shift to the right to try and attract voters (instead of going to the left to try and make themselves look different, which is not only a better idea morally but also politically)

[QUOTE=theblah12;45730812]Too bad within our Thatcherite "benefit scroungers" society & political climate, something like this won't even be considered.[/QUOTE] This is basically the opposite though. If it costs the same as the current welfare budget, logically those on benefits would receive [i]less[/i] money, and those who aren't would receive more. In some sense it's just weighting the current benefit system more evenly, and I'm not sure that's a good thing. Since it'd be paid out of tax, it's effectively giving those above the tax-free threshold a £3.5K break and those below lose out.

From the article... Disability and housing benefits would remain intact, but the scheme would replace all other benefits including child benefits, income support and jobseeker’s allowance, national insurance and state pensions. Included in the current annual spend figures is £8bn in Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) administration and £2bn in HMRC tax credit administration and write-offs. Soooo.... What is national insurance? And state pensions? They would take that away and replace it with this? What are we talking here- would they be getting pennies on the dollor of their previous amount? Article also doesn't mention age requirements but i see ppl are assuming they would (as this would replace child benefits). All in all sounds fairly undefined- and what is defined sounds pretty bad IMO. It's not like you could live off the amount- so those who need assistance the most would get shafted the hardest.

[QUOTE=CubeManv2;45728993]There should be a safety income in general, Sweden tried one it sadly failed.[/QUOTE] When did this happen?

[QUOTE=Reshy;45731927]When did this happen?[/QUOTE] Last year, I think. Some socialists (literally, that was their political affiliation) got it on the ballot but it failed by a wide margin come voting time.

[QUOTE=CubeManv2;45728993]There should be a safety income in general, Sweden tried one it sadly failed.[/QUOTE] Why did it fail?

[QUOTE=lazyguy;45732470]Why did it fail?[/QUOTE] Less than 51% of the people voted in favor of it.

[QUOTE=joe588;45729804]yes but not everyone has one. no address, no account.[/QUOTE] Actualy people without a permanent address can use the address of the council (and their name) of the area where they are living. At least that's the standard practice in most EU nations and I'd wager it's also one of the points in the various treaties against homelessness. The fact many homeless don't use this option is another matter.

[QUOTE=darunner;45732564]Less than 51% of the people voted in favor of it.[/QUOTE] So they didn't try it, then.

Basically, this would fuck over anyone on any benefits other than Disability or Housing. It'd cut a lot of peoples benefits down vastly when they're already struggling. If they were to implement this, people on Jobseekers would get LESS than the shit amount they're already getting. It'd help those who are employed, but fuck over those that aren't. It was already bad enough when ATOS were kicking a lot of disabled people off the benefits they were actually entitled to, but this would result in probably a lot more of that happening and kicking people off the disability benefits to put them onto this to spend less money. £71 a week is NOT a lot for a person to live on, sure, you may get rent paid, but you still have to pay everything else, utilites, food etc etc. You know how you hear people struggle on minimum wage, well yearly, they get to take home about £11,879.58. On benefits, lets say Jobseekers, you get in totall approx £8060, including rent, yearly. £3900 of that per year is money you actually get (Housng benefit is paid directly to whoever you rent from) So Let's compare (approx) [B] Full Time Minimum Wage Weekly Money[/B]: £228.45 [B]Jobseekers Allowance Weekly Money[/B]: £75 [B]This new Scheme weekly money[/B]: Unemployed: £71, Full Time Minimum Wage: £303.75

Giving money to people who don't want to work is a dumb idea. We already have enough problems with people mooching off of taxpayers, this would just make it way worse.