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

[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] do you blow your grandpa with that mouth?

[QUOTE=SPESSMEHREN;45732904]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.[/QUOTE] I think you're confusing the very tiny minority of those who don't want to work, with the vast majority of those who either can't actually work or can't find the job and need support until they do (thats what Jobseekers is for).

As much as I like the idea of universal income due to the benefits (namely employers won't be able to retain employees simply because the employee's only alternative is homelessness), I'm not convinced it's at all possible. I mean yeah it's possible, the money comes from the top. But in practice, they'll never let that happen, the major companies will just pack up and leave. Maybe if it was implemented before globalization, but now? It's too late.

[QUOTE=RayvenQ;45732846]kicking people off the disability benefits to put them onto this to spend less money.[/QUOTE] don't you think ATOS being complete cunts is kind of parallel to the issue here? either they are or they aren't, and citizen's income isn't going to change that also according to [url=https://www.gov.uk/jobseekers-allowance/what-youll-get]gov.uk[/url], jobseekers is supposed to be £72.40 for people 25 and over, and £57.35 for under 25s. still I agree it should be at least a bit more than that, and as some pensioners in the article comments stated, there is no way the proposed over 65s income needs to be as high as it is [editline]19th August 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;45733042]As much as I like the idea of universal income due to the benefits (namely employers won't be able to retain employees simply because the employee's only alternative is homelessness), I'm not convinced it's at all possible. I mean yeah it's possible, the money comes from the top. But in practice, they'll never let that happen, the major companies will just pack up and leave. Maybe if it was implemented before globalization, but now? It's too late.[/QUOTE] as proposed, this scheme replaces all benefits other than housing and disability and would cost only (hah) £1bn more than the current system. and that's if nobody opts out of receiving the income, which I bet a sizeable chunk of people who can afford to would

OAP's get £300 per year for the winter months, any OAP who spends that much on winter heating is frankly, getting fleeced. [quote]don't you think ATOS being complete cunts is kind of parallel to the issue here? either they are or they aren't,[/quote] They are or aren't what? [editline]19th August 2014[/editline] [quote]as proposed, this scheme replaces all benefits other than housing and disability and would cost only (hah) £1bn more than the current system. and that's if nobody opts out of receiving the income, which I bet a sizeable chunk of people who can afford to would[/quote] So, typical government, it's going to cost more but shafts those who really need it.

[QUOTE=RayvenQ;45733108]They are or aren't what?[/QUOTE] cunts

[QUOTE=Turnips5;45733130]cunts[/QUOTE] Oh, they most definately are cunts. And it does have something to do with this since they're the body that determines whether someone can get disability benefits (the ones thats going untouched with this plan) or not. They've also been told, by the government, to cut as many people as they can form the disability benefits. (Told by an ex employee who quit because she couldn't take destroying peoples lives anymore) The corruptness of them failing or passing someone has already resulted in people dying because they killed themselves because they got rejected (even though they had valid reasons to be on benefits) Here's a hint of just how cuntish they are. When I had my examination, I got 0 points out of the 15 required to get the benefits. The "doctor" (ATOS often uses retired doctors) never examined me, only repeated the questions on the form, that was my medical examination and I failed. Cut to 6 months later, I go to an Independent tribunal, thta has a Judge and Doctor who are not connected to the government and are impartial. Showing them the EXACT SAME paperwork, including ATOS's own paperwork, they immediately gave me a score of 33 points, more than double needed and enough to put me in the band of a particular typoe of benefits that's difficult to get onto. What ATOS do is fail as many people as they can, and then hope the people they fail will just accept it and not go to tribunal. While I was waiting for my tribunal, 6 other people want in before me and they all had the decision appealed in their favour.

[QUOTE=RayvenQ;45732999]I think you're confusing the very tiny minority of those who don't want to work, with the vast majority of those who either can't actually work or can't find the job and need support until they do (thats what Jobseekers is for).[/QUOTE] So the UK already has Jobseekers and (I'd assume) a comprehensive welfare program for those who cannot physically work and who can prove that. Why do you guys need this extra "Citizen's Income?"

[QUOTE=RayvenQ;45733108]So, typical government, it's going to cost more but shafts those who really need it.[/QUOTE] this doesn't have anything to do with the government currently, it's a proposal drawn up by an organisation who think basic income is a good idea. also, what exactly are you talking about? are you talking about the fact that this will provide £1.40 per week less for jobseekers than JSA currently does? because that can be fixed! we can just give people slightly more money!

[QUOTE=SPESSMEHREN;45733210]So the UK already has Jobseekers and (I'd assume) a comprehensive welfare program for those who cannot physically work and who can prove that. Why do you guys need this extra "Citizen's Income?"[/QUOTE] This is meant to REPLACE Jobseekers, plus, help those families who are struggling on minimum wage. I think the idea is to replace "some people get benefits" to "everyone gets benefits" with the hope that those who don't need them, will not claim them. Which just shafts the people that need it. Honestly, we don't need it and I hope it doesn't come into effect. This "reform" of the benefits system also ends up costing the country MORE.

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;45733042]But in practice, they'll never let that happen, the major companies will just pack up and leave.[/QUOTE] This sentiment, in any economic discussion, is silly for a few reasons: -"Major companies" rely on assets that cannot just be picked up and moved, including certain types of capital, educated workforces and experience pools, energy/transport/telecommunications infrastructure, government benefits, etc. -Trying to create what of these assets can be created in nations lacking them would cost a company far more than marginal tax increases, and if we assume these companies are unwilling to accept a marginal tax increase it follows that they will not accept a larger (albeit voluntary) investment that functions in the same fashion either. -Not every nation has the same demands for goods and services as the developed nations that a company would hypothetically consider fleeing. Businesses would outsource and do business in more foreign nations if they could, that they don't is a sign that it would hurt them more than they stand to benefit. If I owned a security systems firm in the UK, I couldn't just pick up shop and drop down in Brazil or China or something. The demand isn't there (at least, not at the prices I'm used to charging), my operators, engineers and technicians won't relocate, the schools that trained them don't exist or have subpar equivalents, the internet infrastructure that facilitates my business doesn't exist there, and so on. Rich business owners cannot just cut and run when taxes get a little hairier than they'd like, the alternative mauls their wallets.

[QUOTE=RayvenQ;45733238]Which just shafts the people that need it.[/quote] how? how does giving people the exact same amount of money they already receive, while additionally freeing them from all conditions on how that money is received, "shaft" them?

If you have 10 people, and 5 are receiving benefits of $10, how is it an improvement to say "Let's give that $50 to all 10 people in equal shares!"? Now everyone gets $5. The ones who got nothing before are happy I'm sure. The ones who were getting $10? Sucks to be you I guess. This plan is an attack on the poor.

[QUOTE=cecilbdemodded;45733686]If you have 10 people, and 5 are receiving benefits of $10, how is it an improvement to say "Let's give that $50 to all 10 people in equal shares!"? Now everyone gets $5. The ones who got nothing before are happy I'm sure. The ones who were getting $10? Sucks to be you I guess. This plan is an attack on the poor.[/QUOTE] Yeah, the New Statesman is just full of fat cats trying to screw the proletariat.

[QUOTE=thelurker1234;45729263]Does pessimism help anybody?[/QUOTE] Yes. It makes you feel that much better when it [I]does[/I] happen. [editline]18th August 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=cecilbdemodded;45733686]This plan is an attack on the poor.[/QUOTE] So... giving poor people money is an attack on the poor? I'm not sure I follow your logic.

[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] Inflation does that already.

[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] What a brilliant idea. It's not like I leave my money in the bank because I'm saving it or anythi- Oh.

[QUOTE=darunner;45732449]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] I think that was Switzerland, was it not?

[QUOTE=SPESSMEHREN;45732904]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.[/QUOTE] This money will be spent anyway and government will get some back from tax anyway.

[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] That's how inflation works.

I'm not going to hold my breath for this.

[QUOTE=Superkilll307;45729873]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] So we jack up impulse purchases and discourage long term savings. Good idea.

[QUOTE=SPESSMEHREN;45732904]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.[/QUOTE] I get the feeling that you don't really understand how this works.

I fully support this

[QUOTE=thelurker1234;45729263]Does pessimism help anybody?[/QUOTE] It's not pessimism in this case, it's realism, if it gets passed I'll eat 50 hats.

Honestly, I wouldn't mind if they set the amount at a living wage. It means any employment is better than none and that no one has to die or suffer because of the fact that unemployment exists. It might cost a bit more, but it would be worth it.

[QUOTE=NeonpieDFTBA;45747711]Honestly, I wouldn't mind if they set the amount at a living wage. It means any employment is better than none and that no one has to die or suffer because of the fact that unemployment exists. It might cost a bit more, but it would be worth it.[/QUOTE] I agree. I think the particular proposal in this article doesn't really go far enough. Everyone should get enough that it is calculated they need in order to live reasonably. I think it could make employers have to try harder in order to appeal to potential workers as well since not so many people would get trapped in jobs they hate if their basic income enabled leaving to be an viable option for them financially. Essentially if implemented correctly it could go some way to eliminating the financial stranglehold many employers hold on employees and, by extension, their families.

[QUOTE=gk99;45733834]Yes. It makes you feel that much better when it [I]does[/I] happen. [editline]18th August 2014[/editline] So... giving poor people money is an attack on the poor? I'm not sure I follow your logic.[/QUOTE] They are selling this idea as not costing more than the way they do it now. So if you plan to give everyone an equal amount but not increase the total amount distributed, this means cutting the larger shares currently given out. Right now you have people who collect nothing, and people who collect whatever their benefits give them. To keep the amount handed out the same, you'll have to reduce those benefits. Well, who was collecting those benefits, the wealthy? No, the poorer part of the population. If the plan is to continue giving everyone the benefits they qualify for now AND give everyone a separate equal amount, then obviously they will have to spend a hell of a lot more than the current way of doing things.

[QUOTE=JustExtreme;45747921]I agree. I think the particular proposal in this article doesn't really go far enough. Everyone should get enough that it is calculated they need in order to live reasonably. I think it could make employers have to try harder in order to appeal to potential workers as well since not so many people would get trapped in jobs they hate if their basic income enabled leaving to be an viable option for them financially. Essentially if implemented correctly it could go some way to eliminating the financial stranglehold many employers hold on employees and, by extension, their families.[/QUOTE] And where do you set reasonable? housing, food, clothing, and a car? Or those plus luxury items?

[QUOTE=thelurker1234;45750315]And where do you set reasonable? housing, food, clothing, and a car? Or those plus luxury items?[/QUOTE] Personally I'd say exclude luxury items and car should depend on where they live and availability of other transport infrastructure. It could be discussed and set by a committee a bit like how the Minimum Wage and the Living Wage are set now and be reviewed regularly.