The citizen's income is the only solution to inequality/ the poverty trap/ social immobility.

[weatherall]

The concept of the citizen's income is a universal benefit everyone receives.

It provides a basic standard of living eg housing/food/clothes/fuel.

Any income earned above this is kept. There is no taper.

[gordyslovesheep]

okay!

[Barefootgirl]

Sort of Communism but Business Class Communism?

[WorraLiberty]

Is this the sort of thread where someone asks "What is your AIBU question?"

And you say, "Oh sorry. I thought I posted this in Chat"?

[SaucyJack]

It wouldn't work due to the massive differences in the cost of housing between regions.

[DoJo]

Hmm - have read of this concept before, but it is such a dramatically different and endlessly complex concept that it's hard to really conceive of how it would actually work.

My main queries about the practicalities are:

Would you qualify at birth for this? Would the level of payment be dependent on age?

What about the differences in cost of living in different areas - will it be regionally weighted?

How do you judge what is 'essential'?

Always interesting to consider a completely different way of doing things though...

[Onesleeptillwembley]

This was put in here a month or do ago. It was deemed to be a stupid idea then.

[gordyslovesheep]

erm I don't understand the post isn't this what universal credit/minimum wage IS ...

[dawndonnaagain]

Carers?
Those with disabilities?

[TheSarcasticFringehead]

I like it. Would do away with a lot of the benefit system because everyone would have a kind of base level where they earnt just enough to get on. I think it would have to be weighted- London, SE, Edinburgh higher and so on (maybe dependant on the councils specifically).

[snakeandpygmy]

I've read quite a lot about this and think it is a brilliant idea - and there is a lot of evidence that it works.

[Pumpkinpositive]

I don't understand. Do you mean no tax?

[Morethanalittlebitconfused]

So workhouse living in the community

[GrendelsMinim]

I think it's quite an interesting idea.

The idea is roughly that everyone aged 18 or over gets £10,000 or so per year as a sort of fixed benefit.

If everyone had that, then perhaps a lot of people would move to cheaper parts of the country, so cost inequalities across the UK would be less important?

But surely all earners would have to pay hefty tax on what they earned above that, in order to pay for everyone to have a citizens income?

[weatherall]

It is an aibu because lots of oeople do think it's unreasonable!

I was originally cynical about it but now I think it's the only solution.

I think the greens have this policy.

The way I see it, to make it easy to understand is to compare it to student finance (and pensions).

Ie students get a fixed annual income. It is survivable but most will do some work to top it up.

Employers would like it because it makes employees flexible.

It would increase the disposable income of lower earners, who spend a high % of their income thereby boosting the economy.

It would encourage self employment.

It would make the welfare state a true safety net.

The admin costs would be far far lower than the current system.

[ScarlettlovesRhett]

Is £10000 per year not the tax allowance that we all get anyway?

Even a family relying solely on benefits is in receipt of more than £10000 per year (with housing benefit included) so I don't understand the concept at all

[dawndonnaagain]

But, what about carers and those with disabilities. There are people genuinely unable to work. Life does cost more for these people. Things that make their disability easier to manage. Going out for therapies, attending the myriad appointments that often go along with a disability.

[NotAgainTrevor]

It is not no tax, as I understand it you pay tax on all earnings with no allowance as the CI is the allowance.

[ScarlettlovesRhett]

Sorry, x post, I still don't understand properly though.

How much would you set the amount at?

Would taxes be v high for those that worked to earn more?

[ScarlettlovesRhett]

Would it not work just as well to raise the tax allowance to a bigger amount then, e.g. £20000, and do away with tax credits.

Keep a universal benefit level for those out of work, with specific enhancements or free access, delivery of services to those in specific need (ie those with disabilities and their carers)?

[weatherall]

Most tax isn't income tax so income tax wouldn't necessarily have to rise much.
As the system settled in it would pay for itself as the number of people paying tax and paying more tax would increase making up for the cost of the CI.

The advantage of this system over the current one is that it doesn't distinguish between working and not working. Most families in poverty now are in work. There is a problem in that the benefits system isn't flexible enough to cope with the changing needs of low income workers who work variable hours each week. CI solves this.

[dawndonnaagain]

Weatherall
Carers and disability.

[MooncupGoddess]

They have a citizen's income type scheme in the UAE thanks to all the oil money. As a result no one wants to do the grotty badly paid jobs so they import Indian/Filipino workers to do them and have a massively divided and exploitative society as a result. It's all a bit hideous tbh.

[LuisSuarezTeeth]

Is there a working model for this other than UAE?

[juliascurr]

not a bad idea but it should enhance, not replace, existing things like Tax credits or people will fall through

[shockinglybadteacher]

Bollocks to that - it's a lovely idea but you cannot fix capitalism. There will always be workarounds which a canny capitalist will exploit. A citizen's income in one country means either massive immigration of poorly treated workers, or a redefinition of what it means to be a "citizen" (you might be surprised...) or both.

The only solution is revolution and a complete reorganisation of society from the ground up. Less than cuddly, but otherwise you're only putting plasters on a spurting wound.