Unconditional Basic Income as feminist topic

I am very strongly in favour of a Universal Benefit system but on the following conditions:

a) all other benefits are removed including tax credits and state pension;

b) it is totally tax free regardless of what else you earn;

c) remove all minimum wage legislation

d) be set at a high enough level to support life at a basic level

It is a widely discussed idea amongst economists and would garner public support as everyone rich and poor would get it (eg like NHS care, family allowance and state education).

It would force employers to pay wages above minimum wage and stop the increasing prevalence of unpaid overtime and 'internships'. Employers would be forced to pay people enough to justify the effort of going to work NOT because the state forced people to work for nothing and then topped up low pay below a living wage level with a benefit or tax credit as happens now. In effect the current benefit and tax system subsidises employers.

It is not a feminist issue per se although women who tend to be in low paid and part time work would benefit more than men.

• sorry Buffy, laughing with you not at you. Think that last post looked a bit off.

at buffy

If this policy were to be brought in, and it applied to everyone in the country regardless of nationality (so no imported low paid workers), imagine how it would revolutionise society. The tough, dirty jobs like refuse collection, caring etc would have to be really well paid in order to get people to do them. There might be a new interpretation for 'vocational' jobs, such as doctors or lawyers who need to invest lots of time studying. You might end up with lots more volunteer work and collaboratives, e.g. community run fruit and veg growing

It sounds interesting but where is the money going to come from? I'm assuming this universal wage is coming from taxpayers.
So some people will need to pay a lot in taxes. They might not want to do that if it means a lot of people choose to work on their novel at home while someone else works a in typical job to pay for that.

The purpose isn't to have average earners benefit from it though - it's right if it's neutral for the middle income group that is not currently in receipt of any benefits (actually, with tax credits and child benefit, I don't think that group is particularly large). The purpose (from a govt. point of view) would be to simplify the benefits system and arguably reduce the cost of administering it, as well as the stigma that attaches to claiming it (which puts off many who would qualify from claiming).

Not read the other thread on this (haven't been around for ages a week)

I can't see this plan working in the uk. If you give everyone an income of £500 a month surely prices will rise to reflect that (housing etc).

Also I'm assuming an average (ish) earner such as myself won't really benefit from this. Yes I will get £500 back but I will pay more in taxes.

"Thing is though it's a choice to have kids."

Isn't it more of a biological imperative? The invention of contraception may have given us the ability to have sex with no consequences but it hasn't taken away the desire to have children.

It's just unfortunate that our post-industrial revolution set up means that women have to go outside the home to earn their living as it's led to an either / or question for women.

So whilst I'm not saying "have lots of kids and live off the state" I do think it's harsh to tell women "If you can't afford to have kids then don't!" because the rules of that system have changed but the fundamental desire to have children hasn't.

I'm a not a big fan of 'wages for housework' - though I think the demand does raise the question of the social and economic value of women's unpaid labour (which is huge, and of course disproportionate unpaid domestic labour is done by loads of women who also do paid work).

I don't think saying 'having a children is a choice' really address the underlying question. Feminists often support, for example, subsidised childcare (and indeed, preschool childcare is massively subsidised, and arguably reception classes are also a form of childcare - there are plenty of objections to the necessity of formal education at age 4-5). Those things are paid for by 'society' - so the same argument can be made. Why should the (currently) childfree subsidise those with children. Lots of feminists will argue that this is a social good because it enables mothers to work outside the home being economically active, even if that activity is not socially useful. (That's a different but related argument about measuring the health of a society in terms of economic growth...in that model, the recent floods in the North West are a good thing because it will stimulate loads of economic activity. War is particularly fantastic - a double win because you can count the sales of arms and then all the reconstruction needs after the use of arms).

The end point of 'don't have children if you can't afford it' gets pretty messy.

And if this idea was put in place wouldn't it extend to any jobs people don't enjoy like waitressing / cleaner, anyone on min wage wouldn't bother working. Country would be a mess

Without errors ....

Thing is though it's a choice to have kids.
Yes there's circumstances that are really unfortunate where a woman doesn't intend to get pregnant but on the whole people choose to have kids, so yes this capitalist world is crap but if you cant afford kids you shouldn't have them (obviously there will be exceptions as with everything )

I'm assuming this is talking aboutique women in UK where contraception is free and readily available

Thing is though it's a choice to have kids.
Yes there's circumstances that are really unfortunate where a woman doesn't intend to get pregnant but on the whole people choose to have kids, so yes this capitalist world is crapproximately but if you can afford kids you shouldn't have them (obviously there will be exceptionsent as with everything )

Yes but why should I pay more tax to allow another woman to be paid for not working outside the home?

If women (or men) with partners choose not to work outside the home I don't understand why we are supposed to treat them as poor little things who are doing unpaid work for their husbands (partners) The unwaged partner and the waged partner presumably share the income?

why, though? If finances were taken out of it, surely you could choose sahm/wohm depending on preference not to mention wohd/sahd.

Sorry I would resent paying more tax for that.

I think it's an excellent idea and would lead to a less dependent culture

I don't agree. I resent paying more tax so a stay at home mother can be paid for staying at home.

If you can afford it through mineral wealth, you get the Qatar economy, with only 13% of the population as nationals, with lots of oil wealth and 87% being immigrants with no oil wealth who do 94% of jobs.
If you can't afford that, the only way is by taxing workers, who will resent the unemployed being able to afford a good lifestyle - look at the government we have elected.

I don't think £500 would cover it though.

We are all dependent on something. We all live in a dependency culture.

I think it's an excellent idea and would lead to a less dependent culture.

I think that although there's a lot to be said for a citizen's income, it might end up with a lot more women choosing to be SAHPs. And although that's presumably a good outcome for them - at least in the short term - it may not be the best thing for society as a whole if it means that the jobs that drive our lives are more male dominated.

It would by no means be an adequate compensation for women's unpaid work, but it would enable more women to choose to not do that unpaid work for husbands anymore

Why is there an assumptions that work done by a woman looking after the home and children is unpaid? If her efforts at home allow him to earn presumably she shares in the benefits of his earnings.

I don't see why I should pay more tax so that stay at home wives and partners can be paid.