to think we could solve poverty by simply giving everyone money?

[aufaniae]

This article makes a compelling argument for giving everyone a "mincome".

Why we should give free money to everyone

The basic idea is that poverty costs society money, and that it's cheaper, and of great benefit to society if everyone has a basic income, no questions asked - so no one ever drops below the poverty line. The intro says.

"We tend to think that simply giving people money makes them lazy. Yet a wealth of scientific research proves the contrary: free money helps. It is time for a radical reform of the welfare state."

They actually did a study in Canada where a whole town was on a mincome for some years, and it seems it was a great success.

I must say I find the idea compelling. What do you think?

(Please have a look at the article before responding if you can, there's some surprising and thought provoking stuff there).

Nice..... we now have the reason I NEVER ever, ever mention my childhood poverty in RL, Monty bloody Python.... it really is not so funny when you have lived it ....

"The poor are always with us, no matter how you did it I'd bet about 10 - 15 % of the population would still find a way to be destitute."

This would make me angry if it weren't so laughable.

Do you know what destitute actually means? It means so poor you do not have the means to support yourself.

So, you reckon that about 9 million people in the UK, or 1 in 7, are so poor they can't feed themselves? And that they are poor because, no matter what you do, they will always be poor.

Yeah ... right

The article this thread is about has something to say about blaming poverty on the poor. Why not read it, and try learning about some new ideas, instead of just making stuff up and believing that instead?

It's a good read, I recommend it.

Article link

The post upthread listing all the jobs which the poster feels aren't necessary, but at simply created to fill people's time, is over egging it a bit. I don't believe we could ever dispense with a police force, for example. Scale it down- maybe, but I think it's very naive to believe we will somehow Create a utopian society where no crime exists.

Anyway, For the sake of argument lets suppose we did create a society where say, only 40% of the population would be needed to work, because all 'unecessary' work was weeded out. Everyone would get the mincome, and of course those 40% working would command very high salaries because they'd be in a position to do so. If everyone was provided with enough to live on, and 60% were not needed to work, just think of the remuneration for that 40% who did! Therefore, the sense of inequality would still exist. People would quickly feel very badly off compared to the workers.

Also, if we had 60% of the population not needing to work, presumably there would be a lot more hours spent on leisure time... Sports, travel, social networking, shopping, recreation... All these things DO require other people's services. Even if its a streamlined workforce you still need an awful lot of jobs doing.

I'd be interested to hear how people think this would function in reality

janey my take is the opposite of yours ie there would only be enough jobs for 40% but far more would want the jobs so wages would fall. If mincome is set at a level that only provides the basics people will want to work to pay for luxuries.

I do think the idea is good but the actual application of it wouldn't work over a large diverse area.

"The article this thread is about has something to say about blaming poverty on the poor. Why not read it, and try learning about some new ideas, instead of just making stuff up and believing that instead?"

I read the article. I think it's an over optimistic view of human nature based on a few self serving anecdotes, plus an optimistic view of the costs and benefits.

I also think a 2000 year old observation about the poor by one of the human race's greatest humanitarians has a certain ring of truth about it. He wasn't blaming anyone, merely pointing out the (inconvenient?) truth.

The rich are always with us, no matter how you did it I'd bet about 1% of the population would still find a way to make the rest destitute.

btw as an authority on the subject a (possibly fictional) middle eastern carpenter's son who took up preaching rather than make chairs like his dad isn't quite as convincing as 21st century economists might be.

I read the article. I think it's an over optimistic view of human nature based on a few self serving anecdotes, plus an optimistic view of the costs and benefits.

LazyJaney - totally agree....

Add message | Report | Message poster aufaniae Sun 02-Mar-14 16:09:09
Who lives on £40 a week

Ther is virtually no one who gets job seekers which is the basic benefit and nothing else

Most people are on serval benefits combined and to say who can live on £40 a week actually a lot of working people do after travel, private rent which they pay. In full , child care ECt

What I'm learning from this thread is that there are a lot of people who are very out of touch with what's actually going on.

I suggest you watch Panorama tonight, about foodbanks and benefits sanctions.

^^
Not thinking this idea will work is not the same as Being Out of touch with what is going on.

May I suggest you are focussed on the side that takes money out of the State and haven't thought through how money gets in to the State?

I have trouble getting my head around the fact that the tax savvy, tax avoiders and the capital rich will receive this extra income. At this present time I would like to see more pupil premium, smaller class sizes in schools deemed to be failing, the cost of living reduced with higher vat on luxury goods and irresponsible lending banned.

At subsistence level rent in my town for 1 room furnished in a nice house in the town centre so no transport costs but with own bathroom and shared kitchen all bills and internet included is £70 per week.

You could survive on £150 per week in my town as a single person with no problem as long as you don't have to buy a lot of clothes.

NMW over age 21 is £6.31/hr or a 35 hr week is ££220.85.

Pensioners living alone get £145 per week (basic state plus pension credit).

In essence a pensioner living alone in good health but no savings is already getting a subsistence mincome but most will get more benefits than that such as Winter Fuel Allowance and Attendance Allowance and Housing Benefit, free TV licence and bus pass.

AchyFox, those jobs are there to keep people spending. Not to keep people working.

Precisely the Same Thing.

Produce, produce, produce. Consume,consume, consume.

Just the inside and outside of the same treadmill.

The 10 billion pound failed NHS project is an extremely clear example of 1000s of utterly useless "jobs".

And I've also indicated my preferred solution to the security guard problem.
I find it odd that you are in effect entirely happy to indirectly pay criminals, by funding a partial antidote to them, but are unhappy to fund non-criminals (it could be good to exempt criminals from a mincome).

I should add, I do regard work as being very important, but we should do it efficiently like our French and German counterparts.

It's frankly embarrassing to look at that graph.

The total cost of UK benefit system excluding MHS and free education is £11,250 or £216/week for every man woman and child in the UK.

To my mind a basic citizens income at £150/week for adults and £75/week for children would be achievable if all other benefits we re cut to zero and NHS received the surplus to provide extra community care support.

Presumably those figures work out even better if you have no Child Support MoreBeta ?

ie make having a family entirely optional rather than revenue neutral.

(Still have free education, school meals though.)

Problem is morebeta that setting mincome at that level would reduce what some people on benefits would get now. When you consider all the different benefits and perks that people get. So consider single mum with 2 children in my area which is relatively cheap for housing she'd get currently the equivalent of £310 a week in benefits taking into account hb, council tax credit, child benefit but not accounted for is free prescriptions, dental, eye care, fsm, free travel to school, some areas provide reduced sports facilities so to remove those people out of poverty mincome would need to be set higher.

Thats my area try it for someone paying London rents or the south east generally.

Achy - I feel that children should get a reduced citizen income.

Removing the incentive to have a large number of children to increase your income may be a sensible limit.

My feeling is maybe a citizen income of £75/week for each child up to a maximum of two might be sensible but that £75 replaces child benefit, free school meals and housing benefit.

So basically we are saying that the mincome idea actually reduces the amount people on benefits get?

jacks - the idea of mincome is to give people a subsistence income regardless of circumstances and regardless of whether they choose to work or not.

It stops people becoming trapped on benefits. Taking a job even for 2 - 3 hours a day at the moment can affect your benefits and the bureaucratic nightmare of getting back on benefits if you take a temporary job for just a few weeks is a major disincentive.

With a mincome, anyone can take any job, no matter how temporary or part time to boost their total income without fear of losing any of their mincome.

It also has the effect of breaking the tie between housing and benefits.

At the moment as you know the claiming of housing benefit is very complex and even the ability to find a place to live if you are on benefits is very difficult. People on housing benefit find it near impossible to move to a new location once on Housing Benefit.

A mincome means none of your income is tied to where you live or what job you do or how much you work so if someone lost their job they could move to a cheaper location and take a temporary job while looking for something more permanent in any location where there were jobs. Then its just a question of whether pay was high enough in any given location to offset housing costs.

London is more expensive but people would move out if they had no job and move back in if they got a job or commute. The whole decision base on level of pay and relative cost of housing and travel. Me and DW moved out of London once we no longer worked there. There should be no 'right' to live in location of your choosing and expect a benefit to pay whatever that costs. The housing and job market would become much more flexible and efficient. People on benefits now would not see total income drop if they were willing to work just a little bit to top up their mincome and move to a cheaper place.

There may well of course be some phasing in required so people had time to adjust but that should be possible over say a 3 - 4 year period.

Aside from the trouble accepting the idea of giving free money for no reason, out govt will never go for this because it would massively reduce their ability and 'right' (through conditions of receiving benefits) to keep tabs on people.

"the idea of mincome is to give people a subsistence income regardless of circumstances and regardless of whether they choose to work or not"

It's also regardless of whether it's affordable. And the minute it exists, the pressure will be on to raise it. There are always more deserving reasons than money tom pay for them.

I firmly believe that there aren't enough jobs - suitable jobs - for everyone and that a minimum income guarantee might have to be the way forward.

There is a raft of young people who do not fit in with the modern world. Manual jobs are largely gone. If you were not academic 100 years ago you could leave school and go straight into a farming/mining/factory job. Now we are trying to ram square pegs into round holes (eg call centres/service industries). It does not and will never work.

Otoh the link has to be broken between number of children and amount of money.

Since machines are increasingly doing things that humans used to do (eg supermarket checkouts) I'd have thought it patently obviously that there isn't enough work to go around!

lainiekazan - I am not sure about that.

My experience over the last 8 months of doing up my house is that tradesmen are increasingly quite old. Quite a few in their early 60s and thinking about retirement or at least slowing down and all saying it is tough to find young people able and willing to do an apprenticeship. One in my house today sanding floors is 62 and hard working but needs a fitter stronger younger team to do the physical work while he manages and does quotes.

A mincome would give young people a breathing space to learn a trade while still living at home or in the alternative go off to university and not have to borrow a huge amount of money to do so.

I really think this is an idea that has many positives and is quite fundable within the current budget.

Incidentally if mincome was untaxable but there was no personal allowance and all other income was taxed at 50% and we got rid of NI all together that would make the tax system a heck of a lot simpler and fairer too.