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).

poster aufaniae really out of touch what I learned is that people were not turning up there appointments at the job centre with no good reason but felt they should not be punished me then had to use the food bank

Here's and idea don't miss your bloody appointments

Why don't we get all the people who think a mini come is a fab idea and use there taxs to pay for it and see how log the system lasts

If the tax and benefits system were simpler then many of those employed to administer it would be out of a job.

One could argue that running our society and economy in an inefficient complex and convoluted manner serves the purpose of keeping people busy.

Maybe that's a good thing 'the devil makes work for idle hands '

Then again couldn't many of those brains be put to better use?

I'd happily use my taxes to pay for it fusedog.

And I'm assuming from your comment about being turning up on time for job centre appointments, that the public transport in your neck of the woods always runs like clockwork? Buses are never late? Traffic is never heavy? One of the major bus routes past my local job centre has been massively diverted for weeks now, due to the floods, leaving many people without public transport into the centre of the town. And I'm assuming, of course, that you always have money for the fare, so you don't have to walk (potentially miles) to your appointment?

Of course, I guess we all know that people on benefits do fuck all except sit around on their backsides all day, so why the hell would walking four or five miles bother them? They just need to get up earlier, right?

Fuse that makes no sense, none of us has a say in what our taxes are used for, if mine are used to fund hospitals or weapons it makes no difference to me I'd still pay the same amount of tax

Nice thought but a simplistic pipedream.

Money is purely a form of exchange that has replaced bartering. Simply giving everyone more, means that everything will go up in price because bartering is all about relative value. Giving everyone more is nothing other than inflation.

Poverty in itself is again nothing other than a relative measure - which is why it is massively different country to country. As a result there will always be "poverty" if you go by the current definitions.

Lots of things that cost money are already free to everyone, NHS, emergency services, schools.

Why can't all the basic necessities of life also be free for everyone?

Most of us have a more nuanced view of poverty Lindsey, ie that it can be relative or absolute/abject

What if it wasn't 'free money' per se, but everyone had a right to basic housing and a certain amount of food?

Point being that most of us are fine with the idea of things or services being free, but the idea of 'money for nothing' causes consternation for many

morebeta your suggestions wouldn't work in the real world. Consider the single mum again with 2 children, one of those children is unser school age so to work she needs to pay for child care which in our area is approx £150 for full time but if you work full time for nmw with 50% tax you take home less than child care costs plus you are assuming that everyone who wants to work can find a job. You end up pushing people into poverty, you also make it harder for people in abusive situations to leave. The other point about moving area doesn't take into account that moving costs money, money that the poorest just won't have. I don't believe mincome would work because to be effective and have all the benefits of reducing crime and mh issues and improving health overall it would need to be set at a level that would not be sustainable or approved of by a lot of people.

It's not actually free money - any more than our health care or education is actually free. They are not - we pay for them.

I think Suzanne is absolutely spot on. There is really no difference between universal healthcare and universal basic income. We just get cash rather than a service.

jacks have I misunderstood your post? People who work for nmw don't get taxed at 50%.

I don't think 'lots of people wouldn't approve' is really any reason to not support a policy. Lots of people would approve and besides, lots of people don't approve of current policies, doesn't seem to stop them going through...

We all have access to health care, not just basic health care but (in principle) the latest that medical technology can offer.

So why the problem with universal access to a basic subsistence living?

jackshave I misunderstood your post? People who work for nmw don't get taxed at 50%.

Morebetas suggestion was that mincome could basically be classed as personal allowance then all wages could be taxed at 50% so yes in her idea for how it could work people earning nmw would pay tax at 50%, it's hypothetical rather than actual.

Few of us take perfect care of our health yet we criticize those on benefits who are feckless with their money

suzanne - but healthcare etc isn''t free, or at least not to everyone. we pay for it through our tax system. that is why you see people criticizing people on benefits who are feckless - they have funded the benefits so feel they have a right to judge.

OK, sorry, didn't realise you were replying to morebeta.

I think the issue here (and I may be talking out of my arse so forgive me) is that, whilst a mincome may not, realistically, lift every single person out of poverty, what it would do is hugely reduce and in many cases remove some of the appalling inconsistencies within our current system that mean people find it incredibly difficult to live, work and manage. I'm talking about issues such as sanctions, delays in payments, payment stoppages due to minor changes in the makeup of a household, etc etc etc. The benefits system is massive and unwieldy - it makes life harder for many of those who use it, not easier.

I don't think that a mincome would solve all of our problems as a society. I don't think it's a magic wand. But I can see the (to me) very clear and concise logic of it.

has anyone mentioned the effect this would have on immigration? We are already the most populated country in europe. this would act as a massive pull, and encourage lots more immigration and the consequential strain on public services and housing.

I think there would be some difficult debates to be had in relation to the entitlements of migrants, dreaming. And assuming that people aren't entitled to the mincome as soon as they put foot in the country, it means you haven't done away with equalities or the need for complex administratio nsystems.

I still believe the biggest winners would be the economically inactive, a couple with a SAHP the income of 50,000 would pay 25,000 in tax but receive two mincome which would equal no tax or very little. People who have took early retirement or people who have family wealth will receive mincome with no contribution. I just do not see this helping poverty and if you can only live where you can afford how do get out of the trap of deprived areas.

Health care is free to the user, obviously it has to be funded but it's not means tested, point being that it's the same in principle as a universal non means trested benefit aka 'free money'

couple of examples here

and here, with a table of suggested payments

I'm a bit worried about the immigration issue too.

We couldn't reasonably extend this to everyone who comes to live here. We'd be inundated.

But, if we didn't, then we could conceivably create an underclass of immigrants who can ONLY work to get money and who will automatically be worse off than everyone else.

I went to Kuwait once, years ago. Pretty much everyone there is rich with nice homes in varying degrees. But then when you drove outside the cities there were a few crappy and shabby apartments buildings and I was told that was where the Filipinos lived.

Would be horrible to have that here.

The total cost of the state in this country is about £11.5k per head. So you'd have a choice: either ditch the entire state and replace it with a mincome (so no NHS, no state schools, no social workers, no councils, bin men, road menders etc) or else double existing taxation to pay for it.

I doubt anyone would advocate dismantling the entire existing state infrastructure in favour of giving everyone in the country £11,500 to spend as they wished. So it'd have to be tax increases.

Faced with the prospect of paying 40+% tax on all earnings over £20,000 or so I doubt many people would make much of an effort to work hard and get on. Likewise I doubt many businesses would choose to locate themselves here. The financial services industry would relocate. Ambitious people who could, would leave for more low-tax jurisdictions with better opportunities, resulting in massive brain drain. This in turn would result in lower productivity, fewer good quality jobs and a declining standard of aspiration. So I reckon while it looks very worthy and a nice idea, a mincome would have a negative effect on aspiration, economic dynamism and the overall makeup of the population.

HettiePetal Good point. In fact another thing I remembered is that some of the Gulf states use money from the energy industry to subsidise massively generous state benefits for all citizens. Effectively there's a mincome in many places. But these benefits don't accrue to anyone except nationals, and it's commonplace to hear of migrant workers from India and Pakistan being recruited (eg in the construction industry) for what in practice is slave labour, where their passports are removed and they are forced to work for years for a pittance in gruelling conditions. I think your notion of a mincome creating a migrant underclass is very probable.