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).

Does anyone know much/anything about the way the system works in Denmark with 50% tax? I know they all get 'free' childcare paid for from their tax but what else does that tax cover and what doesnt it cover? How does that effect business there?

There'd be a whole raft of issues to be worked out and immigration is one of them, but anything we do to make it nicer here suffers from that drawback.

Should our plan for the future be to make it so unpleasant here that no one will want to immigrate?

I was really just asking if this issue had specifically been addressed so that I'd hear what people's thoughts were on it.

There might be a blindingly obvious solution for all I know. Which isn't much.

I think there is, but it would derail the thread to point it out.

hettie, the only thing I could find was this blog post which the author himself admits isn't an ideal solution.

But as backonlybriefly says, just because a system such as this would throw up some difficult issues requiring careful consideration, doesn't mean that it is fundamentally unworkable.

I think assuming any financial/social system will be perfect is naive. Even the Scandinavians don't get it right 100% of the time . This has, imo, lots to recommend it, however...

Oh, totally, Tea...... I'm convinced already. Was from the first page of this thread, but it's the first I've ever heard of it so just going through the permutations in my head.

Thanks for that blog. Shall have a read.

Never mind derailing the thread, Back.....that would derail MN. I'm almost tempted to press you

Back, I don't think the comments on immigration are in the spirit of "let's do what we can to deter immigrants". I'm not against this scheme and I'm not against immigration. I'm just saying that if the scheme aims to achieve equality and bureaucratic simplicity, but as soon as you have a class of people who're not entitled to participate in it, those aims getting harder and hard to achieve.

That blog makes sense.

They wouldn't get it, but they'd potentially have access to traditional benefits if they were paying tax and needed them.

Of course, dismantling the welfare state may mean the UK is a less attractive place to come to in the first place.

I don't know if anyone has linked to this Swiss referendum on mincome

Does anyone know much/anything about the way the system works in Denmark with 50% tax? I know they all get 'free' childcare paid for from their tax but what else does that tax cover and what doesnt it cover? How does that effect business there?

I don't live in Denmark, but I do live in Norway, which also pays 50% tax. I believe the social welfare system here has the intent of ensuring everyone has, as a minimum, a roof over their heads and enough to eat.

Child benefits are very good. I get just under £100 per month for each child. Also when you have a baby, there is a £4,000 payment for buying essential items. Mothers are discharged from hospital to the hotel next door for three days where the midwife can visit them easily, but they don't have to do any housework. Maternity and paternity leave can be split equally between parents, and fathers are obliged to take three months or lose the paternity benefit. You can take 52 weeks at 80% salary, or 47 weeks at 100% salary.

Beyond that there is a health service where you pay a set fee for seeing a doctor (it costs about £30 for a first consultation, but also the same for having an operation as an outpatient). If you are ill enough to require hospitalisation, that's all free. If you go above a set amount (I think it's about £200 per annum) for health care, then you get a card and don't have to pay any more. I've never been on benefits here, so I don't know if there are reductions. I don't feel it's quite as good as the NHS, though it isn't bad.

There are lots of other things like libraries and so on.

And now I seem to have written an essay.....

And even with the essay, I forgot to answer the last part of the question. Businesses just get on with it. It's normal here. Against the taxation, there is great stability. People are aware of the maternity and paternity breaks, and again, that's just the way things are, and businesses work round it. I believe there is less inequality because of it, though even here it isn't perfect.

I also forgot to say there is subsidised child-care, but if you don't take it up, you get additional benefit for caring for your child at home.

trilateral - but you are an oil rich country. surely that effects the amount of money got have to spend?

Great idea

If there is any problem in funding it then spend less on the military and preparing for war.

Any military we do have should concentrate on responding to national crises such as the recent flooding disaster, and similar (or worse) international disasters.

YouAreMyFavourite - Norway has the 4th highest GDP in the world, behind only Singapore, Luxembourg and Qatar (The UK is down at #21). And yes, it's mostly down to oil and gas. Absolutely affects the amount of money there is to spend. Comparing the UK to Norway is like comparing Asda and Waitrose

I can see difficulties and dangers. That blog link and the one to the Swiss proposal point out major problems that I was reluctant to spell out.

I'm very much in favour of this idea in principle. I don't know if we could make it work, but it would be a good thing in itself in the way that the welfare state was. An attempt to change the nature of our society.

The 'did you bring enough for everyone' issue would have to be resolved. Because we can never hope to 'bring enough' for everyone in the world.

Whatever we do to improve life here carries the same penalty. If we make it dramatically better - so much better that any sensible person would prefer it to the system in their own country, then we have a decision to make.

The 11 - 12k pa is too high, that is if we remove all government spending, it's more likely to be about 2/3 of that at best as some spend you need to run a country (and pay debt interest, Scotland etc)

With the mincom people now have to pay for all education, childcare, healthcare, accommodation etc. There is no welfare system left.

Then what do you do with the people who won't pay for childcare and education, or drink their money and have nothing for food and healthcare and accommodation etc etc.

Also, if everyone gets it, that is massive incentive to have as many kids as possible.

What do we do now with people who drink all their benefit money, then?

Also, I don't think there's any suggestion that education & healthcare should have to be paid out of the mincom.

trilateral - but you are an oil rich country. surely that effects the amount of money got have to spend?

I think the system is similar in other Scandinavian countries though. Norway only spends 4% of its oil revenue each year. They are saving the rest for a rainy day. If Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair had done the same.......

No one is suggesting that the entire state be dismantled and replaced with the mincome Lazyjaney, that would be irrational and counter-productive.

The citizens income would mean that in addition to education, healthcare etc being available equally to everyone so would a basic subsistence income

"The citizens income would mean that in addition to education, healthcare etc being available equally to everyone so would a basic subsistence income"

So where is the money going to come from then if it's not coming from money now going to DWP, NHS and Education - that's c 50% of State spending.

So how would accommodation be paid for?

Presumably, you'd have to work to pay for that.

Would anyone be entitled to housing benefit? If someone wanted to work but couldn't find a job, I suppose they'd get help with their rent. But how do you differentiate between a true job seeker and someone who doesn't fancy working?

i don't think we has enough oil to give us the 4th highest GDP (per capita) in the world....

we also have many more people so the oil/gas tax gains need to be spent on many more people.
also I believe extra went to Scotland as its oil/gas off their shores.

Lazyjaney, this has all been covered earlier in the thread, suggest that you read the articles and blog posts that have been linked to.

"What do we do now with people who drink all their benefit money, then?"

We still have a benefit system that keeps them under a roof, and will help their kids, give them health care etc. That all goes with mincom.