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 Suzannewithaplan couldn't agree less there is a big debate weather or not drunk people should be charged for wasting A&E times as they are not ill and many councils have sin bins and charge you for the pleasure and it's still is very contrervesual to give people gastric band when some may feel that weight CAN be lost by effort and will also boobs jobs for cosmic purpose when the NHS still won't fund some medication for cancer, and other treatments

And on your education point that many squander it yes they do that's why it's right that students especially 6form to uni are self funded the drop out rate for some courses is very high and I am glad I am not longer paying for people's fickle choices.

Life would be wonderfully simple if ideas like this worked-unfortunately human nature gets in the way.

"It's a restructuring of the tax and benefits system, not an additional hand-out. It's advantage is that is changes incentives with regard to working and household formation, and reduces admin"

It just replaces one set of perverse incentives with another, and it's main problem is that you will still get people who will fritter the mincome away but as there is no longer a benefit system, one will then need to be created again, with all it's costs, so you wind up where you started.

And it still doesn't cover the fundamental issue in the UK which is that it doesnt pay to work at the margin owing to costs.

"Isn't it funny we consider education and health universal benefits but not something as basic as food"

Food is supposed to be bought with benefit payments, but you can't force people to buy it. Some countries use food stamps or similar, as that forces a proportion of welfare payment to be paid for food.

I agree with lazyjaney.

I don't really understand why the main objection to this idea is the obvious fact that a very, very tiny minority of people won't change their behaviour.

People who piss their benefits up the wall and don't buy food will waste their minicom payment in the same way. True. But most people receiving benefits don't do this, do they? Or are you of the opinion that they are mostly feckless scroungers, Janey?

If you don't think this, then I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

Lazy - food stamps in America are often traded for drugs.

I read an article about Appalachia. One of the most depressed and least heard about regions in the USA. Food stamps are used to buy cans of soft drinks that are then sold for cash to buy prescription drugs like OxyContin - effectively heroin.

You cant stop people having free will - the only way you can stop people wasting their mincome by forcing them to use communal 'soup' kitchens provided by the state, provide state housing complexes and state everything else. Its called Communism and it didn't work.

caroldecker oh yes it wouldn't suddenly mean that everyone had more money. We knew that from the start. It would simply be distributed in a simpler way. The only immediate saving would be the cost of the benefit industry, but it would also make life simpler for a lot of people and that should be a consideration.

There is a concern that some people would simpler choose not to work, but with a jobs shortage that ought to be offset by those people who want to work now taking up those jobs. Replacing them with motivated people must be a good thing too.

We don't know precisely how that part would work out in reality which is what makes this interesting.

Lazyjaney can you explain this: you will still get people who will fritter the mincome away but as there is no longer a benefit system, one will then need to be created again,

Because I have no idea where you are getting that idea from. If people fritter away their benefit now we don't invent a new benefit to replace it so why would we if they spent their mincome unwisely? You know the mincome is not a lump sum right? I know there was a lump sum scheme mentioned way back in the thread.

backonly my point is that many people do not want to work minimum wage because it is hardly worth it after the benefits reduction. My point is this will still be true, but they will not lose the minicome, so no-one would work minimum wage. Would you do 35 hours a week for around £100 extra?

It's a good question isn't it. I wish we had some way to test it in advance. Some kind of simulation that would show us how real people would react.

A lot of people who post on MN will say yes they would work. I've been on lots of threads where people have said that just because benefits pay nearly as much as work is no reason to stay on them. That they could not be happy if they were not working. That it gives their life meaning and that being unable to work diminishes them.

Also I imagine many people will see working at all as a stepping stone to to earning a lot more than that in the long run.

"can you explain this: you will still get people who will fritter the mincome away but as there is no longer a benefit system, one will then need to be created again"

Better yet, why dont you explain what you think happens when someone on mincome gets into debt, so their future income stream is largely taken on repayment, they get thrown out their accommodation.

Remember, you have closed down every bit of the Welfare system to pay for mincome.

Lazyjaney, what happens now in that case? Did someone tell you that benefits claimants can just spend it all and ask for more? If so they were winding you up.

"A lot of people who post on MN will say yes they would work. I've been on lots of threads where people have said that just because benefits pay nearly as much as work is no reason to stay on them"

I'm sure many people have good intentions, but Mincome does not Of itself solve the problem of the costs - eg transport, childcare etc - rocketing when you start to work. People will only start work if the wage paid is sufficiently high to cover costs plus give enough benefit to justify all the smaller non financial hassles.

"Lazyjaney, what happens now in that case? Did someone tell you that benefits claimants can just spend it all and ask for more? If so they were winding you up"

Thats not the issue, the point is will Mincome do things better? IMO it will be worse, but I want to see the mincome supporters explain how it will work.

So you admit you were talking nonsense then. I'm glad we sorted that out.

You might want to get your previous post deleted. Otherwise people may read it and find out how confused you are.

There are 300+ posts on this thread talking about 'how it would work'. There is shedloads of info online. It's not exactly a new idea.

Most of the arguments against the system on this thread have so far been pretty evenly split between 'I don't wanna pay for other people' and 'Noooo, we can't change anything because some people will always piss money up the wall'. Neither of which are terribly persuasive, imo.

I think something's got to give. I'm fully prepared to admit that I didn't pass economics A level (well, not the first time ) but there are plenty of people out there much smarter about this stuff than me that think it's an idea whose time has come. I agree with them.

"So you admit you were talking nonsense then. I'm glad we sorted that out.

You might want to get your previous post deleted. Otherwise people may read it and find out how confused you are"

I think you confuse personal insult with valid argument.

To persuade anyone to use mincome you have to explain why it is better than what exists now, and how it copes with some of it's own obvious flaws.

Lazyjaney, you made a ridiculous claim that mincome wouldn't work because if all those lazy feckless benefit claimants got in debt there'd be no benefits to fall back on. When I pointed out how daft that was and asked you to explain, you decided it was time to change the subject.

Anyone can scroll back through your posts on this thread and make up their own mind, but it's clear enough to me.

You could tell us what you really want. All benefits stopped perhaps? or claimants whipped daily?

It's not just this thread. You've been a benefit hater for a while.

"Lazyjaney, you made a ridiculous claim that mincome wouldn't work because if all those lazy feckless benefit claimants got in debt there'd be no benefits to fall back on."

Explain how it will work then, and why I'm wrong. If I'm so ridiculous it should be very easy for you. Put up or shut up with the insults.

"It's not just this thread. You've been a benefit hater for a while"

What a load of crap. Not thinking that mincome will work doesn't make anyone a benefit hater.

You can't argue your case so now you're just slinging mud.

"There are 300+ posts on this thread talking about 'how it would work'. There is shedloads of info online. It's not exactly a new idea"

And it only became clear in the last page or so when a few of us asked how it was to be funded that most of those posts were in economic la la land. What I want to see is how you think it's going to work given the real costs and benefit amounts likely.

It is an old idea, it hasn't taken off over the decades as it has some serious flaws, there is lots online about that too if you care to look past the evangelist blogs.

Going back a bit, but I wanted to clarify something.

When I said "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 was referring specifically to the posters who are blissfully unaware of the very real existence of absolute poverty in this country - and the fact that it's going to get more prevalent as current benefit changes start to really take effect (e.g. the introduction of Universal Credit, sanctions and bogus "fitness to work" assessments).

In my OP, when I mentioned poverty, of course I meant absolute poverty. It would be nonsensical to ask if anything could take away relative poverty because as long at there's inequality, there will be relative poverty, of course (unless you want to go down some kind of Communist-style arrangement, but that's not what's being discussed here).

What this thread has taught me is that some people deal with poverty in our society by simply refusing to accept it exists.

Came across another article on the Swiss Mincome referendum

Lazyjaney you're still changing the subject. Anyone who wants to can look through this thread and see the nonsense you've been spouting in order to derail it.

Not new for you either. I'm terrible with names so I didn't realise at first. How's the plan to thin the numbers of pensioners going?

I'm still not convinced about the figures being talked about. £150 an adult £75 a child was mentioned, even lower levels were quoted and higher ones. Does this replace the whole welfare system so jsa, hb, tax credits? If not what would still be left?