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).

You can see it right here on this thread

But it's not news that reducing poverty benefits everybody. It has always been that way. We could reduce crime, cut nhs waiting lists, it benefits everybody.

So why don't people already embrace this, vote for it, and pay higher taxes for it? Because they either don't understand the argument and never will, or because they don't want to pay for others to benefit.

It's not a case of 'once they understand'. They may have completely different beliefs, and refuse to subscribe to it.

I'm in favour of higher taxes btw, and would vote for them. But I'm aware that I'm in a minority.

Where does the money to do this come from?

Sharing nicely?

Couldn't agree more, OP.

These programmes are always about me giving more of my earned money in taxes to someone else who clearly doesnt work. I'd like to up the standard of living for my family once in a while.

We have this in place already - the welfare state. Other than HB, all other benefit is freely spent be that on fags, alcohol, or narcotics.

I would go so far as to suggest the root cause of poverty, often, is lack of education. We have a free accessible educations system, that we see from the endless threads here about holidays in term time, my child has the sniffles, oh I cant manage to get him out of bed threads where parents do not value education at all. This is why they are in the poverty trap, they have no need nor desire to get out of it.

I'd rather start by making sure that everyone in the world has clean water, enough to eat, shelter and basic primary education.

That would make a huge difference to world poverty.

Making some relatively less affluent citizens of a rich country a bit more cash rich isn't going to eradicate poverty. Especially as the measures suggested here would be rapidly eroded by inflation and market forces. And would probably need to be sustained by continuing global inequalities.

But Bertie, there have been hundreds of examples of where investing money pays off socially. Drug rehab. Prison reform. Training for all. These are all proven initiatives to help people do better for themselves and reduce the burden on the state. But they don't get mainstream support, as most voters don't see eg drug addiction or crime etc as a problem to be solved, they see it as the responsibility of the individual.

The Sun and the Daily Mail sell vastly more papers than the Guardian. All the Guardian readers would support paying for social benefit, all the DM and Sun readers would oppose it.

I know. I just meant examples for this specifically. You're right that these things are seen as the responsibility of the individual. I think that for a lot of people poverty is seen as this too.

Hmm, so perhaps you're right, examples wouldn't help!

In practice it would probably also decimate the numbers of women in the workplace. From the POV of the women in question that's by definition a good thing because it's what they choose to do (barring domestic abuse/control) but at a societal level we might end up with far fewer women in senior and decision-making positions, a back to the kitchen situation.

Morriszapp

my bright idea is all those is favour should pay and see how long this idea lasts like someone else said these things always involve me the hard working giving more money to those who are not when often there net income is already more than our which is a working house hold

I don't want to be on the same income as someone who doesn't work and if I was I would leave my job because what would be the point I could play with my children all day if I was on the same money regardless

Educating people about budging ECt would help poverty

It was only yesterday I saw a young girl in tesco buying Banana jar food I explained she could by a real banana for 20p and give it to he baby or the woman who was buying a taco kit for £3 hen buying the items separate would be half the price or the amount of mainly poor people I see buying frozen jacket poteoes ffs

I grew up in poverty - in 4th generation hand me downs, in a council house... I and my 4 brothers and sisters will never be poor again - I think if we had had a mincome, we would still be there.... it was the poor start in life that spurred us on to get educated and get out.....

when we decided to have kids, we decided I would be a SAHM to raise them to secondary school age.... IF I had a mincome I would probably never have gone back.... which does add to *
WhoWasThatMaskedWoman* s point.....

there is also the "control" aspect of universal income for all.... I am responsible for what I earn and I can spend it how I like... if "the government" provides my money I can see that being used in future as a "control" mechanism....

Oh good point Masked. Perhaps in that case we need to achieve gender equality first then equal numbers of men and women can stay at home if they wanted to (or both parents could work part time).

Fuse isn't that the point? Are SAHM/Ds not helpful to society? I don't think parents should have to work if they don't want to. I think it's beneficial for children to have a parent at home.

For me I can and do choose to work. I am not good at being a SAHM.

" if "the government" provides my money I can see that being used in future as a "control" mechanism..."

If they did, that would be against the whole idea of mincome. The idea is you just give people free money, no strings attached, and let them chose what to spend it on.

Totally unsustainable, it's what fucked up the economy last time, the labour government giving everyone money in the guise of tax credits thus inflating the economy to then see it crashing down when the money ran out.

You are aware that you cannot just print money aren't you?

Fusedog please, read the article.

"I don't want to be on the same income as someone who doesn't work and if I was I would leave my job because what would be the point I could play with my children all day if I was on the same money regardless"

That's totally irrelevant, as you're criticising Communism, not Mincome. This thread is not about Communism.

With Mincome, you still get paid for working, the same as now. The difference is that everyone gets a very basic income so no one lives in poverty.

You're talking about educating the poor. How ironic. Here's an idea, how about you read the article, and maybe learning something, rather than criticising something you've not even bothered to try to understand.

Article link

The problem with an idea like this is that you cannot implement it unilaterally. Well you could but you would have to close a country's borders completely or restrict access to the mincome thus defeating the object.

Madamecastafiore I'm interested, where do you think money does come from?

Sorry what are you asking me. Surely not why you can't just print loads of money?

I'm asking you, if there is more money in circulation this year than last year, how was that money created?

Have you ever considered that? Do you have any idea how new money is created, how does that actually happen?

I will tell you in a minute if you're interested. But when someone asked me the same question I realised I'd never really thought about it.

I'm asking you to have a think about where you think new money actually comes from?

poster BertieBottsJustGotMarried

I don't think every one can or should have the choice to stay at home it's about weather your circumstances allow It

And again I simply don't want to pay for other peoples life choices

The whole point about the mincome is that work would always pay, you would never be on the same income working as someone who loafed around all day, because you would have your own mincome plus your wages. There are some reasonable objections to the scheme but that's not one of them.

poster aufaniae

I have thanks and I don't agree which I am allowed as we have not realised the vision of communist china just yet

I think education rather than handing out money is the key and

As for handing out money "no string attached" as it says in the artical we do This already the welfare system via benefits, tax credits and child benefits hitch virtually everyone is one

And that has not created less poverty what is dose is creates dependency in my view mincome is a different word for what we have now

It comes from commercial banks giving loans, extending credit and buying existing assets.

Are you meaning to sound so patronising?

But what about if you don't work do you then get nothing who was please explain because I am confused

Because if it's wage plus then there would still be poverty as people would have larger amounts than others as is the situation now