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).

It's very nice to be all clappy lets give everyone money but it will simply allow companies to pay lower and lower wages knowing the government will make up the shortfall

if we were all guaranteed a basic living without having to work then employers would have to pay a fair wage or no one would want to work for them.

I have often thought it would be an interesting approach to give every one an income that is enough for the basics, and then tax earnings (or spending on luxuries). No other benefits - no old age pension etc - just a flat rate for every person (with those with major disabilities given the facilities they need to have a reasonable standard of living).

So everyone has enough to live on at the most basic level - but if you want anything more than that you work for it. The vast majority of people would work to some extent. Some will not, others will work all the hours there are, and most would have a happy medium. Those with less severe disabilities would be the same as everyone else - able to earn more if they want to.

In this idealised world, all sports facilities would be free (and more of them), and fresh fruit, veg and quality meat would be subsidised, and the less good stuff (especially heavily processed food) would be heavily taxed.

Never going to happen because it would be too big a change of approach to organise.

never say never!

just because something seems unlikely or unworkable from our current viewpoint doesn't mean it cant become more feasible in the future.

Often all that is needed is for an idea to take hold amongst a new generation of people, or for a certain tipping point to be reached.

I'd have thought that this kind of thing would be dismissed out of hand, I'm rather surprised that it's been as well received as it has been on this thread

I think some of these ideas have been tested out fairly thoroughly by various flavours of communism.

It all sounds a bit Milton Friedman to me. Why not ban all central taxation instead, and local communities organise their own local taxation to get joint services provided? Oh wait, we had that, too, already, and didn't work well either.

It would be dismissed out of hand by the general public. MN does not accurately represent society as a whole.

I'm interested to hear what these jobs are that are made up, just to get people to spend their lives working. I know of no such job.

I'd also like to know if the mincome is supported by extra benefits for people who have not managed to provide food, security etc for themselves or their kids with their basic income.

Would they be left high and dry? If there were further safety net arrangements it kind of defeats the whole principle.

"Maybe we are actually headed for a modern form of feudalism where the masses are exploited for the benefit of an extractive elite."

It certainly looks that way atm

The only way we could afford this would be to increase taxes on workers to fund the minicone. Therefore no-one would be any better off, just that people now on benefit would not have to claim it or make any efforts to find work - work would still not make you much better off due to the higher tax rate, so you still get the effect that the first few hours of work, particulalrly at an unskilled level, would give you very little additional benefit.
I genuinely do not see how it works in the UK - all the examples in the article are where people do not have enough to survive, ie absolute poverty, which does not exist in this country.

It seems a bit of a leap of faith to say that this would definitely work and eradicate poverty. The article (and the whole premise) is based on a few studies on a relatively small number of people (and some time ago). I'd really want to see more evidence before implementing a change on such a huge scale.

I tend to think if things sound too good to be true, they generally are. This article seems to believe that in one fell swoop, we could easily wipe out poverty without any damaging consequences at all (although I don't think you can ever remove relative poverty, unless you place a cap maximum income and have a minimum income threshold)? Just seems far to straightforward, and fails to take account of the myriad of reasons people get into/remain in poverty.

In principle, I don't think not working (excepting those physically or mentally unable to do so, or those who choose not to work but don't expect the state to finance them) or having as many children as you want without having realistic expectations of being able to support them emotionally and/or financially should be an option.

what is the problem with not working?
surely we can all see that there isn't enough work to go around, plenty of things but not enough things to do to occupy every one for 40 hours per week.

The protestant work ethic is not a fundamental law of physics, it's a social construction which serves to tire us out so that we can then be placated with 'bread and circuses'

The problem with not working is that there are jobs which need to be done! All those things you take for granted - doctors, teachers, police, shop workers, hospitality workers, engineers, cleaners, drivers, pilots, firefighters......
Of course people should be remunerated to work! There is no problem with not working if you can afford to support yourself through some other means, but no one has the automatic right to say 'there aren't enough jobs to go round so I'm going to choose to be one of those who doesn't work!"

you either didn't read the thread or you've spectacularly missed the point Janey!

the point being that with a 'mincome' everyone would have a basic subsistence living.

I think this would only work in a community where everyone knew each other and could jolly each other along.

In the book Stone Age Economics, which described how remote tribes live, it appears possible to do enough work in 1-2 hours a day via a hunter gatherer lifestyle to feed and house yourself. The rest of the time is spent hanging out and shagging, etc. I can't help thinking we have got things very wrong.

They don't have MN though.

The real cause of poverty is greed and that will remain with or without a mincome, unless a government has the guts to counteract it. I spit teeth when people bang on about scroungers on benefits, as the vast amount goes straight into the hands of a slum landlord, and a big chunk of the rest into the pockets of deeply greedy utilities companies.

If the government reintroduced fair rents and a living wage, I think the economy would shake down nicely. If they could ever get all businesses to run on the John Lewis model we'd be in Eden.

Some people are a bit feckless and get themselves into situations where they live in poverty. I am not blaming them for doing that, but such situations have little to do with greed and more to do with being a bit clueless about managing life. I think we have to be realistic about the human condition in such respects and not blame the people at the top all the time, or things will never be sorted.

I realise that sounded a bit UKIP, btw, but what I was trying to do is encourage everyone to think beyond blaming particular groups. I am UKIP's biggest enemy in RL.

But do they have gin boffinmum?

Only the really, really feckless ones in the Hogarth cartoons.
I have never been feckless ever, in my entire life, you understand, nor partaken of a gin.

This would effectively address the massive underclaiming of benefits which currently dwarfs the cost of benefit fraud.

What is the rate of benefit fraud?

I remember DLA being 0.1% or something ridiculous. I doubt it's the massive amount everyone media tends to make out.

Smiles 2% of annual fraud in the UK (according to citizens advice )

I thought as much. Thank you.

Errors by the agencies administering benefits run at about the same level as losses to fraud, usuaally slightly more. Both together tend to run at less than a sixth of the level of unclaimed benefits.

IIRC about 60% of appeals are overturned by disable people declared "fit for work" by ATOS, who are anything but. Many have died. (About 1,000 people have died after being declared for for work by ATOS).

This is the real scandal of our benefits system, and people should be up in arms about a system which is so unjust, and which has destitution built into it, instead of harping on about benefit scroungers.

I would much rather a few feckless people get some money but vulnerable people are looked after, than thousands of people are unjustly pushed into utter destitution to the point people are starving to death, as we have now, under this government.