The citizen's income is the only solution to inequality/ the poverty trap/ social immobility.

[weatherall]

The concept of the citizen's income is a universal benefit everyone receives.

It provides a basic standard of living eg housing/food/clothes/fuel.

Any income earned above this is kept. There is no taper.

Communism - and theories strongly like it - is a great idea in theory but completely impossible in implement in reality.

People will never contribute equally in a large community and therefore people will not be treated equally.

Link

Capitalism is a natural sociological state - anything else would need to be controlled from the outside.

Surely it would just push prices up and then everyone earning just the citizens income would still be dirt poor?

How would you encourage people to work if they were receiving this? I imagine a lot of people would be happy to receive a basic salary for doing nothing.
And therefore - who would be paying it?

How is capitalism a natural state? Capitalism appeared a couple of centuries ago - it hasn't been the natural state of all people for all time, because it depends on industrialisation. You could argue that slavery, feudalism or even primitive communism were "natural states" - they all lasted longer than capitalism has so far (and slavery persists to this day).

The link above says this Objection

"6. Wouldn't a Citizen's Income decrease incentives to work?

Some people believe that, without an availability-for-work test, a benefit such as Citizen's Income would destroy the work ethic. Paradoxically it is the present system that decreases the incentives to work, train, care for others etc. by paying benefits to people only so long as they do nothing, and by penalising and often criminalising them when they try to help themselves. "

I think it's an interesting idea.

If everyone has 'enough' money (and I don't think 10k pp would neccessarily be 'enough') the price of things would just increase.

If everyone has 'enough' money (and I don't think 10k pp would neccessarily be 'enough') the price of things would just increase.

Thinking aloud here, but not sure that this would be the case providing the total amount of money in circulation didn't increase (i.e. it was just distributed differently and the save/spend ratio remained the same). However, that might be the flaw- that the ratio of save-spend would probably increase, thereby driving inflation.

shockinglybadteacher

capitalism

It can be traced back to the middle ages and the concept evolved from simular economic structures.

Modern society has always been driven by goods and services in exchange for money/reward.

Capitalism and it's similar concepts are far more natural to human behaviour than communism and the like

Objection wtf. The commonly accepted definition of capitalism comes from industrialisation, not from the Middle Ages or anything else. I'm curious to know what your definition of "capitalism" actually is.

Capitalism does not equal "the exchange of goods/services for money/reward". That's the Ayn Rand definition of capitalism. It's not what it actually is.

I think it's very interesting. Like others I'd have some questions about how it would work, but I think that's because it would be a very new way of doing things. I'm very encouraged that others who've given it more thought than I have think it could work. And pleased to see it's a Green party policy - I nearly always like their ideas

"Capitalism and it's similar concepts are far more natural to human behaviour than communism and the like". Exactly.

Shockingly - did you actually click the link which is a huge article on the history of capitalism? Which describes how it began in the middle ages.

Also not how I said capitalism and similar concepts

Shockingly - can you provide any evidence to demonstrate any systems that are radically different to capitalism that actually work in large societies over the long term?

I've always liked citizens income.

I think the main concern is that it would be inflationary.

But let's see. What would it replace?

Income Support? JSA? Basic Student Loans? Basic State Pension?

Carers Allowance, Sprcial Student Grants, Additional Pensions, Disability Pensions could be paid on top.

How you tweaked Income Tax would be a vital issue. Also how you defined 'citizen'

Some people believe that, without an availability-for-work test, a benefit such as Citizen's Income would destroy the work ethic.

Or would it give everyone a solid platform of income on which to build without the disincentive of 80% withdrawal rates that benefits entail?

The 'natural' state for humans is hunter-gatherer, which we were for most of our evolution. Much more egalitarian, less sexist, less competitive, less work (really). Just don't get hurt or your leg will fall off.

This does not disincentivise work. Some people, the same imaginary people who hate working and want to live on benefits wouldn't work. The rest of us would think, hooray, free money and if I go and work as well I can afford a PS3. We could do some of our passions because we had the breathing space. People would have to pay more to cleaners and the like to have people do that but, you know what, some people should be paid more anyway.

Politicians aren't keen because a desperate, poor, worried, debt-ridden populous doesn't have time to read, protest, they don't have the freedom or will to fight. A capitalist's wet dream.

Some people, the same imaginary people who hate working and want to live on benefits wouldn't work.

The tiny tiny minority of people who live on the semi-criminal fringe have always been with us. We will never manage them out of existence. They are statistically insignificant yet so much rhetoric gets lavished on them.

I''m sorry. I truly must be "pumpkin positive" because I can't unpack what is being suggested here.

Is OP arguing that everyone should have the same basic wage/benefit and anything accrued above through a second job they are allowed to keep?

This idea was touted years and years ago. It always seemed fairly sensible to me, but most people don't seem to like it, though no one has really explained why. I might actually vote for a party which wanted this as long as they didn't have other policies which were repugnant to me

Pumpkin that's right - an example would be every adult being paid £500pcm/£6kpa tax free and the personal tax allowance plus all basic income replacement benefits abolished as a balancing measure.

But, what about carers and those with disabilities. There are people genuinely unable to work. Life does cost more for these people. Things that make their disability easier to manage. Going out for therapies, attending the myriad appointments that often go along with a disability.

It would be a huge increase for anyone on disability benefits or carer's allowance.

Pumpkin that's right - an example would be every adult being paid £500pcm/£6kpa tax free and the personal tax allowance plus all basic income replacement benefits abolished as a balancing measure

I don't think that would work.