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.

There is a big difference between people who are too disabled/ carers to do a 40 hour week every week and those who can do some hours/self employment some times.

So who would decide is someone was fit enough to do some work?

If your basic standard of living was guaranteed then you'd decide whether/when you worked. People wouldn't have to work ft so there would be more job shares, pt workers. Quality of life would improve for many. If you wanted a bigger house or a better holiday than your mates, then you work to get better qualifications and a more highly paid job, but you'd still pay tax at the same (probably high) rate as them, and you'd still get your CI.

BMW Presumably a doctor/consultant.

I really think this is a great idea. It is shameful how many working poor there are in this rich country. Not to mention homeless people.

I think it's a good idea. It's also time we re-examined what's actually meant by 'work', as well. Someone who does not recieve a wage from an employer is not necessarily lazy - s/he may be doing all sorts of other things, whether that's playing music, caring for children, keeping an eye on elderly or housebound neighbours, or tinkering away with some sort of invention that may make life better for everyone in years to come.

And if a few poor people are sitting on their arses in front of the telly all day, really, so fucking what? Enough of your taxes are being spent to allow some very rich people to sit on their arses all day and do nothing useful, after all.

Dawndonna, you say "a plan is needed for those people". I don't know what you mean. Those people will be included in the CI, surely?

dawn disability, carers benefits etc could be paid on top of the CI though, couldn't they? Either as premiums or freestanding payments, but as recognition that work choices were limited or impossible and that living costs were higher.

What happens with inflation in this imaginary world?

Because when Tesco/Lidl/Wetherspoons/landlords know everyone has got plenty of money to spend, they will probably raise their prices to compensate. Bang go the special offers to lure in the thrifty bargain hunters, bang goes the 'my wages/benefits haven't gone up, I can't afford more' appeal to your landlord every year.

Also, calling this a citizen's income - so everyone who holds a ImaginaryUtopiaLand passport qualifies? Can I swan off to a country where £10k lets me live like a king and still receive it? What about those immigrants working in ImaginaryUtopiaLand? Do they still receive it? What about economic migrants turning up from the rest of the world? A cheque on day one, or do they have to work for a bit first?

Because when Tesco/Lidl/Wetherspoons/landlords know everyone has got plenty of money to spend, they will probably raise their prices to compensate.

There isn't actually more money about, if the policy has been implememented properly, it is just being delivered differently.

Possibly slightly more in the hands of individuals rather than big business. That's all.

Ahh, Jux, that implies that those with disabilities and those who care for them are at the bottom of the rung. Having a disability can be extremely expensive, surely there should be, as Fideliney states, extra for those that need it. As is often pointed out, a civilised society is judged on how it treats its poor and disabled members.

So those that choose not to work would presumably have to live in the most basic accomodation (as that would be all that they could afford to pay). Those that did work would live in the "naicer" homes as they could
afford to pay more.

Wouldn't we then end up with huge estates for the poor and gated communities for the better off? Rather like Brasil and South Africa?

And where would those who can't work but would like to live? Seems unfair to lump them in with the don't want to work's......

I quite like the idea of a citizens wage, I think there's a lot to be said for treating all citizens equally instead of the unfairness we have at the moment where able bodied people who contribute the least can take out the most.

Obviously where illness and disability is present people would have to receive more money, but just as importantly they should receive better services so they don't actually need significantly more money. I'd like to end people having to pay for their own mobility aids and care and such like if they need more than poor quality state provision so that all citizens were given what they actually need.

A citizens wage would discourage people from having more children than they can provide for, because there would be no increase in benefits for each child, and people would know from the start that they had to take responsibility for themselves and their children.

I would be happy to pay higher tax if it meant that everyone got good quality state services like healthcare and education, and everyone got the same financial support.

BMW you seem to be confusing CI with the Soviet Union

Housing would remain as it is now. It wouldn't be seized and reallocated

But what do you do with those that receive the citizen's wage, but say that it isn't enough and their kids are going hungry?

They may be piss poor at managing the money, or may have addictions, or may be just selfish gits.

A citizens wage would discourage people from having more children than they can provide for, because there would be no increase in benefits for each child, and people would know from the start that they had to take responsibility for themselves and their children.

Oh really?

Fideliney
I didn't mean to suggest that housing would be seized and reallocated - but I think that would evolve naturally (like now, but accelerated)

Then that's the time to start handing out food stamps.

People are already given benefits to pay for their children, and they might already be piss poor at managing money, or have addictions, or be selfish gits.

Those people will be crap parents whether or not we stick to the system we have now or move to a CI. It won't make any difference to that.

But what do you do with those that receive the citizen's wage, but say that it isn't enough and their kids are going hungry?

It couldn't replace the whole welfare state. It could replace all payments designed to feed and pay the bills of individual adults. Arguably you would have to retain extra welfare payments for disability, children and housing.

I didn't mean to suggest that housing would be seized and reallocated - but I think that would evolve naturally

How would it make things worse? It should even up inequality, to a degree. More so for singletons. (Low income singletons should be marching through thestreets for this)

where is the benefit for anyone - you have not removed means-testing or anything else, just given more money to those who don't get benefits then make them pay it back through higher taxes, increasing disincentives to work.
wetherall You state business do not employ disabled people because of the uncertainty of thier condition - how does a CI help an employer when the worker is unavoidable off - it is not the pay/sick pay that causes the disincentive, it is not having that person around.

This is interesting. Thank you for raising on Mumsnet - some thought provoking points made.

Don't know what I think but we do need to change the current system. I'm not sure how hard I'd work if I didn't really have to - especially now that I am older. And a good point was made about low paying unpleasant jobs. I might do a bit of this and that to top up my income but would I really do ten hours a day doing something horrible?

I like it though - it addresses the benefits trap certainly

Questions of who was a citizen would be difficult to solve though.

I really don't get this idea.

Why would we want to give everybody money for nothing? Does it really mean everybody?

Surely somebody like me, with a household income of nearly £40,000 wouldn't get it? Why should I get an extra £10,000 I don't need without working any harder??

If there was money like that available (which I doubt there is) then surely it should go on increasing benefits for those who need them, not providing money for all regardless.

Yes, the idea is that it really means that all citizens of a country get a certain minimum income, however much they are earning on top. Just like people used to get child benefit however much they earned, or how people get winter fuel payments however much they earned. But, as I understand it, nobody gets any of paymrnts at all. (I can see that people on this thread have different ideas about that.)

Sorry, that should have read 'nobody gets any extra payments at all'.

I think that's crazy. Child benefit and £10,000 aren't really on the same scale are they!!

manic citizen's income would be on the same scale as the personal tax allowance, though.