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.

It is hardly strange. It is worldwide and universal.
And is the whole point around which the subject heading of this thread is based.

There are always going to be a tiny percentage of people who don't or won't manage their money. Most people learn from experience. You can lead a horse to water yada yada. You can't micromanage everything as that leads to helplessness and over-dependence on the State.

Yes of course there will always be people who are rubbish with money; I don't think that's an argument for or against the citizen's income.

I do think that if CI came in people would, on average, work less. Young people leaving university (not all, but some) would take longer to apply for jobs because they had CI for basic needs. People would be more likely to take career breaks. They'd retire or go part time earlier. And, presuming that earned income would still be subject to stepped tax rates, high earners would probably be paying 75%-80% tax on much of their income, which again disincentivises work.

None of this is a problem from a moral point of view - quite the opposite. But it's a problem for the government because it lowers tax revenues, and as an economy we need as much money sloshing round the economy as possible.

I must be really, really thick.

Where is the money coming from?

The 'what happens about people who are shit with money' argument is a red herring. As pp have said, there will always be people who are shit with money, selfish, whatever. It is not a reason to not dismiss alternatives to the status quo.

This might be of interest. Am not sure when this vote is actually happening - probably by the end of this year according to other sites - and who knows if it will go through. But I think it's fascinating (and heartening) that in one of the richest countries in the world there is considerable support for a new way of doing things.

It isn't pie-in-the-sky stuff/crazy utopia wonderland at all. And it's not communism. The concept of a citizens income has historically had support from both right and left. Done properly, it would be fiscally neutral. And of course provision would be made for the disabled, carers, etc. Several manifestations of a CI also include stepped payments for children (eg birth to 5, 5-11, 11-18 etc), though it varies.

basic income site

I think it's depressing that whenever the possibility of change is raised, it's shouted down by those whose main concern seems to be that people who they deem unworthy might possibly be getting 'something for nothing'.

I think the CI would be the mark of a more equal, kinder, happier, less venal society. But I know that's not what most people care about. Work, work, work, consume, consume, consume, and never let yourself consider the possibility that there might be a different way.

How much is enough?

People working fewer hours would be likely to mean more jobs, though. One of the problems at the moment is that poor people often have to work 15/16 hours a day to keep going because wages are so low.

As to where the money would come from, huge savings would be made by it being unnecessary to have an army of snoopers and beancounters checking up on what benefit recipients were doing with their time...

And what it is vital to remember is that a large number of people are poor because a percentage of rich people have MADE them poor. By prioritizing shareholders' profits over wages; by relocating production to developing countries where they can get away with paying people 1p a day; by holding them to contracts which involve masses of unpaid overtime, etc.

teand can you show me on that site what they are actually proposing - i couldn't see it

This is a clearer link. There's a link to an introductory booklet on the left hand side.

But there is no one way to do this. Any country seriously considering the introduction of a basic income would have its own priorities.

Thanks for the link - the booklet states it would cost £276bn, whilst also continuing to pay £58bn of other benefits - totalling £334bn.
This Guardian article has total current spending at £220bn for all benefits, so only another £114bn to find. And it only pays out £3,600 a year per person - hardly a lot of money.

I think tax rates would not be stepped, MooncupGoddess. When I first heard of this idea 30 odd years ago, it was suggested that earned income was taxed highly but at a flat rate. The incentive to get better qualifications or a better job or more experience or do more hours etc was simply that the payment rate would be higher, so more in your pocket, but also more paid in tax.

A difficult balancing act to ensure that the tax revenue was sufficient to cover the cost of CI, but not impossible to achieve.

Lots of people would work because they like it. Lots of people would work because they want to save for a holiday. Lots of people would work because they'd be bored if they didn't do a few hours a week at least. Lots of people would work because they care about society and know it is necessary.

There are many many reasons why people work. The amount of time working could be very different. I do think our society would be a better one if there were more jobs with fewer hours - NOT zero hour contracts but job shares. Or a basic working week were 3 days from 9 until 2 or 2 until 7 or something.

According to this there are currently 30.5 million employed, mostly full time - lets assume 30 hours a week average to take account of part time workers. So 900 million hours worked. There are 2.2 million unemployed - share the work around - 900 million hours over 32.7 million people is 27.5 hours each, so an average of 5.5 hours a day 5 days a week, or 7 hours a day 4 days a week.

this is assuming all skill sets are equally demanded and utilised.

Jux your plan would require 60 million workers, so only if we sent everyone, including children, out to work

I don't know what it is but I am rich because I chose a rich industry and trained for it. Anyone could have done that. I don't pay tax either on my pay. People like you bring out the worst in me, grow up. I also think that people deserve to be rich and some deserve not to.

Anyone could have done that.

I beg your pardon? Anyone?

(I'm not even going to touch 'deserve to be rich' )

It's up to you but I really, really do not care for sixth form socialism. I dig natural gas for a living tax free. I originally trained as a nurse but found the NHS endlessly leaving people to die a bit tiresome. I especially chose a tax free high pay industry. It wasn't rocket science and luckily I don't have to pay 80 grand a year to support a shit stlystem. You must accept although it isn't often your type do, that not everyone agrees with you. It's a world, a real world, not a common room.

Love the idea of a citizens wage and oddly was airing this opinion yesterday.

The chief nay sayers will be those aghast at the idea of non working people getting something for nothing. unless those people are the sons and daughters of extremely wealthy parents who are able to bequeath them with their left over dosh when they die

I don't accept that anyone can enter career they fancy, if that's what you mean.

Sorry X post. I was of course answering Theo

Why not? When I was young I wanted to be a nurse. I got on the project 2000 course and did it. I got a monthly bursary and free fees. I can assure you that you do not have to be privileged or even educated to be a nurse, the course is moronic.
I then shifted into the oil and gas industry and eventually retrained in offshore safety and, funnily enough, can now have a job in that said role.

Most of the people offshore I work with a red faced beer bellied Aberdonians not Oxbridge graduates. Some of them earn excess of 200k tax free for their expertise, again, they saw a niche and joined it. They didn't get it from sitting in the common room whinging about the government or making ridiculous statements.

Theo, I trained to become a therapist for autistic children. The pay was barely minimum wage - which didn't exist at the time I was doing it. It was a carrer change for me; I had previously earnt, not a great deal but sufficient for my needs. I went into the new career with my eyes open, and cut my coat according to my cloth. Loved it. I budgetted carefully and even after dd was born we managed, though the greatest stress in our lives was money.

Then I developed ms. I rapidly became so ill I could barely get out of bed. If I sat down Ai fell asleep because just being alive was exhausting.

I am a lot better now, but I will never be able to work ft again. I will have to retrain again to get a job I can do with my physicial constraint. i would go off and do your job, earning a packet, but I physically can't. Not everyone can do what you can, or what you have done.

Furthermore, there are no jobs here. Yes, OK, there's supermarket work but I can't physically do it.

I am really not that unusual. And what happened to me could easily happen to you.

Anyone can be anything they want to be?

Bizarre that so many people choose to a work in minimum wage jobs when they could all be paediatric consultants, lawyers or successful actors.

What's wrong with folk these days?

Theodorus - all that money, all to yourself, and you're still a spiteful, self-righteous, judgey arse.

Are you bitter or something?

No I am not bitter, I just can't bear the endless hypocritical champagne socialist smuggery bandied about by people who don't really know what it's like to be really poor. Or really rich for that matter.

I have made provision for the possibility that things could go wrong. Yes I am lucky to be able to do that but that's why I specifically chose a field where I could be financially safe. If, for example I had wanted a worthier career, then I would have not been able to do that. The point is that people have a choice.

I'll tell you something interesting about cuba. I went on holiday, and the locals were disgusted that I wasnt on the best possible drugs for my autoimmune disease. Because the way it works there, having their own "citizens income" type situation (obviously i am not denying their are faults within communism!), is that if you are a worker and you are ill, you get the best drugs available straight away, because they dont want you to be off work when they are paying you anyway. Whereas here in the nhs, they start with the cheapest drugs and work up. If i had been treated with the aim to 'cure' asap, i might not now be unable to work...