Is it acceptable to choose not to work?

[jinglesticks]

I have a friend who made a decision to never work and live off benefits instead. His father worked all his life, retired and died that year. As a result he became very angry with the work ethic in our society and decided life was too precious to waste working until you die. He now lives on unemployment benefit. He has to live very simply. He doesn't go out much, brews his own beer and plays the guitar all day. All this will presumably change under the new Universal Credits system. What do you think? Should one be able to make this kind of choice, or is it wrong to live off the taxes of others.

Incidentally, I wouldn't change places with him. Not for moral reasons. I'd much rather work in a job I love and feel that I earn the money I spend.

"society took a tumble in the days of the doomsday book when the land was carved up between landowners"

And before the Domesday Book land was held by no one and used for the benefit of all?

No, of course not.

Certainly ever since the Romans came here there has been land ownership and the landless working peasant. The Normans juggled around the terminology and the obligations/benefits of land ownership but weren't the first to have the nobility owning the land.

It's still stupid and the fact land that isn't owned automatically goes to the crown, The royals are the biggest scroungers of all.

"It's still stupid and the fact land that isn't owned automatically goes to the crown, The royals are the biggest scroungers of all."

Under the feudal system all land was owned by the crown who then granted it to it's vassals, so there was no unowned land.

And it was far from "stupid", the feudal system that the Norman's introduced made for a stable and secure country, and countries that weren't stable and secure were soon taken over by those that were. Norman England had it's internal civil wars but it never fell, the same can't be said of the Saxon era which although it had land ownership wasn't really feudal.

The Norman's didn't introduce the carving up of land but they did do it in such a way that indisputably worked and let the country evolve.

Yes it's left us with some quirks and issues and I'm far from the being a fan of the Royal family. But it was far from "stupid" considering the way of the world at the time and what the alternatives were.

.................but the royals are still the biggest scroungers of the all. Who cares what happened hundreds of years ago - hell, women didn't have the vote, men could beat the shit out of women without consequence, but things change............the royals are no longer relevant and simply create and reinforce class systems. Oh and are the true meaning of the word, to scrounge.

"Who cares what happened hundreds of years ago"

If you're going to call something "stupid" you have to understand where it came from, what the alternatives were and why it succeeded.

And given that our legal system dates back to the Normans and beyond I think that it's very important to understand it.

"the royals are no longer relevant and simply create and reinforce class systems. Oh and are the true meaning of the word, to scrounge."

I almost agree with you :)

Just because the history of a thing is important doesn't mean that a thing can't be changed.

With regards to land it is worth pointing out that the Queen doesn't actually "own" it or profit from it. The land "owned" by the Queen is actually owned by the Crown Estates. That is an independent group that is accountable to Parliament and pays it's profits to the treasury. Last years profits were more than a couple of hundred million pounds.

So having the "Queen" own "unowned" and other land profits the Government and therefore us. If there were any other system of land ownership you can bet that it would be private landlords and companies and not the tax payer who would benefit.

In the end remember that the Royal Family are held in place by a lot of balances, checks and rules that were put in place by the most anti-royal place that you can think of, those that executed Charles the First.

I still would like to see some serious modernisation and cost cutting though...

BadgersPaws:

"As a quick guide each tax payer would have to pay enough tax to fund 1.5 people on the Citizens Income. The average salary is now meant to be around £25k, so how much would the Universal Credit be? £10k? That's not much and yet to fund it the average salary earner would have to pay £15k in tax, a vote winning 60% tax rate."

Where do you get this 1.5 people from? The "average" tax payer would be paying in what they get out.

I'd love a citizen's wage, I've never yet seen a good argument against it. I think it would increase the motivation to work, if it was set at a level where you could survive but not have luxuries - you could work for a few hours a week and actually make a little extra money, rather than it just being deducted from your benefits. Great for the work ethic .

"Where do you get this 1.5 people from?"

21% of the population are under 16.

So out of 100 people 79 are over 16 and would get the universal benefit.

15% of people are over 65, so out of 100 that's 15 and that leaves 64 people out of 100 as being of working age.

Out of those 64 1 in 5 are economically inactive, let's call that 13.

So 51 people out of 100 are of working age and actually working, and they have to pay the tax to fund the Universal Benefit for 79 people. Each tax payer funds 1.5 people, including themselves.

And it could get worse than this, some versions of the Universal Income also include extra payments for the retired and reduced payments for children.

So each worker could well end up funding far more than the 1.5 people that paying the same flat rate to every adult would entail.

And £10k isn't much, £192 a week, which is less than the proposed cap in Housing Benefit and yet would have to cover everything.

So to make it survivable on it would have to be a lot higher than £10k, which means that you'd have to be earning far more than the average salary of £25k to be any better off than anyone on the Universal Credit would be.

"The average tax payer would be paying in what they get out."

No, the average tax payer has got to be paying in at least 1.5 times what they get out, if all they're doing is paying for themselves then who is going to fund everybody else?

"I'd love a citizen's wage, I've never yet seen a good argument against it."

Well there's a number right here:

1. Every two tax payers will be supporting a non tax payer on the Universal Benefit. The net result is that each tax payer will see 50% of the value of the Universal Benefit as disappear from their pay packet (well they'll see 150% of the value vanish but then 100% come back).
2. Based on Benefit spending taking up 1/3 of Government Expenditure then you will see, in effect, a 100% tax rate for many people and average workers being no better off than someone on the Universal Credit.
3. The claim of simplicity is a lie, there will have to be extra money for the sick, disabled and elderly, this is not a simple one size fits all benefit.
4. And as to efficiency how can it be a good system that takes away 150% of the Universal Benefit from the average tax payer only to pay 100% of it right back to them?

"I think it would increase the motivation to work"

It would shatter the motivation to work, if someone working a full working week on the average salary of £25k is no better off than someone on a minimal Universal Benefit of £10k then why bother working?

You seem to be overlooking the fact that taxpayers are already paying for benefits for those not working (not including SAHM's etc.) Also, that the average tax payer would pay in what they get out, while those who earn less would pay less tax and so get out more than they pay in, while those who earn more than average would be paying more tax, so paying in more than average.

In your 25k wage earner example, you say they'd pay 15k towards the universal wage, plus 10k on other taxes, and get 10k back in universal wage, i.e. take home 10k. Putting aside for a moment the universal wage, where does this 10k on other taxes come from? Currently a wage-earner on 25k takes home around 19k, i.e. they're paying 6k in tax and NI. What is the other 4k?

I think your friend is really quite pathetic.
He needs to go live in a commune and stop being such a scrounger. People work very hard to support him, and he does nothing to contribute to society.

What sort of benefits is this man claiming? Is there really a benefit that a young and ablebodied person can claim under the current system?

If it is JSA, he is not looking for work so not entitled to it. Is he claiming to be an alcoholic or depressed or back problems? Then he is lying and needs to be shopped.

I cannot believe the system currently supports people like him.

Fact of the matter is, in this country, in this day and age it is impossible to live outside of the system.

it's not like the third world you can't go solo, you can't feed yourself because the land is owned by someone so you can't use it even if it's been used as a fly tip for 20 years, you can't build a home in the woods because they belong to someone.

the best you can do is be a dosser or a freegan living out of bins (which is all so illegal) and sleeping in doorways or having a tent/van and being constantly on the move,and TBH that is no way to live.

The system is such in this country that if you are not willing to be part of the system and become a worker unit, you must remain reliant on the system if you like it or not.

"You seem to be overlooking the fact that taxpayers are already paying for benefits for those not working (not including SAHM's etc.)"

Right now the system pays not very much to people who have to prove that they are entitled to it.

You're proposing a system that pays an acceptable living standard to everybody.

That's going to cost more.

"Also, that the average tax payer would pay in what they get out, while those who earn less would pay less tax and so get out more than they pay in, while those who earn more than average would be paying more tax, so paying in more than average."

The average tax payer should be able to support the average tax burden of the system, the 1.5 people figure.

The below average tax payer should therefore be able to support less and the above average tax payer should be able to support more.

If the average tax payer cannot fund the average tax burden of the system then there's going to be a huge problem, of the type I've illustrated.

"In your 25k wage earner example, you say they'd pay 15k towards the universal wage, plus 10k on other taxes, and get 10k back in universal wage, i.e. take home 10k. Putting aside for a moment the universal wage, where does this 10k on other taxes come from?"

At the moment for every £1 spent on the benefit system the Government spends £2 on something else.

So if you cling to the idea that this Universal Credit would not cost us any more then the average salary earner will be paying £5k in tax to fund the universal credit so £10k in tax to fund everything else.

That would be untrue if the expense of the Universal Credit would actually be far more than the current benefits system, and thus the ratio of 1/3 would actually increase.

Why would other taxes increase if benefits increased? I don't get it .

And actually no, for me it doesn't have to be an acceptable living standard - just a survival wage, i.e. basic accommodation, food ingredients (no takeaways or restaurants), minimal amount of clothing... Not what most of us in today's society would call an acceptable long-term living standard. Prevent you from starving and freezing but provide some motivation to earn money .

It will never happen anyway, it would require a huge shakeup of the current system and no party would have the courage to try that.

"Why would other taxes increase if benefits increased?"

That's not what I said.

At the moment spending on benefits makes up 1/3 of total Government spending.

If you believe the myth that a Universal Credit would cost us no more than the current spending then it will still make up 1/3 of total Government spending.

If that's true then the Government will need £15k in net tax from the average tax payer, £5k for the 1/3 Universal Credit and £10k for the 2/3 everything else.

For the Government not to need £10k for everything else yet still need £5k for the Universal Credit then the claim that this system won't cost any more than the present one is patently untrue.

And that's presuming that the Government needs £5k from each average tax payer to fun a £10k Universal Credit, and as I'll say in a bit I don't think £10k is enough for someone dependent on benefits.

"And actually no, for me it doesn't have to be an acceptable living standard - just a survival wage, i.e. basic accommodation, food ingredients (no takeaways or restaurants), minimal amount of clothing... Not what most of us in today's society would call an acceptable long-term living"

So how much then?

To me £10k is pretty minimal. The £280pw Housing Benefit cap for a 2 Bedroom flat is very controversial yet works out at £15k a year. The Universal Credit wouldn't even cover that yet would be expected to be for absolutely everything not just housing.

The £280pw Housing Cap + £65 a week income support is nearly £18k a year, so the Universal Credit would really have to be about at least that much.

Is that OK? £9k in tax just for the Credit from each average tax payer? And that's actually impossible isn't it. That average tax payer would still get their £18k in UC, so the Government would have to tax them £27k (the £18k they're going to give back and then £9k they need to fund the UC for half of someone else). That's more than their salary.

Now maybe they just don't take that initial £18k, but that makes for a complex system, which the supports of the UC say this will avoid.

Or are you proposing a drastic cut for people on benefits right now? To something below £10k a year?

Or are you proposing that somehow the unemployed/sick/single parents get more money? Which is admitting that a single universal credit really can't work.

Haven't read the whole thread, so I don't know if this has come up earlier, but a Citizen's Income is Green Party policy - I'm still hunting for their costings, but will post them if I do, should be interesting.

Checking out the Green Party's page....

"Guarantee that everyone's basic needs are covered by a non means-tested weekly payment, as of right."

Housing has got to be a "basic need" and as said above the much debated cap, which many say is not enough, works out at £15k a year.

The average tax payer will be supporting 1.5 people on this "Citizen's Income".

So the average tax payer will have to pay a total of £22.5k in tax a year just to cover the "Citizen's Income".

"an increased amount for pensioners (to replace state pensions) anda lower rate for children."

That would mean the average tax payer will support more than 1.5 people making the above figures even worse.

"There would be additional amounts for those with special needs"

So it's not a flat and Universal Citizen's Income.

And further up the page they say it will "put an end to demeaning benefits procedures." But they're going to need exactly those procedures to determine who gets the "additional amounts".

So not only is the flat Universal Credit an admitted impossibility but they're lying when they say that they'll be getting rid of qualifying procedures.

So it's not "simple" and it's not "universal", why bother doing it?

And the utter ridiculousness of the average tax paying paying a huge amount of tax only to get about 2/3rds of it back should go beyond saying.

No, the idea is not ridiculous at all...

There are many different formulations and you are making up your own figures for this one.

But you and I are obviously the only ones on this thread who care either way.

"No, the idea is not ridiculous at all..."

We're told it will be a flat and simple Universal Credit, it won't.

We're told it will put an end to benefits checking procedures, it won't.

So not only does it seem quite ridiculous but it won't even be what they're trying to claim it will be.

"There are many different formulations and you are making up your own figures for this one."

The 0.5 non working adults to every adult is pretty indisputable.

The initial £10k was just a quick stab as some "reasonable" living wage.

The £18k taken from combining one of the controversial housing caps (and only for a 2 bed place) and the income from Income Support has got to be closer to a "survivable" income.

And that would require a £9k net tax profit from each average tax payer on a salary of about £25k. And if the average tax payer cannot carry the average burden of a system then there's going to be trouble.

So what exactly do you disagree with?

"But you and I are obviously the only ones on this thread who care either way."

Quite possibly :)