Scrap Benefits and pay every adult, working, non working or retired, an unconditional basic income of £15,000 a year? Discuss

[CorruptBstard]

Hi

Ok Mumsnet, what do you think of this?

Pay every adult in the uk £15,000 a year, with no conditions attached, so that every adult is free to use their time to do stuff, just for the love of it.

This basic income would cover basic needs for food and shelter, if people wanted to earn more money they could go and work for someone else or start a business of their own

This would abolish poverty in one fell swoop.

Wheres the money coming from to pay for it?

well apart from scrapping all "state benefits", we could also scrap income tax and fund it all by taxing money every time its spent.

ie Government gives me £5. I pass that £5 round a group of 10 friends. By the time the £5 comes back to me, it has been "spent" 10 times. Creating a turnover of £50. If the government taxes that spending at 20%, it raises £10 in tax. Making a profit of £5.


Thoughts?

If you recieved £15,000 a year unconditionally, what would you do just for the love of it?

[ttosca]

MrJuvenilePants-

'Better' because we are not chucking rocks at one another on a daily basis, nor have we had an unelected junta graciously foisted upon us by the winners of the 2012 Nobel Peace Prize.

The complacency of the British public is well known. That's why the UK is stuck with some sort of semi-feudal political and social system; A monarchy which leeches off the taxpayer and influences govt. policy, an unelected upper house, and a coalition govt. which feels no compulsion to follow any of the items which were set out on each parties manifestos, on which neither party was elected.

It means the UK has the largest wealth inequality, work the longest hours, and the have the worst workers rights.

But if its rocks that you want, you'll note the recent riots in London and the smashing up off Tory Party HQ at Milbank in London.

If the Torys keep up with their socially destructive policies, which are making people homeless, increasing unemployment, increasing wealth inequality, and killing disabled people, to name but a few things, you can be absolutely certain that there will be more riots of the sort the UK experienced in the 1980s.

[ttosca]

MrJuvenilePants-

Pure lefty ?big state? crap.

Not really. It's pretty much the consensus in social democratic states around europe and the world.

It is perfectly possible to live in our society without contributing half of your total income for the big state to 'wisely' spend on your behalf.

Yes dear, but only 1% of people paid 50% income tax, and that was only the income which was over £150,000. Nobody paid 50% of their total income to the state.

The unemployed, pensioners and the disabled do it all the time.

Yes, quite right.

What you are saying is that only the proles who have a job need to contribute.

What are you talking about? Income tax is but one way to increase state revenue. If you're suggesting a wealth tax and property taxes, which are harder to avoid, in place of portion of income tax, I would say that's a great idea.

As for the list of things you suggest that are essential for our society to flourish, again, you are talking out of your arse.

No, the list is pretty sensible.

That you have the chutzpah to dare to suggest that our armed forces exist only for territorial defence is to conveniently overlook the fact that it is our armed forces, backed by the full weight of state authority, which are more likely to be the foreign invader - see Afghanistan, Iraq, Serbia (Kosovo), Suez and countless other conflicts. In fact, since 1688, I can only think of Bonnie Prince Charlie, Napoleon and Hitler who seriously thought about invading us.

I didn't dare to suggest that our armed forces only exist for territorial defence. I said that was one of the stated purposes of armed forces. The UK is lucky because it is an Island, and much harder to invade. Europe has been at war with itself since the dawn of civilisation. If you want to maintain borders, you need a standing army.

That the police and the judiciary are always on the side of the law abiding is moot.

I didn't say that at all. First of all, I don't think you mean 'moot' here. I think you mean to use another word.

In any case, the police and judiciary are most certainly not always on the side of the law abiding, and even if they were, are created by those in power in order to fashion society in a way is most beneficial to them. In other words, legality doesn't mean morality. Some laws are just and some laws and unjust. Some things which are unjust are legal, and some are illegal.

That is all true, but it doesn't mean you can run society without laws and a means to enforce them.

Contracts were being exchanged back in Roman times so I wouldn't claim them to require a big state solution with consequent high taxation.

You're actually making the opposite point you intend to here. The Romans were known precisely, amongst other things, for introducing laws and enforcing them with an iron fist.
They are also a perfect example of a centrally-run state. At one point the Romans ran all of europe and parts of Africa from Rome. You can't get any more 'big-state' than that. They also rigidly enforced taxation on the places their conquered.

Public transport shouldn't, in my opinion, be subsidised at all - if you wish to travel you should pay the full fare - it should certainly not require subsidisation by penalising people for the 'crime' of having bought a big house as the LibDumbs are suggesting.

Well then you'll have a crappy public transport system, and it would also have knock-on effects on the economy, as the roads clog up and result in grid-lock whilst nobody can get to work and nobody can get to the high street to shop. Thankfully, you're an extremist, and only minority of Tory scum hold this position.

If we are to be coerced into paying for education and health care then they should be provided to a decent standard in the most cost effective manner possible.

NHS satisfaction, before the Tory scum started their privitisation spree was at an all-time high. Compared with the US system of almost completely privitised healthcare, the NHS is many time more efficient, dollar per dollar. The US spends much much more on healthcare and fails to provide adequate healthcare to a substantial minority of its population. It fails.

That the privately provided solutions consistently outperform the government run ones (to say nothing of the superior healthcare and education systems of rival countries) is scandalous.

They don't. The converse is usually the case.

As for your final polemic about the free markets not working and how state control is the answer please compare and contrast the perennial food shortages of the Soviet Union with the free world, or Mao's China with the free world, or North Korea vs. South Korea, for that matter. State planning, such as you advocate starved an estimated 43 million people in the 20th century; by contrast we had the supermarket (though there are plenty on the left that would vilify this development).

That's nice, dear. The comparison is not between 'free-markets' and totalitarian states. Social democracies in europe are doing quite nicely, thank you very much, with many providing better healthcare, better education, and less inequality than in the UK.

Your comment stinks of ill thought out 'sixth form socialism' pining for a thoroughly discredited system.

You sound like a 14 year old who picked up their first Ayn Ran novel, with no experience in life and politics based on watching Hollywood movies.

Useful idiots like you need to get it into your thick heads that the state is your enemy - without the force of the state behind them the Hitler?s, Mao's, Stalin's and even Blair's of this world would have remained relatively harmless. Give them the power of the state to suckle from and nightmares get born.

You need to get in to your thick head that 'the markets' aren't equivalent to 'democracy', nor do they result in democratic structures, nor will they necessarily provide the best way of distributing resources.

You're also confusing state provision of healthcare, education, public infrastructure, etc. with Stalinism, which is a mistake a 14 year-old or a Tea-Bagger party member would make.

If you ask me whether I'm against foreign invasions, indefinite detention, spying on citiziens, uncurtailed police powers, etc. I would say that I am strongly against them, and in fact have campaigned most of my life against them.

Funnily enough, though, the right-wing freaks who are so against providing healthcare to the population under the guise of fighting 'the big state' and 'socialism' rarely have a problem with police abuse of powers or any of the other things I mentioned.

[Longdistance]

Utter bollocks!
Communism only works on paper. And that's the end of that.
It's not a theory of mine either. My parents lived it.

[ttosca]

Did you actually read my post, Longdistance?

[niceguy2]

As I always say, the free market economy is very inefficient and wasteful. It's far from perfect. But it works a damn sight better than any of the alternatives.

The evidence is plain to see. China being the best example. Under communist control and a planned economy they couldn't even feed their own population. Yet a mere thirty years after embracing the free market model they are now the richest country on the planet.

Only economic flat earther's such as Ttosca still try to argue for a big government controlled economy when practically every country has abandoned it and the few remaining countries are either abandoning it (eg. Cuba) or totalitarian regimes (eg. N. Korea).

The yardstick for me is if you are a poor person, where would you prefer to be poor? Cuba/North Korea? Or USA/UK/Germany?

The irony is that his Ttosca's views on this forum are only made possible by the very capitalist society which has invented all the technology and all the profit making firms hosting the website, providing the broadband connections etc. Not forgetting of course the fundamental freedom of speech rights which are not around in any communist country.

[Xenia]

Free market economies are the best we have ever come up with. China has someone with a PhD in law taking over but even he (always a he there, so much for women's rights under communism, just men men men all the way) is unlikely to introduce any freedoms.

Yes, tax is 50 - actually it's 52% including NI and over 60% as you lose th epersonal allowance entirely at the higher rate and if most of your income is over £150k then most of what you are earning is being given back 52% to the state. That % doesn't really work most states have found so not surprisingly Labour's top rate was 40% and the Coalition will probably get back to that and then the tax take will go up.

Obviously there are different levels of free markets - we have never had really free markets and we have never had pure communism. Those who like the French and Swedish ways can go there or vote in parties who want those systems 75% taxes and all that comes with that. Not surprisingly people like the Rausing and now hordes of French moved here.

[MiniTheMinx]

No the real irony is that Capitalism creates need rather than fulfils need.

Capitalism as you rightly point out is very effective at creating new technologies and I would argue efficient in doing so. We have products and services we never knew we needed but usually the conditions can be made that we have to relent and pay for it anyway. A good example is making people claim for UC on-line when it is introduced....there are plenty more.

China embracing capitalism some 30 years ago correlates with declining living standards and wages in the west. Which serves to underline the fact that capital flies to where it has a docile and cheap labour force & government spending on infrastructure. The problem now is that we in the west have less money in which to consume what they can produce. China's economy is slowing down, China has spent billions on water, roads, rail, airports creating the conditions where capitalists can operate but they have a rising middle class who now see their prospects for continued growth under threat. I actually think in another 30-40years china will be in decline similar to what we see happening in the states and the state will have shrunk not because of idealogical change but because the Chinese state will never see the return on the investments they are making.

In 2012 china has spent a $110 billion on police and security to control it's people. (their defence budget was $5 billion. There have been between 50,000 and 100,000 protests that were considered mass incidents in recent years. People do not riot for want of less prosperity they riot for BREAD. French revolution.... bread, Russian revolution..... bread!

Why are these chinese workers so upset?

Capitalism is even MORE efficient in creating inequality than it is in producing new goods and services because those goods and services can only be created by the exploitation of labour in the pursuit of profit. They can only be sold when there is a demand to buy them. Impoverished workers can't buy and pay your workers too much and you can't compete.

Wasteful.......in what way? well almost every way you can think of, we lay whole cities to waste (detriot) we degrade the environment from rivers to deforestation, we waste people living on $1 a day, we create goods that sometimes no one really needs or wants, houses are reposessed and left empty while people sleep on the streets......

The really fundemental thing to understanding capitalism is that it thrives on inequality, creates inequality and eventually the wheels fall off because of inequality.

[aufaniae]

Well said Mini.

[MrJudgeyPants]

ttosser Rant and rave all you like but it will take a colossal amount of denial and doublethink on your part to equate the riots we saw in the UK last year with the demi-revolutions that are ongoing across parts of Europe. As for the bodge which is our system of government (complete with its contradictions warts and all) it is still 'our' system and not some EU imposed junta. As we both believe in democracy and freedom I hope we can, at least, agree to condemn the EU for that.

The point I was making that half of your income goes to the state wasn't a reference to the (now reduced) 50% tax rate. Many more than just the top 1% are paying more than 50% tax. For example, Add together income tax, national insurance, VAT & council tax and 40% tax payers (and a sizeable chunk of lower rate payers) are contributing over 50% of their total income - whack on the taxes associated with running a vehicle, drinking or smoking and the figures are higher still. This isn't about the 45% tax rate - although it is a convenient smokescreen for the misinformed - this is about a state that collects and spends so much money that it distorts the whole economy in a negative way.

...legality doesn't mean morality. Some laws are just and some laws and unjust. Some things which are unjust are legal, and some are illegal.

So what we need is a small state solution of only the fewest laws required to keep our society functioning and not some top down and draconian system which enslaves us in petty rules (Or the New Labour approach of enacting almost a new law for every day they were in power). Blimey - two things in one day with which we agree on; will wonders ever cease?

On NHS satisfaction, I've seen that poll too. Our free NHS was compared with various 'not-free' alternatives and, not surprisingly, won. Compare the stats on cancer survivability, hospital infections, doctor / patient ratios etc and you'll see we don't stack up nearly as well.

I also suggest laying off the Tory scum insults if they are aimed at me. I've stated on these boards several times - and to you in particular no less - that I am not Tory Scum, I am Libertarian scum thank you very much! I vote Conservative in the absence of a practical right-wing libertarian alternative and consider the Tories to be the least bad option of the three main parties. However, I consider the current crop to be virtually interchangeable with the Blairite brand of Labour and, much as I respect Cameron, do not consider him, or them, capable of fixing the problems that this country faces.

[achillea]

I think anyone on unemployed should be paid a flat fee that they then spend on whatever they need. Some will spend more on rent and others will spend more on food etc depending on their life choices.

Tying that in with a tax system is defeatist as tax is the,way that we express our political differences. I see your point about taxing spending rather than income but wouldn't that just mean the rich would stash away their cash and live on a small percentage of what they hold?

[Xenia]

If everyone in work or not were paid £15k a year if they are over 18 and that included pensions we might save. I have not done the sums. If the £15k would not feed and house you yo might try to get work or families would have to take responsibility for children and parents and that would be no bad thing. Apparently my housing benefit alone would be £20k a year !! if I chose not to work. Far too much.

We already tax spending hugely with 20% VAT. We could add VAT to everything and reduce the rate if we were trying to fund the £15k a year. The £15k would giev a couple £30k and if two couples chose to live together that would be £60k even if they did no work.

Tory scum comments just make people realise how silly the left are. The Coalition is trying to deal with some very difficult issues. Most politicians for all their faults work very hard and most could earn a lot more in other jobs. I think my daughter in mid 20s already earns an MPs' wage. They are not scum on either side.

[achillea]

I agree with Xenia (oh dear) that having a flat fee to spend as you like is good for a benefit system but taxation is a completely different kettle of fish. Benefit is a fallback a subsistence level for when people need support and should always exist but the country can't thrive in a world economy when the markets have control because the long term development of the country would not be supported.

By this I mean things that we have government for in the first place, that provide preventative measures such as good healthcare and ensuring there is equality for all, a decent legal system, education that works and ensures that the nation survives not over the next parliamentary term but over the next decades. The things we pay our government to do.

Thatcher's free market economy is the perfect example of how leaving the markets to dictate the country's future can wreck the things we have a government for in the first place. The markets have infiltrated every corner of our state systems, from the health service to the legal system, to social care. It doesn't work, the two do not go together. We have more inequality than ever, and free markets are to blame. Just because we had slightly over-fed public services whose systems were not exactly lean and mean does not mean we should have ripped the heart out of them and allowed private companies to profit.

I wouldn't touch the tax system without being extremely careful. The tax system is complicated and bizarre, but so is the legal system but it is all for a reason. It is simplistic and slightly naiive to think that we can just 'do away with' the 'red tape' because it's 'unnecessary'. Read some history books, look at what makes our country great, and read about the things we should not be proud of. Our country wasn't made great by McDonalds, big pharma, extremely wealthy oil barons. You can't just do away with things because they're a bit complicated.

[Xenia]

We hvae not had free markets and Thatcher hugely improved Britain. I lived through the 70s. It was no fun.

The suggestion that we have one benefit for everyone perhaps in work or out of £15k a year (which of course would reduce the sums paid to those who choose to bring up children without a partner or not living with other adults or their family) is a simple and good one. Universal benefits have worked really well. It m ight though incentive some people not to work at all which may not be that good for the economy. On the other hand if you earn say £40k a year you will not be giving that up just to get £15k, instead you will enjoy your £55k knowing that the benefits scrounger next door who also does work cash in hand is in a sense losing out.

No one is suggesting abolishing tax. Even capped flat taxers of my ilk could live with 10 - 20% tax each perhaps capped at £50k or £100k per person.

[achillea]

We had manufacturing before Thatcher, we produced our own coal and oil. Now we don't. Our public services were a bit lardy, and the unions were getting a bit bolshy but she could have sorted that out without selling our country to the highest bidder.

Most people don't work because there isn't any in their area that pays a wage worth working for. In the 70s there was plenty of work, but Thatcher put hundreds of thousands of people out of work and left them sitting there in the villages of mining towns with feck all.

[MiniTheMinx]

Well said achillea. Thatcher bundled in to smash the unions because she wanted to sell UK PLC to the highest bidders and had a fetish about inflation. She set out to create unemployment and she succeeded.

Mr Pants, why a right wing libertarian? why not just a libertarian or a left libertarian. I agree with much of what you say but......I don't think capitalism is fit for purpose. What is more, what is wrong with having active engaged citizens involved from the grass roots up in democratic organising where every man has equal rights under law. Where people have freedom from hunger and every human need is met in a planned economy.

It seems that it is only economics that divides left & right libertarians which makes me feel that equality is fine with you as long as your property makes you more equal than others. Whilst freedom and liberty is a worthwhile ambition in and of itself it means nothing when all of human history has been about a struggle for the material necessities of life. Something which under you system would be denied to those less equal.

[Xenia]

Lady Thatcher got our economy going again. We had a huge crash in the 70s, we had inflation over three years of 18, 22 and 20%. We had a 3 day week. We had power shortages, oil lamps and the country was in fear of the unions. She solved all that and brought us to the prosperity levels we have now which were unimaginable in the 70s. We are were very lucky to have her.

[MiniTheMinx]

Yes it was caused by a banking crisis. Caused by a housing bubble, silly lending and lack of regulation and the end of the Breton Woods agreement. Do you have any idea how many crisis there has been in the history of capitalism?

[achillea]

The unions were right to be so bolshy. They knew exactly what would happen when Thatcher and her ilk came in and deregulated. Look at where it has got us. We should have listened to them and their 3 day work to rule. We are now all working 6 days for 3 days money anyway. At least we would have 2 days off if the unions had had their way.

[picketywick]

Margaret Thatchrt was single minded as a ferret in a rabbit hutch, politics needs more vision and humanity than that. (Macmillion said she needed to "read a few books " ) And he did not mean 50 Shades of Grey.

[niceguy2]

Ha ha Achillea. Brilliant! Oh yes....when Thatcher came to power the unions were doing a cracking job of running the country weren't they? Into the ground that is. Winter of discontent anyone? Rampant inflation? Power shortages, rubbish mountains. Oh yes, the unions were doing a blinding job.

And when Thatcher/Tories left they handed over a booming economy and a balanced budget. Thirteen years of Labour rule (who are funded by the unions) and we're back to square chuffing one. Once again they handed over a massive deficit and an economy in the shitter.

If unions had been left unchecked we'd not only have 2 days off a week, we'd probably have 7.

[MiniTheMinx]

Your full of shit Niceguy.

[niceguy2]

Really? Care to dispute any of the above?

[Tressy]

Yes please, I work 35 hours a week for not much more than this. I would cut my hours by half and feel rich. Doubt it would work though.

[MiniTheMinx]

why should I waste my time, if anyone hits you with anything that requires you to read and think, you ignore and pick up on a point that you find easy to counter with the same clap trap that you oft repeat ad infinitum.

[Tressy]

The economic boom during the Thatcher years and beyond was down to the banks, irresponsible lending, consumer credit etc. Built on and maybes. We are paying for it now and will be for some years to come.