Unconditional Basic Income as feminist topic

[VestalVirgin]

There's a thread on this topic in Aibu, but I think it is also a feminist issue. Giving every person a certain minimum sum (enough to live on) would be an important step towards the abolition of prostitution, among other things.

It would, of course, not affect the special snowflakes who are happy "sex workers", but it would mean that no woman has to work under inacceptable conditions - including, but not limited to prostitution.

Yes but why should I pay more tax to allow another woman to be paid for not working outside the home?

If women (or men) with partners choose not to work outside the home I don't understand why we are supposed to treat them as poor little things who are doing unpaid work for their husbands (partners) The unwaged partner and the waged partner presumably share the income?

Thing is though it's a choice to have kids.
Yes there's circumstances that are really unfortunate where a woman doesn't intend to get pregnant but on the whole people choose to have kids, so yes this capitalist world is crapproximately but if you can afford kids you shouldn't have them (obviously there will be exceptionsent as with everything )

I'm assuming this is talking aboutique women in UK where contraception is free and readily available

Without errors ....

Thing is though it's a choice to have kids.
Yes there's circumstances that are really unfortunate where a woman doesn't intend to get pregnant but on the whole people choose to have kids, so yes this capitalist world is crap but if you cant afford kids you shouldn't have them (obviously there will be exceptions as with everything )

And if this idea was put in place wouldn't it extend to any jobs people don't enjoy like waitressing / cleaner, anyone on min wage wouldn't bother working. Country would be a mess

I'm a not a big fan of 'wages for housework' - though I think the demand does raise the question of the social and economic value of women's unpaid labour (which is huge, and of course disproportionate unpaid domestic labour is done by loads of women who also do paid work).

I don't think saying 'having a children is a choice' really address the underlying question. Feminists often support, for example, subsidised childcare (and indeed, preschool childcare is massively subsidised, and arguably reception classes are also a form of childcare - there are plenty of objections to the necessity of formal education at age 4-5). Those things are paid for by 'society' - so the same argument can be made. Why should the (currently) childfree subsidise those with children. Lots of feminists will argue that this is a social good because it enables mothers to work outside the home being economically active, even if that activity is not socially useful. (That's a different but related argument about measuring the health of a society in terms of economic growth...in that model, the recent floods in the North West are a good thing because it will stimulate loads of economic activity. War is particularly fantastic - a double win because you can count the sales of arms and then all the reconstruction needs after the use of arms).

The end point of 'don't have children if you can't afford it' gets pretty messy.

"Thing is though it's a choice to have kids."

Isn't it more of a biological imperative? The invention of contraception may have given us the ability to have sex with no consequences but it hasn't taken away the desire to have children.

It's just unfortunate that our post-industrial revolution set up means that women have to go outside the home to earn their living as it's led to an either / or question for women.

So whilst I'm not saying "have lots of kids and live off the state" I do think it's harsh to tell women "If you can't afford to have kids then don't!" because the rules of that system have changed but the fundamental desire to have children hasn't.

Not read the other thread on this (haven't been around for ages a week)

I can't see this plan working in the uk. If you give everyone an income of £500 a month surely prices will rise to reflect that (housing etc).

Also I'm assuming an average (ish) earner such as myself won't really benefit from this. Yes I will get £500 back but I will pay more in taxes.

The purpose isn't to have average earners benefit from it though - it's right if it's neutral for the middle income group that is not currently in receipt of any benefits (actually, with tax credits and child benefit, I don't think that group is particularly large). The purpose (from a govt. point of view) would be to simplify the benefits system and arguably reduce the cost of administering it, as well as the stigma that attaches to claiming it (which puts off many who would qualify from claiming).

If this policy were to be brought in, and it applied to everyone in the country regardless of nationality (so no imported low paid workers), imagine how it would revolutionise society. The tough, dirty jobs like refuse collection, caring etc would have to be really well paid in order to get people to do them. There might be a new interpretation for 'vocational' jobs, such as doctors or lawyers who need to invest lots of time studying. You might end up with lots more volunteer work and collaboratives, e.g. community run fruit and veg growing

It sounds interesting but where is the money going to come from? I'm assuming this universal wage is coming from taxpayers.
So some people will need to pay a lot in taxes. They might not want to do that if it means a lot of people choose to work on their novel at home while someone else works a in typical job to pay for that.

at buffy

• sorry Buffy, laughing with you not at you. Think that last post looked a bit off.

I am very strongly in favour of a Universal Benefit system but on the following conditions:

a) all other benefits are removed including tax credits and state pension;

b) it is totally tax free regardless of what else you earn;

c) remove all minimum wage legislation

d) be set at a high enough level to support life at a basic level

It is a widely discussed idea amongst economists and would garner public support as everyone rich and poor would get it (eg like NHS care, family allowance and state education).

It would force employers to pay wages above minimum wage and stop the increasing prevalence of unpaid overtime and 'internships'. Employers would be forced to pay people enough to justify the effort of going to work NOT because the state forced people to work for nothing and then topped up low pay below a living wage level with a benefit or tax credit as happens now. In effect the current benefit and tax system subsidises employers.

It is not a feminist issue per se although women who tend to be in low paid and part time work would benefit more than men.

It's only ever going to be an academic debate isn't it. We have the crap government we always elect because generally, UK citizens don't want to pay a penny more income tax, no matter how productively it is spent.

The idea of paying more tax so that others can choose to write a novel instead of working is never, ever going to fly with a UK electorate.

Morris - that's the thing with a universal Benefit. Everyone gets it regardless so if someone chooses not to work that is their choice but their life will be very basic indeed. If someone chooses to work because it is worth the effort then that is their choice. No one is worse off.

Employers would have to pay higher wages just because people would not be forced to work to live.

Another aspect to this would be the job losses. The savings in administration would come from a reduced wage bill. Because you no longer need those staff.

These jobs cuts could potentially affect more women than men.

True Buffy. Plus basic life is a lot cheaper up North. Would you get different payments for different regions?

And this won't stop anyone who is a sex worker op. It'll be a job those who want to have extras and earn more will continue to do like all other service jobs that a portion of those who want to earn above this basic will continue to do.
It won't do anything to help controlled/forced sex work.

It might be a better idea to look at why basic life is slightly cheaper in the rest of the country than it is in the South East though. With new technologies and infrastructure upgrading there really is no need for all the money to be concentrated in a small enclave anymore.

It's actually not that much cheaper to live in the North by the way, yes housing is cheaper but then wages are also commensurately worse. Everything else is pretty much on a par with the South East with fewer opportunities.

However, it will take entrepreneurs of rare skill and vision to spread the wealth because presently they all drift south like sheep. And then blame the rest of the country for not being enterprising enough. Which is a bit galling really.

They might not want to do that if it means a lot of people choose to work on their novel at home while someone else works a in typical job to pay for that.

Well that seems the best argument against it !