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.

Morris I am not sure anyone (inside or outside the UK) would vote to pay more tax so someone can write a novel, where they have no choice or idea of whether the person is even literate. I might choose to buy the novel or fund someone through crowdsourcing, but that would be voluntary.

Public sector employees are overpaid in the North compared to the South, so they benefit - private sector less so.

Paying for childcare is a feminist position because it enables women to continue a career, stay self-sufficient and compete against men more fairly for promotion etc when children are older. Paying someone to stay at home does not achieve this.

The no strings part is interesting.

Being not capable of being engaged in paid employment ,which no reasonable person could object to supporting, is one thing.

Refusing to contribute to or engage with the society ( which is paying your universal benefit) in any way at all and/or actively doing harm is another.

Public sector employees are overpaid in the North compared to the South, so they benefit - private sector less so.

Or a better argument might be that public sector employees are underpaid in the south. Which would be the more correct way of putting it. Public sector employees otherwise would be living the life of riley in the North, which I can assure you they don't.

Paying large numbers of women poorly to look after children so that a few women can have careers given that the vast majority of people don't actually have careers, they just have jobs looks a bit elitist. Mostly because this type of thinking is elitist in is basest form. It also fails to recognise that, for large numbers of women, having children effectively prices them out of the job market.

I don't agree. I resent paying more tax so a stay at home mother can be paid for staying at home.

... which is more or less what we are doing in Germany. Or were doing, until the courts put an end to the "Herdprämie". (Hearth bribe - I don't even remember the actual name, the nickname is much more fitting)

The unconditional income would be given to everyone, not just stay at home mothers. You would pay more taxes to support a system that means your fall into unemployment would end in a nice safety net, not in a stressful system where you have to apply for benefits, prove you are worthy, etc.

I do understand the idea it would be paid to everyone ; someone in the thread introduced the idea this would mean wives who do unpaid work for their husbands would get paid.

I don't agree wives who don't work outside the home are not paid. They share in their partners' income. If a couple are not sharing their income it is not the responsibility of general tax payers to sort it out for them.

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.

I would love to see a small experiment-village or such. In the larger society, there would be a period of time when society changes to reflect the new monetary value of dirty jobs, and during that time, the streets would be dirty, and elderly people might not get appropriate care.

Maybe more jobs would have to be paid for directly by the government to ensure that the wages are high enough so that people still do it.

On the other hand, maybe not so much would change after all - those in need already get money, after all, and those who have jobs know that they could quit them and still not starve.
If those who are relying on their basic income alone would be vilified as lazy assholes, maybe the change would only be in the absolute worst of jobs, and a small raise of wages would be enough.

I don't agree wives who don't work outside the home are not paid. They share in their partners' income.

Which means that they are sleeping with their boss. There are several problems with that.

The problem could be solved if women never married and/or had children. Which would create a lot of other problems, but that wouldn't be the individual woman's problem.

On the other hand, maybe not so much would change after all - those in need already get money, after all, and those who have jobs know that they could quit them and still not starve

I don't think it would change much. If everyone got a universal income it would just about cover the basics. Most people would still feel the need to work so that they could afford a better life.
I think people would still do the tough dirty jobs for basic pay.

As others have mentioned, all that would happen is landlords would realise everyone has x amount more money every month so they'd raise rent. Then you'd have a shed load of people who no longer have access to the assistance they genuinely need. Awful idea.

This is a Green Party policy, and has been for years.

It's not that different to what we have now, if you consider it. People have a tax free band, so the tax that would otherwise be paid on that is their "free money" (currently about £2K pa). Then people on state pensions and benefits get paid their "free money" (£6K for state pension, for example).

It's a matter of even-ing up the amounts of free money received, which could easily be done by increasing taxes at the top.

Of course, the British don't like to do that. They tend to prefer to vote for a government that rewards the people with the kind of lifestyle they would like, rather than the lifestyle they actually have.

Ooh I have to rtft as this interests me, but here's a quick couple of info links for anyone interested. Firstly basic/ universal income is one of many possible solutions to all sorts of problems we are facing in the future of work and our economy, as the sheer amount of work available becomes reduced and much of what's left becomes insecure and lower paid. This is an older article from a blog I like that starts to ask some questions notesbrokensociety.wordpress.com/2014/09/07/hard-work-why-we-need-to-change-the-way-we-think-about-work-pay-and-benefits/

And here's a video (from a Belgian newssite) about basic income, which includes stories of initial tests deredactie.be/cm/vrtnieuws.english/videozone_ENG/1.2253270
Hope that's useful!

2nd attempt at clicky links

notesbrokensociety.wordpress.com/2014/09/07/hard-work-why-we-need-to-change-the-way-we-think-about-work-pay-and-benefits/

deredactie.be/cm/vrtnieuws.english/videozone_ENG/1.2253270

I don't see how a country could do this without 1) causing levels of inflation that would render the 'free' money worthless and 2) encouraging exactly the wrong kind of inward economic migration, ie of people who are mainly motivated by the prospect of handouts.

I think a policy like this would have all kinds of perverse unintended consequences. For example, would you be eligible for a new tranche of income for each child in a family? If so, you are basically incentivising people to reproduce: how do you prevent the perverse incentive for the laziest and least productive to have the most kids?

And if you don't hand out another tranche per child, then every household gets the same money per adult regardless of number of kids and there are no other benefits available because you've used the pot to give handouts to a load of people who don't need them as well. How is that going to make life any better for lone parents than things currently are? At least right now benefits can be tailored (however badly this works in practice) to different needs.

OTheH, I understand theoretical U credit is to each adult, regardless of numbers of dependents. But each child would get U credit on turning 16.

This would insentivise people to reproduce less, or reproduce more and work. (Which is opposite to our current system).

Totally agree though it would a magnet for "economic" (handout insentivised) migration.

Therefore it would never work unless implemented globally.

I'd like to take issue with this for starters "I don't agree wives who don't work outside the home are not paid. They share in their partners' income. If a couple are not sharing their income it is not the responsibility of general tax payers to sort it out for them."

The trouble is they don't fully share do they. They share in the take-home pay: so far that's right. But they don't share in the pension rights and other safety nets that regular working brings, and then if the husband's income is taken away, the women typically get nothing or very little. The work has been shared out, but the reward is not, and we nowadays live in a highly individualistic society which seems to be further than ever from recognising domestic work as real and valuable (hence the other derogatory comments about women as sahms).

But NoTech, Lass who posted that isn't feminist.

Sharing the remainder of your partner's incomes leaves you with no autonomy, no control, and leaves you vulnerable, and this is obvious to most feminists.

In my limited experience working with sex workers (I work in MH and have volunteered in a sex worker outreach programme). The sex workers I have supported weren't doing it due to 'simple' poverty, it was a complex situation of poverty, MH problems, previous abuse and substance misuse.

A basic payment from the government wouldn't make much of a difference. That basic payment wouldn't be enough and the need for more would always be there and for many of these women, sex work is the way to 'top up' any income they have.

If you have a substance misuse disorder (as many sex workers have), you always need more money.

The proposal seems very right wing to me. In some ways the current government is trying to move in this direction.

Benefits are currently means tested, but the proposed universal wage would not be. So a large family living on benefits would be forced into further poverty - precisely what the government is doing through benefit caps.

A universal wage would take no account of the cost of living in different parts of the country. So those on benefits in the more expensive south east would be forced to migrate to lower cost parts of the country. Again, this is a side effect of current housing benefit cap: forcible rehousing of the poorest in London boroughs to the Midlands.

The policy is aggressively right wing - striving gets everything, skiving gets nothing.

As for the sex-work point, the proposal would have no effect. The economics of prostitution are on a different scale - the hourly earnings are so far ahead of minimum wage that any sensible level of universal income would be inconsequential in comparison.

So laughing, you are saying that substance abuse, sexual abuse and sex work all starts before 18?

I would have thought a basic income on your 18th birthday would be a passport to freedom.

Noneed it would be phased in. I can't see many women having large families after this.

I like it. It's been deplored by the right as being way to left thinking.

I hope Switzerland vote it through.

OK so if kids don't get CI then isn't that pretty punitive to single-parent families? I also don't see that being very helpful to women with children trying to leave abusive relationships.

Noneed, It's absolutely not right-wing btw! Right wing advocates imperial capitalism, private ownership and no state. Universal Credit comes from the state. Right wing wants to abolish national transport, the NHS and all benefits.

To a degree though, Noneed I agree with you as you are taking into account our current positioning as a society, but moving it along "one notch" with U Credit, but nothing else changes. Cost of living, relative hourly wage in prostitution and costs of subsance abuse may not change at all.

What about the disabled? The £500 quoted is less than top rate PIP

Elendon - I said no such thing but as you suggested it, most of those issues do start before the age of 18. I guess that's the point you're making.

And as a result, a basic income at 18 isn't a passport to freedom.

When damaged, abused people have a drug habit costing up to (and beyond) a hundred pounds a day, a basic income of £500 per month won't touch it.