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.

Laughing, are you suggesting then that most sex workers are so ensconced in the system of prostitution that by the time they are 18 they are beyond redemption?

An income of £500 per month would be a liveable wage in many parts of the UK. It would be freedom. Plus the NHS has an excellent service for those who are drug dependent.

One last question. Why would a 15/16 year old need drugs to be involved in sex work?

No one is suggesting a living wage for all. I think if you're already in receipt of DLA, you get the living wage on top of that.

A living wage as a base for all, is what I meant to say.

Argh basic income, not living wage.

Goes off to have a cup of tea!

Squidzin, I'm very pleased to hear it, I was wondering what had happened in the 'feminist' chat zone. No doubt you're tired of repeating the obvious if it's regular.
Noneed, Universal basic income is nothing like the current governments ill-named universal tax credits. It is truly universal - for everyone - and would not need to be claimed, it would be automatically dished out. No admin. No inequality. There is scope for an allowance for children. There will continue to be additional health needs, eg for drug users, that would be met from elsewhere ie the NHS.
As Managee says, I think the major question with it is that of inflation. There is a british economist in that video I linked who theorises that it could actually reduce inflation. Because as a local demand rises, someone would have the freedom to address and supply it. It would also then have the effect of boosting local economies, rather than continue forcing us all into this globalised race-to-the-bottom. I'm not quite convinced on this point myself, I don't know enough about economics.
The question of housing in this country is slightly separate, perhaps that tax on capital mentioned could include a tax on the multiple property owners who are, however much they hate to hear it on mumsnet, causing most of the problems in the UK: but a reduced London focus would benefit the rest of the country enormously.

That video I linked is really good, touches all the main points. I know it's long but it is well worth watching, honest guv.

Elendon - I think the OP was proposing a universal basic income. If it was means tested the iniquities of the scheme would be even worse, with a very divisive separation between those that qualify and those that don't. Applications for the wage would be subject to delay as administrators determined whether a particular individual qualified or not (just as happens today in the benefits system). And it would create a poverty trap for those who move into work and lose the universal wage as a result. All of which would leave us with a whole heap of problems. Nor would it address sex-work. Overall it's an idea which raises more questions than it solves, and has no real feminist relevance as far as I can see.

The feminist angle is that suddenly there would effectively a wage for that domestic work. Would it mean that parental responsibilities are shared more easily. Or would it mean that women would be expected to take the bulk of childcare again while men swan off to do whatever they like.

Oh, and Manatee's other point: "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?"

I don't see that that holds up. Having children is hard work. And it costs. The allowance for kids would be to supply the kids with their needs. There may be some bad parents who act as you say, taking the allowance away from their kids to supply their own, but why would there be more than now? Social services would be there as now to pick up the backlash of bad parenting - which often has its roots in the poor current socioeconomic structure of inequality which basic income would reduce. And most people provably do not act like that anyway.

NoTech - I think I have a more jaundiced view of humanity than you

And possibly it's reinforced by the current rhetoric from government and media about welfare scroungers. Or if you're working with those few on a daily basis. Here's a New Statesma summary on how DWP's own research, in 2013, shows how much of it is a myth.

If it adds any authenticity (though why it should I have no idea ) I come from a poor background, from a bad - though not gun-toting bad- area, with poor parenting that would nowadays be described as domestic violence. I know these people at the bottom as well as anyone, better than many. I know the pressures they operate under too. Remove those pressures, by creating flatter societies that they are not automatically banned from fully participating in, and lo and behold they are as worthwhile people as anyone else.

Basic universal income would of course lead to freedom, economically and socially. There is no doubt about it.

My worry would be that young people, especially women, entering the scheme would be kept at home in order to get the money from them. It would be couched in terms of creation of a family or some such nonsense.

However, it would lead to greater movement throughout the country and the ability to set up a home of one's own, either alone or in partnership with others. If this knowledge is known then, young people would take it up and run with it.

Obviously, the government would have to introduce rent caps to facilitate this. But that's not a problem. And could be easily passed.

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

The question of joint bank accounts often comes up on AIBU. I've never had a joint Bank account but the overwhelming concensus is marriage is a partnership and incomes, whether one or two are pooled. If a relationship doesn't work on that basis I'd say get out of it.

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

That really is rather offensive to non waged partners.

LassWiTheDelicateAir Sat 12-Dec-15 01:28:49
"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?"

'I have never understood why it is greed to want to keep the money you have earned but not greed to want to take somebody else's money.'
Thomas Sowell

That really is rather offensive to non waged partners.

The truth sometimes is. People should not have sex with people they are financially dependant on. That's why you don't sleep with your boss, and it is also why women shouldn't depend on their husbands financially.

Can you really not see how financial dependence, like any other kind of dependence, enables abuse?

I've never had a joint Bank account but the overwhelming concensus is marriage is a partnership and incomes, whether one or two are pooled. If a relationship doesn't work on that basis I'd say get out of it.

It is rather difficult to "get out of it" if you don't have your own bank account to begin with ...

The truth sometimes is. People should not have sex with people they are financially dependant on

By that logic my brother should stop having sex with his wife.

Dh and I are co dependent, we both need to work. Do we stop having sex until we can both fully function

Fully function independently (financially speaking).