http://brightonregencylabourparty.blogspot.com/2005/08/citizens-income-ci.html

Comment.

[quote]Wouldn't everybody just stay at home, I hear you ask?[/quote]
uhm, yeah.

People would give up working cause they're lazy SOB's & then where is your tax money coming from?...nowhere except the rich people who are getting less rich (assuming they have businesses & hire local employees).

A tax return equal to the cost of living is ideal, but communistic, it won't work.

60.4 million people live in Britain, the L170 billion would give L3000 to 56.6 million.
20% of the population is under 16, why are they being paid anything at all, I suppose that amount would go to their parents to pay for clothing/food/school.


Sounds very idealistic to me, idealism doesn't work in our world.  Human instict is what sticks out & makes everyone look out for #1, why work when you don't have to?

I would work. Otherwise I'd be really bored. Also, £150 a week is a very small amount to live on - not nearly enough for most people, and certainly not enough for any kind of luxury. Even keeping a car on that income would be difficult. I think most people would work.

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=14021.msg143299#msg143299 date=1138318755]
I would work. Otherwise I'd be really bored. Also, £150 a week is a very small amount to live on - not nearly enough for most people, and certainly not enough for any kind of luxury. Even keeping a car on that income would be difficult. I think most people would work.
[/quote]
Any idea what the general amount of a welfare check is here in the US?
Mississippi averages less than $6000 & California averages $12,000.

There are still people here whom live of welfare alone.

I'm not sure how that equates to here - what's the basic cost of living in those places?

Either way, our welfare systems are not very similar. Yours appears to be quite broken and horribly abused. Ours is abused like any other, but rarely to that extent.

I'll break down £150/wk so we can try to compare the cost of living:

Rent:      £80/wk (for a very cheap nasty place)
Food:      £20/wk
Utilities:  £15/wk

You can see that after that, there's very little left for anything else. Certainly not enough for most of the things that people consider normal: car, net connection, nights out, etc.

Hmm, the $6k in Mississippi would probably be something like...:
$400 rent (small apartment)
$300 for utilities (that's a very iffy estimate)
$400 for food

All figures are +/- a bit more, but that is still enough to live & such I believe.

Per month or per week? Either way, that amount of welfare is obviously significantly more than is necessary to live.

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=14021.msg143418#msg143418 date=1138389294]
Per month or per week? Either way, that amount of welfare is obviously significantly more than is necessary to live.
[/quote]My figures are monthly

I think it sounds like a good idea. Complex tax regulations and benefits etc are improductive. Any way to reduce bureaucracy is good.

But still, what happens when people stop working & then stop paying taxes?

This is the stupidest idea ever. Where's my incentive to be an entrepreneur?

In answer to both of you:

£150/wk is barely enough to live on. All but the laziest of people will work anyway -- in order to be able to live a comfortable life -- and the people who are too lazy even for that would probably not be working even under the current system.

The article says 3000 for every man woman & child, thats like 250 a month.  The children's 'income' could go to pay for food & such too.

If they cut back on the child's pay (which can still contribute to pay for food & such) the person would be receiving 625 a month.
I'm sure a family of 3 could live on 1533 a month.

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=14021.msg143590#msg143590 date=1138489982]
In answer to both of you:

£150/wk is barely enough to live on. All but the laziest of people will work anyway -- in order to be able to live a comfortable life -- and the people who are too lazy even for that would probably not be working even under the current system.
[/quote]

Still, at 40% taxes, I have no incentive to start a business.

Most business owners here already pay around 40% tax. Margin on additional income is up to 55% for those who make enough money. Plus, VAT is 25% on most things; not on food/newspapers.

[quote author=CrAz3D]
I'm sure a family of 3 could live on 1533 a month.
[/quote]

Yes. That's the whole point. To provide a basic living income. It is not, however, enough for most people to sustain a comfortable lifestyle.

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=14021.msg143655#msg143655 date=1138546916]
[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=14021.msg143594#msg143594 date=
I'm sure a family of 3 could live on 1533 a month.
[quote][/quote]

Yes. That's the whole point. To provide a basic living income. It is not, however, enough for most people to sustain a comfortable lifestyle.
[/quote]

You got served by the quote tags.

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=14021.msg143655#msg143655 date=1138546916]
[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=14021.msg143594#msg143594 date=
I'm sure a family of 3 could live on 1533 a month.
[quote][/quote]

Yes. That's the whole point. To provide a basic living income. It is not, however, enough for most people to sustain a comfortable lifestyle.
[/quote]
If you can live why actually work to make more just to have more stuff?
Maybe they're more intouch with buddhism or somethiing

I foresee mountains of abuse and (more) unemployment.

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=14021.msg143687#msg143687 date=1138564229]
If you can live why actually work to make more just to have more stuff?
Maybe they're more intouch with buddhism or somethiing
[/quote]

I don't know if you've ever been poor, so I'll let you know, from my own experience, that it's unpleasant. Some people are, of course, lazy, but most have a good enough work ethic that they'd rather work than be poor. Being poor sucks.


[quote author=Topaz link=topic=14021.msg143879#msg143879 date=1138692290]
I foresee mountains of abuse and (more) unemployment.
[/quote]

Abuse? How?

We currently live a few thousand dollars below poverty, but this is only for a few years while my dad is in school.
Stuff has been tight, but we've never been poor.

But still, if people don't think they need to live beyond their means then $1500 a month is plenty.
$6k a month, like in Mississippi, is quite excessive, its mroe than our family combined monthly income is currently.

Mississippi doesn't give out $6,000 a month in welfare, they have one of the worst welfare systems in the country.  I am not sure how much they give out, but it would be more around 1,000 a month.

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=14021.msg143898#msg143898 date=1138720682]
We currently live a few thousand dollars below poverty, but this is only for a few years while my dad is in school.
Stuff has been tight, but we've never been poor.
[/quote]

So people who live below the poverty line, are not poor. I guess that clears up a lot of things you have been saying on these forums.

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=14021.msg143898#msg143898 date=1138720682]
But still, if people don't think they need to live beyond their means then $1500 a month is plenty.
$6k a month, like in Mississippi, is quite excessive, its mroe than our family combined monthly income is currently.
[/quote]

I call bullshit. I highly doubt people on TANF in Mississippi receive $6000 a month. It's probably more like $6000 a year.

Someone needs to find some evidence!

I somewhere confused myself & went from yearly to monthly.

It was less than $6000 yearly in 1995.
That is the same article I was looking at previously.

Now with corrected figures I can see living on $500 a month rather tight, but still workable if you do it right.  (I'll find more numbers & show them if I can find them all)


New Mexico Welfare Info:
$4712/year ($392.67/month)
Poverty level is like $13,798
Average percapita income in Dona Ana County is $13,999
So basic welfare is $10k a year less than poverty line/average income of Dona Ana County.

$392 monthy could be divided to*
-$200/mo for an apartment (with water)
-$40/mo electricity
-leaving $152 for food ($5 a day)

You don't need anything else, still livable, especially if you cram a few more people in that apartment all "making" same amount paying for the same apartment/utilities.

Now, if you implement this with some drug dealing (homemade meth is common here & as is pot running) you have a "decent life".



*NOTE:
Prices are from experience, not something I saw online.

I think this proposal is very silly for the following reasons.  More generally, I think it indirectly advocates "need-blind" giving, which really is not an effective way to help the most people given a certain amount of money to spend.

1) First off, it assumes that most people (> 95%?) will keep working -- this is a very risky assumption.  Regardless of what heuristically pleasing argument you may come up with for why people would still work, what if they didn't?  What if this were implemented and a quarter of the population decided just to be completely lazy?  What then? I don't think the chances of this happening are so negligable that it shouldn't be considered, and if it did happen, a great deal of money would have been wasted in "testing" this.

2) They say that the increased tax will take more money away from high earners than they are receiving with this "living allowance," therefore people in need are being helped.  This is ridiculous.  What about inherited wealth?  What about retired millionaires?  Should those earning lower wages (assuming that they work at all) (and remember, they could be much lower wages -- e.g. no minimum wage) be giving a considerable amount of their earnings away to people who don't need the money at all?

3) Also, if this were implemented it seems that individual situations won't be considered when giving away this "living allowance."  In almost all cases, this is bad, whether it has to do with giving out welfare, or looking at a university transcript; let's say you're hiring a student for an academic position based on grades.  If an applicant has a cumulative average of C+, and in his last two years of schooling has an average of A-, and another applicant has a cumulative average of B (which is the same as his average every year), would you just hire the applicant with the highest cumulative average?  I should hope that you would think about each situation separately and come to an intelligent decision about who is more capable.  Similarly, if a woman's husband dies, and she has 12 kids to look after and is also pregnant, should she be given the same allowance as a wealthy retired business owner?  Obviously not, even if the ridiculous stipend would cover her expenses.

I can't believe you're for this!

I'll respond in detail to your post later, but I just wanted to get this onto the record: I'm neither for nor against this! I'm making up my mind. I just wondered what other people think about it.

[quote]
The government spends around £500 billion every year, around £170 billion of this is spent on social protection and associated bureaucracy. Why not turn this into a universal payment, (like child benefit), but to everyone. This works out nearly £3000 for every man, woman and child in the country.
[/quote]

Why not just do an across-the-board tax cut and cut those programs?

Also, what if they abuse this cash (i.e. drug addicts buying drugs rather than receiving food stamps)?

Undoubtedly there will ahve to be new programs to distribute the monies, keep track of people, more buearacrcy

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=14021.msg144032#msg144032 date=1138756009]
I'll respond in detail to your post later
[/quote]

;)

Sorry :P

Well, like I said, I'm still on the fence really. I haven't decided. I'll play devil's advocate for a moment, however:

[quote author=Rule link=topic=14021.msg144001#msg144001 date=1138750397]
1) First off, it assumes that most people (> 95%?) will keep working -- this is a very risky assumption.  Regardless of what heuristically pleasing argument you may come up with for why people would still work, what if they didn't?  What if this were implemented and a quarter of the population decided just to be completely lazy?  What then? I don't think the chances of this happening are so negligable that it shouldn't be considered, and if it did happen, a great deal of money would have been wasted in "testing" this.
[/quote]

The proposed amount for the CI is barely enough to scrape a very boring and meagre living. One could not, for example, afford to run a car, go on holiday, or purchase pretty much any luxuries. Think ramen noodles. I concede that some people might work less, but I think that practically no one would stop working all together. For the huge majority, work would still be necessary to meet their financial obligations.

Nonetheless, I suppose the 'what if' argument should still be addressed. I don't really know the answer to that point. We need an economist :)


[quote author=Rule link=topic=14021.msg144001#msg144001 date=1138750397]
Should those earning lower wages ... be giving a considerable amount of their earnings away to people who don't need the money at all?
[/quote]

Well, that depends on your definition of need. I think a a proponent of wealth distribution would say that the benefit of a CI is primarily to society, rather than to the individual. As detailed here, it could solve several very difficult problems.


[quote author=Rule link=topic=14021.msg144001#msg144001 date=1138750397]
Similarly, if a woman's husband dies, and she has 12 kids to look after and is also pregnant, should she be given the same allowance as a wealthy retired business owner?  Obviously not, even if the ridiculous stipend would cover her expenses.
[/quote]

Well, the 12 kids would also qualify for a CI (albeit, a smaller one). So, the larger family would get more.

I'm leaning towards the 'bad idea' camp, but I'm still undecided, really. I haven't found anyone to converse who thinks it's a good idea, yet :)

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=14021.msg145808#msg145808 date=1139836742]
Sorry :P

Well, like I said, I'm still on the fence really. I haven't decided. I'll play devil's advocate for a moment, however:

[quote author=Rule link=topic=14021.msg144001#msg144001 date=1138750397]
1) First off, it assumes that most people (> 95%?) will keep working -- this is a very risky assumption.  Regardless of what heuristically pleasing argument you may come up with for why people would still work, what if they didn't?  What if this were implemented and a quarter of the population decided just to be completely lazy?  What then? I don't think the chances of this happening are so negligable that it shouldn't be considered, and if it did happen, a great deal of money would have been wasted in "testing" this.
[/quote]

The proposed amount for the CI is barely enough to scrape a very boring and meagre living. One could not, for example, afford to run a car, go on holiday, or purchase pretty much any luxuries. Think ramen noodles. I concede that some people might work less, but I think that practically no one would stop working all together. For the huge majority, work would still be necessary to meet their financial obligations.

[/quote]

Yes, I know all of this.  I agree, most people would probably continue working, but some wouldn't for sure.  And I don' t think either of us are qualified to make a good estimate of how many people would start working or work less; however, if many did stop working, the risk might be too high to give it a try: e.g. think of a game where 10 people invest in $20000, and 1 out of the ten loses it all.  That money is distributed to the remaining 9 people (lets say $10000 is kept for profit from the organizer).  So there is a 90% chance of winning ~$1111 if you play.  So chances are you will win on an individual play, but if you play "an infinite" number of times, your net loss will be ~$10000.  Hence, playing is still a risk.  This is called Rule's game, and it is going to make me rich  8).  What was I talking about again?  Oh yes :P, while the chances of success may be high and playing may look like a good idea the consequences of failure may be dire.

This rambling example flows quite well into my next point: what if people abused the system  :o?  Who am I kidding, knowing people, if there's a way to dishonestly coast through life, they'll jump on the opportunity by the masses.

You provide quite an excellent example of how this could be done:
(you fell into my trap :P)
[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=14021.msg145808#msg145808 date=1139836742]
Well, the 12 kids would also qualify for a CI (albeit, a smaller one). So, the larger family would get more.
[/quote]

Hmm.....  I'm sure if someone had 12 children they could pool their CIs and have quite a comfortable living arrangement.        (1)

In considering examples like this of how the system could be abused, dangers to society beyond laziness emerge --
1) People could become more abusive (in example 1, a parent may be more inclined to let his children live off cat food)
2) In example (1), the entire dynamics of our society could change (there could be population problems, and a disproportionatly large "lower class"?)



[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=14021.msg145808#msg145808 date=1139836742]
Well, that depends on your definition of need. I think a a proponent of wealth distribution would say that the benefit of a CI is primarily to society, rather than to the individual.
[/quote]

Interesting point.  I suppose I don't see how society benefits more from having everyone receiving some allowance (even retired millionaires), than more money going to groups directly in need.


I've only had 2 hours of sleep, which might explain the lovely assortment of emoticons scattered throughout my post.