The case for £1000 p/m Universal Basic Income

[stevewinn]

20 hours ago, Setton said:

That's the thing though, the pension has to be paid as well as the benefit system. This would replace the benefit system so all funding for that could be redirected. That covers about half the cost. 

The rest can come from corporate tax rises. And before you say that'll scare off businesses, we should also overhaul minimum wage requirements, allowing companies to pay less. A little could also come from the fact that this would also replace pensions. So what were pension contributions can also go in the pot. 

Essentially, everyone earns the same overall as they do now. But there's the safety net that, if something unexpected happens, you're not going to find yourself unable to put food on the table.

Might not have been in this thread but the best analogy I've seen is everyone gets bread and water. If you want something on that bread and something else to drink, you'd better find a job. So rather than a tempting benefit system open to abuse, then only way to have a better life is to put the effort in.  

so we're taxing ourselves into prosperity now?

[Setton]

3 hours ago, stevewinn said:

so we're taxing ourselves into prosperity now?

Please, please read what I wrote. Where have I said anything about us paying more taxes? I specifically said we'd have the same take home income. 

[Aquila King]

So apparently a small town in California is gonna be experimenting on it:

 

[ethereal_scout]

I'm all for it. 

 

[stevewinn]

11 hours ago, ethereal_scout said:

I'm all for it. 

 

im not surprised who wouldn't be all for it, after all its 'free' money for some. when i say free i mean for the recipient but someone had to pay for it somewhere along the line and im still waiting for those to explain where the free money is coming from and what happens when the value of the money expires as in its value as market forces adjust for the extra money in the economy will the $1,000 a month be increased further. the answer as to be Yes, then were in a never ending cycle, because to withdraw the money would leave those recipients even poorer as the economy would have adjusted for the extra spending by consumers. and if we've all learned something prices always increase.  

Its a barmy idea.

 

 

[stevewinn]

On 14/03/2018 at 10:33 PM, Setton said:

Please, please read what I wrote. Where have I said anything about us paying more taxes? I specifically said we'd have the same take home income. 

I did, and i was correct you wanted to increase taxes, unless you think corporate taxes are not taxes. and what will businesses do if their corporate tax rate is increased? absorb the cost, not pay their shareholders, not on your nelly, they'll simply pass that increase on to their consumers, and whose the consumer you and i, which means prices will increase as a result of this policy and at the same time the sum of 'free' money is losing its introductory value and now where in a dilemma as the original purchasing power as decreased so those who it was meant to help are back where they started unless were going to increase the free payment each time? -

so when the scheme was first introduced to help it get off the ground you've increased Corporate tax rates, to compensate this you've lowered the minimum wage to reduce the effect on Business, you've raided the pension pot, and now its crunch time, the original £1,000 as lost its purchasing power so what happens now? do you do the same again? Do you introduce £2,000 free money, corporate taxes increased for a second time, minimum wage decreased yet further to stop Business leaving the country. pension pot raided again for whatever is left - so workers are now on a lower wage than when the scheme started, consumer prices have increased and as a result we'll all soon be on Bread and water, but the clincher is your Bread and Water analogy only works if the price of Bread and water doesn't increase and when it does your faced with the problem I've highlighted above. rinse and repeat and you've run out of money and your socialist policy as done what all socialist policies do in the end, that is - the equal sharing of misery. 

 

 

[Setton]

1 hour ago, stevewinn said:

I did, and i was correct you wanted to increase taxes, unless you think corporate taxes are not taxes. and what will businesses do if their corporate tax rate is increased? absorb the cost, not pay their shareholders, not on your nelly, they'll simply pass that increase on to their consumers, and whose the consumer you and i, which means prices will increase as a result of this policy and at the same time the sum of 'free' money is losing its introductory value and now where in a dilemma as the original purchasing power as decreased so those who it was meant to help are back where they started unless were going to increase the free payment each time? -

so when the scheme was first introduced to help it get off the ground you've increased Corporate tax rates, to compensate this you've lowered the minimum wage to reduce the effect on Business, you've raided the pension pot, and now its crunch time, the original £1,000 as lost its purchasing power so what happens now? do you do the same again? Do you introduce £2,000 free money, corporate taxes increased for a second time, minimum wage decreased yet further to stop Business leaving the country. pension pot raided again for whatever is left - so workers are now on a lower wage than when the scheme started, consumer prices have increased and as a result we'll all soon be on Bread and water, but the clincher is your Bread and Water analogy only works if the price of Bread and water doesn't increase and when it does your faced with the problem I've highlighted above. rinse and repeat and you've run out of money and your socialist policy as done what all socialist policies do in the end, that is - the equal sharing of misery. 

 

 

You haven't read it. 

I've explained about balancing the corporate tax increase. But if you're not even going to read a few short posts, I know I can't convince you to get on board a new idea. 

[stevewinn]

10 hours ago, Setton said:

You haven't read it. 

I've explained about balancing the corporate tax increase. But if you're not even going to read a few short posts, I know I can't convince you to get on board a new idea. 

Of course i've read your post, why dont you for clarity add a bit more detail and given a example how your going to balance corporate tax. use a few figures.

You make reference to:

increasing corporate tax.

Lowering the Minimum wage to prevent business leaving the country/ ie. losing jobs.

You've raided the pension pot, by combining it in with the universal payment.

you have failed to answer what happens when purchasing power of Universal income drops below its introductory level.

[ethereal_scout]

1) Food Grows

2) Money is printed.

The whole island can't be on tax because who is the original benefactor? In the good old days the Church was limited to a 10% tax cap on production called the tithe. Its all how the real products of production are spread through out society. Its the proverbial 2 Fish and 5 loaves. If all we produce is 2 fish and 5 loaves then that is all the can be spread around.  If we print more, tax doesn't increase, inflation does. If people turn up to a auction of 2 fish and 5 loaves with, say, double the money, all the happens is that the price doubles. That's what inflation is.

The Tax-Funded sector (aka the public sector) is the only section of society that can print its own real term pay rise, which pushes up inflation, which then begats another pay rise. The remainder of the island is on the same pay as they were after the date of metrification in the 1960's. 

You need to understand what food vouchers (aka money) is for. Its the means of redistributing to products of production to society as a whole. It works very simply, you give people money and they then 'pull' the food from the farm to their table. The person who ends up with all the money is the farmer or the original producer. The competitiveness of the productive sector is what keeps prices down.

So I'm for £1000 p/m for the non-working. At present Housing Benefit (unhelpfully labelled; should have been called "District Welfare") is set at £600 p/m.  

 

[aztek]

On 3/12/2018 at 2:53 AM, Grey Area said:

In cases of poverty the problem is not so much the amount of income it is the adult unable to prioritise the essentials, instead wasting their money on alcohol and cigs and media.

lol, is that politically correct way to say alcohol, cigs and hookers? who the F spends money on media??? 

[Grey Area]

1 hour ago, aztek said:

lol, is that politically correct way to say alcohol, cigs and hookers? who the F spends money on media??? 

I was thinking more along the lines of rediculously expensive phone contracts and tv packages etc.