Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
An old-y, but a good-y ...
Interesting to see how the Swiss vote on this goes:
but i would make the people earning like 25,000 + pay the 71 and also maybe make them do community service or litter picking
only skimmed article
thanks david camerons
ive no idea if it would lead to inflation in some bad way though?
dont think it could ever happen because people would get irrationally angry about it in principle
if you told them they had to do litter picking they would be angry but then if you said ok you don't have to do litter picking they would come round to the idea strsighg away
That way the taxman gets most of it back right away anyway.
On a more serious note - maybe if this was given out in one of those local currency things so people have to spend it "locally" etc etc ?
and how what the levels would be like in the future taking into account the aging population etc....Interesting idea though
until you add the the disabilities, housing and social protection budgets back in, at which point you're about £100bn out.
There is certainly something appealing about the idea though.
either from the Pirate Party or Renegade Economist, saying that a citizen's income of £7,000 per anum would be cheaper than the current welfare system.
that'd cost somewhere around £420bn pa against current welfare spending of around £260bn pa.
Housing and disability benefits?
Rough figures but if you got £70 JSA a week and £70 HB that would be about £7k a year.
If you put it in that context a lot of Tories might start to see the appeal - basically saying if you loose your job you still have enough money to live on it is just up to you to decide if it is spent on a hostel/basic room in shared house or staying with relatives etc.
It currently costs d balloon it up to around 20-25 times that figure.
It currently costs under £10bn pa (can't be arsed to look up the exact figure, but for some reason £4bn springs to mind). Giving £70pw to everyone would balloon it up to around £200bn or so.
But if it replaces the state pension then that would just about halve that wouldn't it? Would be pretty dire for people without any additional pension.
Would also reduce income support and have a big impact on families who rely on child benefit.
And how does replacing national insurance work?
And would housing benefit entitlement go up for those whose overall income is reduced? Maybe this is offset by those whose salaries are boosted?
Those questions aside I do think it's an interesting debate, I'm just not convinced that the welfare state is 'broken' for the reasons this assumes.
The problem you often encounter when discussing it with people is that they can't get their head around "just giving money away", as if it's really any different than a current welfare benefit or a tax rebate. But the concept freaks some people out, which would be the biggest obstacle.
£5k a year to every citizen is the sweet spot. Write it down
Is your real name Philippe Van Parijs?