How about we scrap all benefits and replace it with Citizens Income?

[cardoor 10]

You wouldn't be worse off but you wouldn't be better off because of the reasons stated. This will never happen though so it's a mute question.

 

Also I said that it will always be the case that the poor will not get richer. Market forces, increased costs and a continuing lack of jobs will always see to that.

 

Just my view of course.

 

CI distribute the cost more fairly and would reduce the existing heavy disguised tax rates on the low paid.

 

Market forces would also determine the amount of CI.

 

Why wouldn't I be better off?

 

Where are these reasons you've stated?

[Expat owl 10]

CI distribute the cost more fairly and would reduce the existing heavy disguised tax rates on the low paid.

 

Market forces would also determine the amount of CI.

 

Why wouldn't I be better off?

 

Where are these reasons you've stated?

 

Post #19 - owing to extra money in peoples pockets, all costs for housing, food, etc would rise (supply & demand) thereby helping nobody and eventually leaving us exactly where we are today with £200 per week not being enough to live on.

[bigbadjohn 10]

So somebody with no job would get £200 per week and somebody earning £2000 per week would also get an extra £200 per week ????

 

If that's right it's the daftest thing I've ever heard !!!

 

On the contrary I belive this is an excellent idea everyone has the right to food & shelter.

[Expat owl 10]

On the contrary I belive this is an excellent idea everyone has the right to food & shelter.

 

Somebody on £2k per week can afford food & shelter without us giving them an extra £200 !!!!

[cardoor 10]

Post #19 - owing to extra money in peoples pockets, all costs for housing, food, etc would rise (supply & demand) thereby helping nobody and eventually leaving us exactly where we are today with £200 per week not being enough to live on.

 

CI would obviously have to rise with inflation, its not withdrawn as earnings rise, a large CI would mean that net income would rise steadily for the poorest families as earned income rises.

 

As stated even now in a deep recession its easily affordable at £200 just from beneifit expenditure alone.

 

Its the structure of CI which is important, its unconditionality, its non with drawability, and its payment to all individuals rather than to households.

 

Which is what makes CI attractive to many people from a variety of backgrounds and political outlooks.

[bigbadjohn 10]

Somebody on £2k per week can afford food & shelter without us giving them an extra £200 !!!!

 

What do you propose to do instead?

[Expat owl 10]

What do you propose to do instead?

 

Previously stated that I don't have a solution to an issue that has stumped hundreds of greater minds than me !!

[LeMaquis 10]

Post #19 - owing to extra money in peoples pockets, all costs for housing, food, etc would rise (supply & demand) thereby helping nobody and eventually leaving us exactly where we are today with £200 per week not being enough to live on.

 

Very over-simplistic, not to say completely wrong. Your argument is that more money in people's pockets won't help them because prices will go up relatively due to the laws of supply and demand. But compare the relative affluence of people today to, say, 60 years ago and people are far better off now materially.

 

As people get more money they spend it on things they couldn't buy before rather than than just on the same things they spent it on before but now at a higher price. Just compare people's material possessions now to what people had 20 years ago. Computers and the internet, for example.

[Expat owl 10]

Very over-simplistic, not to say completely wrong. Your argument is that more money in people's pockets won't help them because prices will go up relatively due to the laws of supply and demand. But compare the relative affluence of people today to, say, 60 years ago and people are far better off now materially.

 

As people get more money they spend it on things they couldn't buy before rather than than just on the same things they spent it on before but now at a higher price. Just compare people's material possessions now to what people had 20 years ago. Computers and the internet, for example.

 

Relatively speaking, people are better off materially today because of increased borrowings compared to 60 years ago.

Indeed even 30 years ago people did not borrow in the same manner as they do today.

Debt - the main reason people think we are better off than we were years ago !!

[Chris_Sleeps 10]

extra money in peoples pockets, all costs for housing, food, etc would rise (supply & demand) thereby helping nobody

How exactly would a £200 Citizens' Income increase the price of food?

Even if it did, supply and demand can equally be responsible for prices going down. More people buying more bread means more wheat is grown, and more bread is made.

 

Economics is a factor, but using it as an excuse to dismiss a larger idea is silly. Keep everything as it is, or take all benefits away; and supply and demand is equally a factor in what we pay.

[chem1st 10]

Won't happen, the Daily Fail readers can clamour for it all they want.

 

This is a good thread, the Daily Fail is totally opposed to CI. You should be supporting this!

[chem1st 10]

So somebody with no job would get £200 per week and somebody earning £2000 per week would also get an extra £200 per week ????

 

If that's right it's the daftest thing I've ever heard !!!

 

Suppose income taxes are 10%.

 

The man with £2000/per week would pay 200 in income taxes, and receive 200 in CI. It would for all intents and purposes be a 'negative income tax'.

 

In reality, income taxes are 20% (+12 NI) - they are 32% for the poorest.

 

However that doesn't take into account other things such as means tested benefits. And effective income taxes exceed 100% for the poorest of society, in particular the youths. (And they have done increasingly for a decade now - funnily enough youth unemployment has risen year on year every year for a decade!)

 

Lower taxes are good, and replacing benefits with a negative income tax instead, it is the way forwards.