Jump to content


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

Would you be in favour of Citizens Income  

50 members have voted

  1. 1. Would you be in favour of Citizens Income

    • Yes
      30
    • No
      20


Recommended Posts

shouldnt the welfare system be a means to an end, not just an end? I would hope that any future changes to the welfare system would make it apparent that the benefits system, in which ever form, is designed for a short term solution until the recipetant obtains gainful employment? with that, of course the genuine claimants should be catered for, but whichever path the benefits system does take, it should be to the advantage of the taxpayer and not the alternative to actually going to work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
shouldnt the welfare system be a means to an end, not just an end? I would hope that any future changes to the welfare system would make it apparent that the benefits system, in which ever form, is designed for a short term solution until the recipetant obtains gainful employment? with that, of course the genuine claimants should be catered for, but whichever path the benefits system does take, it should be to the advantage of the taxpayer and not the alternative to actually going to work.

 

What about people who, according to government Doctors, are unfit to work? I had to be signed off as "sick" before I could get a solitary penny, but I've been doing voluntary work for years, and have been told I can work a few hours a week in a paid job and keep my benefits if I only earn a small amount of wage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What about people who, according to government Doctors, are unfit to work? I had to be signed off as "sick" before I could get a solitary penny, but I've been doing voluntary work for years, and have been told I can work a few hours a week in a paid job and keep my benefits if I only earn a small amount of wage.

 

I did say that genuine claimants should be catered for rich, and im sure your circumstances warrant your benefits. your situation is a million miles away from the people who use unemployment as a way of life, with no intention of finding a job because the benefits pay more, ie, they may have several children or may have the good old bad back syndrome, which is sadly very hard for the medical profession to disprove.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
shouldnt the welfare system be a means to an end, not just an end? I would hope that any future changes to the welfare system would make it apparent that the benefits system, in which ever form, is designed for a short term solution until the recipetant obtains gainful employment? with that, of course the genuine claimants should be catered for, but whichever path the benefits system does take, it should be to the advantage of the taxpayer and not the alternative to actually going to work.

 

One of the big problems of our tax system is that people lower down the scale pay a bigger proportion of their meagre income in tax. It's stupidly unfair but successive governments have done nothing to help. The current government do at least understand the problem and are raising the tax thresholds that Brown had let fall. By handing back £200 a week to everyone it helps those at the bottom the most by effectively refunding some of the unfair taxes on the poor like VAT and Council Tax. So rather than look on it as a universal benefit perhaps it should be looked on as a tax refund.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One of the big problems of our tax system is that people lower down the scale pay a bigger proportion of their meagre income in tax. It's stupidly unfair but successive governments have done nothing to help. The current government do at least understand the problem and are raising the tax thresholds that Brown had let fall. By handing back £200 a week to everyone it helps those at the bottom the most by effectively refunding some of the unfair taxes on the poor like VAT and Council Tax. So rather than look on it as a universal benefit perhaps it should be looked on as a tax refund.

 

fair points jim, and no doubt your description of the tax burden on lower income taxpayers is very accurate, however my concern has always been that when a benefit outweighs the need to work, which does occur in a lot of cases, it is this that needs addressing as this is unfair on everybody and im sure that this system does grind on a lot of hardworking people who are only marginally better off working than someone who classes a girocheque as a wage packet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why would you have to increase the lower wages? Wouldn't they be happy with £200 CI plus £200 earned from their work?

 

You may be right because people always want more than they have.

But from a lazy man's perspective if I can survive on 200£ a week then why get out of bed?

You're looking at it like doing a grotty low paid job that I hate would be a means of topping up something that's perfectly adequate for survival.

 

 

If the 200£ was paid in vouchers for essentials, as I believe all benefits should be, then yes that would be awesome.

No more "unfit to work people" saving up ridiculous amounts of dla and ESA to jet off to benidorm for golf holidays.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fair points jim, and no doubt your description of the tax burden on lower income taxpayers is very accurate, however my concern has always been that when a benefit outweighs the need to work, which does occur in a lot of cases, it is this that needs addressing as this is unfair on everybody and im sure that this system does grind on a lot of hardworking people who are only marginally better off working than someone who classes a girocheque as a wage packet.

 

I see your point but I think this system gives the girochequers £200 instead of the giro. So they might only be £130 up on what they get now. Anyone working would be £200 better off wouldn't they? I know it's all complicated by tax credits but I think the idea is that this system would widen the differential between working and not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would prefer to see the amount cut in return for some taxes being abolished altogether. Council Tax is a scandal as it's a tax on a tax so I would get rid of that and I'd get rid of car tax and the TV licence (which is a tax) as these are all taxes unrelated to your ability to pay so they hurt the lowest paid the most. So let's scrap those taxes altogether and cut the amount down to say £160 a week.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would prefer to see the amount cut in return for some taxes being abolished altogether. Council Tax is a scandal as it's a tax on a tax so I would get rid of that and I'd get rid of car tax and the TV licence (which is a tax) as these are all taxes unrelated to your ability to pay so they hurt the lowest paid the most. So let's scrap those taxes altogether and cut the amount down to say £160 a week.

 

If our incomes are taxed then how many taxes are not taxes on taxed income?

Why not scrap taxes altogether and put duty on goods instead. That way we can choose where we want to spend tax.

Like in the Turks and Caicos islands where it's 5£ for a bottle of water :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If our incomes are taxed then how many taxes are not taxes on taxed income?

Why not scrap taxes altogether and put duty on goods instead. That way we can choose where we want to spend tax.

Like in the Turks and Caicos islands where it's 5£ for a bottle of water :)

 

Then the low paid end up paying an even bigger proportion of their income in tax. It was the Tories in the 80s who shifted the burden of taxation from income to expenditure because it is harder to avoid and it turned all businesses into unpaid tax collectors so it was cheaper to collect.

 

The problem is that it effectively put up taxes for the unemployed, the poor, the old, the young and the disabled. I expected Gordon Brown to change that but he didn't. In fact he made things even worse for the lowest paid by not raising tax thresholds by the rate of inflation so the people at the bottom ended up paying an even bigger proportion of their income in tax. And that's one reason Labour lost the election as their core voters deserted them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doesn't it just achieve the same thing as giving everyone £200 in the first place?

 

Similar, but not quite the same, a negative income tax rate would only give money to those who aren't earning, or aren't earning much, rather than £200 for everybody. I'd also keep some benefits, like DLA, Child Benefit & Pensions. I'd phase the new benefit out gently as you start earning, so people aren't penalised for doing small jobs, as long as they declare everything. It'd be a major reform of the tax & benefit system, but admin costs should be reduced overall, it should guarantee a minimum income for everybody, make sure that nobody is caught in a benefit trap where they make less money if they work & make the system more progressive.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax

Edited by anywebsite

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Then the low paid end up paying an even bigger proportion of their income in tax. It was the Tories in the 80s who shifted the burden of taxation from income to expenditure because it is harder to avoid and it turned all businesses into unpaid tax collectors so it was cheaper to collect.

 

The problem is that it effectively put up taxes for the unemployed, the poor, the old, the young and the disabled. I expected Gordon Brown to change that but he didn't. In fact he made things even worse for the lowest paid by not raising tax thresholds by the rate of inflation so the people at the bottom ended up paying an even bigger proportion of their income in tax. And that's one reason Labour lost the election as their core voters deserted them.

 

You're talking a lot of sense here. Certain taxes hit the poor more & take a higher proportion of the income of those that can least afford it, taxes like VAT & duties, TV licence. Income tax is one of the fairer more progressive taxes, but it should be made more so.

 

Labour did do a few little things to help, like the 10p rate, minimum wage, tax credits & the cut to 15% VAT, but not enough. The tax credits system seems complicated too, they'd probably have been better just raising allowances & introducing a new top rate. Even car tax was made a bit more progressive, by taxing bigger & more polluting cars more, taking some small cars out of paying car tax at all.

Edited by anywebsite

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.