Citizens wage

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Wed Mar 23, 2016 10:02 am

New Zealand could become one of the first developed countries to scrap benefits and introduce a basic citizensâ€™ income.Leader of the opposition Andrew Little said his Labour party was considering the idea as part of proposals to combat the "possibility of higher structural unemployment"..........................................................Other countries such as Finland and the Netherlands are due to launch similar programmes this year and Canada also recently debated the issue.

Post by **spot** » Wed Mar 23, 2016 10:39 am

It's the only measure I can think of that would eliminate the means-tested benefit poverty trap. It implies the abolition of the state pension too.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Wed Mar 23, 2016 3:39 pm

spot;1494013 wrote: It's the only measure I can think of that would eliminate the means-tested benefit poverty trap. It implies the abolition of the state pension too.

The current system subsidises low wages, this is just an extension of that, I can't get my head around how it would work.

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Thu Mar 24, 2016 8:00 am

It sounds to me like they're just talking about a remarketed version of Income Support.

Post by **spot** » Thu Mar 24, 2016 9:16 am

FourPart;1494049 wrote: It sounds to me like they're just talking about a remarketed version of Income Support.

It isn't, because it's not withdrawn if income rises. It's a base payment to every adult, employed or unemployed, below pension age. If it extended to death it could replace the state pension as well.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Thu Mar 24, 2016 1:53 pm

spot;1494059 wrote: It isn't, because it's not withdrawn if income rises. It's a base payment to every adult, employed or unemployed, below pension age. If it extended to death it could replace the state pension as well.

So do all the employers drop the level of starting wage rates because the government covers the basics ?

Who pays for it ?

Post by **spot** » Thu Mar 24, 2016 2:20 pm

Bruv;1494072 wrote: So do all the employers drop the level of starting wage rates because the government covers the basics ?

Who pays for it ?
It's paid through taxation.

I'm quite sure it will adjust what employers pay. I'm rather hoping it will put up the pay for stress-inducing and uncomfortable jobs like nursing and bin collection, and bring down the rates accountants get away with at the moment.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Fri Mar 25, 2016 3:07 am

spot;1494079 wrote: It's paid through taxation.

I'm quite sure it will adjust what employers pay. I'm rather hoping it will put up the pay for stress-inducing and uncomfortable jobs like nursing and bin collection, and bring down the rates accountants get away with at the moment.

But who do you tax to get the money - the individuals who are getting the payment or the businesses who also have to pay their workers?

One would hope that individual taxation would start from the level of the universal pay. One would also assume that there would be a move from direct taxation to indirect taxation so that you pay on the luxuries that you consume.

Where would you set the national living wage when everyone, theoretically, already gets a living wage in the universal credit? Would we go back to people working for pin money?

There are so many questions in how this would be implemented.

Snowfire · Post by **Snowfire** » Fri Mar 25, 2016 3:45 am

Bryn Mawr;1494102 wrote: But who do you tax to get the money - the individuals who are getting the payment or the businesses who also have to pay their workers?

One would hope that individual taxation would start from the level of the universal pay. One would also assume that there would be a move from direct taxation to indirect taxation so that you pay on the luxuries that you consume.

Where would you set the national living wage when everyone, theoretically, already gets a living wage in the universal credit? Would we go back to people working for pin money?

There are so many questions in how this would be implemented.

I did ask myself all those questions. While on the surface it sounds like a wonderful idea, there's a lot of questions to be asked. If the majority of people are still working for a living as usual for a decent salary, doesnt the citizens wage become valueless ?

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Fri Mar 25, 2016 6:46 am

Snowfire;1494105 wrote: I did ask myself all those questions. While on the surface it sounds like a wonderful idea, there's a lot of questions to be asked. If the majority of people are still working for a living as usual for a decent salary, doesnt the citizens wage become valueless ?

Not valueless as the value of such a scheme lies in the minority who are not in work. Either a society says devil take the hindmost or it provides a safety net for the poor - this is just another alternative form of safety net.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Fri Mar 25, 2016 7:18 am

If you start from the current situation where even the lowest paid have to pay tax/national insurance and the government pleads poverty all the time, how can the same government pay everybody.......and that is everybody........a wage they can live on,from the same kitty?

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Fri Mar 25, 2016 7:59 am

Bruv;1494112 wrote: If you start from the current situation where even the lowest paid have to pay tax/national insurance and the government pleads poverty all the time, how can the same government pay everybody.......and that is everybody........a wage they can live on,from the same kitty?

If your income is below Â£8,060 you don't pay national insurance and if your income is below Â£10,600 you, generally, don't pay income tax.

Post by **spot** » Fri Mar 25, 2016 8:38 am

Bruv;1494112 wrote: If you start from the current situation where even the lowest paid have to pay tax/national insurance and the government pleads poverty all the time, how can the same government pay everybody
It won't. It has different priorities. Change the government.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Fri Mar 25, 2016 10:27 am

Bryn Mawr;1494116 wrote: If your income is below Â£8,060 you don't pay national insurance and if your income is below Â£10,600 you, generally, don't pay income tax.

So they have to find over Â£200 for every working age individual per week, before reaping tax off the same people ?

The money saved on the scrapped Social Security Dept will help, but the ex-employees will need payment too.

My heads hurting.

spot;1494117 wrote: It won't. It has different priorities. Change the government.

Have never ever ever voted for the buggers

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Fri Mar 25, 2016 10:30 am

Bruv;1494122 wrote: So they have to find over Â£200 for every working age individual per week, before reaping tax off the same people ?

The money saved on the scrapped Social Security Dept will help, but the ex-employees will need payment too.

My heads hurting.

Have never ever ever voted for the buggers

Why should they find that amount - it would be far more likely that they'd set the universal credit level at the current unemployment benefit level

Post by **spot** » Fri Mar 25, 2016 11:31 am

Bruv;1494122 wrote: Have never ever ever voted for the buggersI voted for Ted Heath once but he lost.

patebon · Post by **patebon** » Fri Apr 15, 2016 10:17 am

has been bookmark, this seems like a very interesting thread

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Sat Apr 16, 2016 4:04 am

Of course, there is the other side of the coin. When you are already earning more than the Minimum Wage, albeit not by much, and everyone else gets a pay rise, due to legislation, and you don't, that may also be seen as a proportionate pay cut.

Snowfire · Post by **Snowfire** » Sat Apr 16, 2016 7:07 am

Ten Reasons to Support Basic Income - Basic Income UK

I'm becoming increasingly enthusiastic about this.

Post by **spot** » Sat Apr 16, 2016 7:15 am

There was a Guardian article this week, let me find it.

Should we scrap benefits and pay everyone Â£100 a week? | Politics | The Guardian

and I've put it as a founding principle on The Common People's website, under Income.

Snowfire · Post by **Snowfire** » Sat Apr 16, 2016 8:02 am

So with exception to the Green Party and the newly founded Common People's Party, who else is carrying or considering this as part of their manifesto ?

I'd like to see this pushed through as a priority. It seems to me to support a much fairer system than that which we struggle with now, especially since the Tories love a means test to end all means tests.

Unconditional, universal. No means testing. Paid for by the scrapping of all benefits and extra tax for those who wish to earn on top. Everyones a winner

Post by **spot** » Sat Apr 16, 2016 8:11 am

Not only is it a good policy but it ought to attract support across the nation as a whole. If you've ever felt inclined to stand for Parliament on a platform you feel strongly about, this would be a good moment to say so - The Common People is looking for candidates. The election's in 2020 but there's a lot of canvassing to do before then.

Snowfire · Post by **Snowfire** » Sat Apr 16, 2016 8:11 am

Something like Â£20 Billion pounds of benefits are unclaimed every year. There's a little start for the pot.

add these kind of figures to the mix..... UK welfare spending: how much does each benefit really cost? Visualised | News | The Guardian

The cost bureaucracy within the present system would be all but illiminated and the cost of which would be added

It makes sense. I waiting for someone to issue a BUT...

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sat Apr 16, 2016 1:32 pm

I expect there might be some unforeseen repercussions, just can't work out what they are.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sat Apr 16, 2016 1:33 pm

spot;1494682 wrote: There was a Guardian article this week, let me find it.

Should we scrap benefits and pay everyone Â£100 a week? | Politics | The Guardian

and I've put it as a founding principle on The Common People's website, under Income.

"For the purposes of this policy Milton Keynes is not a city."......................it that a joke ?

Post by **spot** » Sat Apr 16, 2016 1:36 pm

Bruv;1494691 wrote: I expect there might be some unforeseen repercussions, just can't work out what they are.

Michael Gove might emigrate?

Bruv;1494692 wrote: "For the purposes of this policy Milton Keynes is not a city."......................it that a joke ?

Not at all, no. A private car is a necessity in Milton Keynes because the place was designed to be uninhabitable without one - I know, I spent a year living there. Exclude it from city status and the general rule can stand.