Citizen's, or Basic Income

I think you would get far less of the "shirkers" rhetoric. If they get no more than you do why complain.

I like the idea that it is very difficult to fiddle. I hope that means by rich people as well as those on benefits.

It seems there is a lot more chatter about this Jen so the idea will begin to get better understood hopefully.

www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2016/06/08/why-this-is-the-time-for-a-universal-basic-income/

Perhaps more people will be interested in this idea after the referendum. In the meantime here are more ideas about it.

basicincome.us11.list-manage.com/track/click?u=1ee7284968c494ec88c2f40c9&id=b33d613594&e=42f35f1694

Lots on here about the basic income, including the Swiss vote.

I like your example Jen. I always think of parents with primary residence. I know of those who have felt they had to make the better short-term decision and not work extra hours. With the unconditional nature of the Basic Income they can work as many hours as they need and can.

I am really pleased to see the Labour Party are seriously looking at this. It seems they are aiming for a much lower starting point than the Swiss scheme. They must start at a point to take out the first tranche of benefits whatever they do. This looks as if it is intended to take out JSA. I really believe this could fuel a new system as there should be a lot of savings on the admin side. Perhaps Job Centres could then really help people into work - all types. It always fascinates me that money enough not to work is not bad for the rich but just enough to feel secure is bad for the rest of us

I think it would take some getting used to and may lead to a different work pattern - more the inverted U shape that we need and not / as we have expected from start to retirement.

I am beginning to like what is coming out of John McDonnell's department very much

Is this an argument for basic income?

www.theguardian.com/society/2016/jun/05/docking-welfare-payments-is-not-incentive-to-work-report-claims

A scheme run by Oxford Council and the DWP found that for every £1 cut in benefits meant that claimants were 2% less likely to get a job. The scheme was funded by EU money.

www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/05/john-mcdonnell-labour-universal-basic-income-welfare-benefits-compass-report

I agree with that, Gracesgran. Not many out of work people do not want to work. The problem is that often they cannot get to where the work is, either physically or financially.

Last month there was a lot in the papers about an invisible army of older carers saving the nation £6 billion a year.
A basic income could mean that that burden would be shared with those who would like to help but cannot afford to because they still need to be looking for full time work according to the DWP. I am sure we would be a happier nation if there was less concern about finances, and more shared work.
I seem to recall Schumacher saying that work would be shared along with the money when more machines took over the work. It hasn't worked out like that, with the 1% taking much more than their share.
If nothing else, a basic income should get rid of the anachronism of being a very rich country with hundreds of foodbanks.

I think it will take a bit for people to understand how it would work and there will be a lot of right-wing angst about people not working. There is an article in this week's Economist and I was quite shocked at their stance - very puritanical. This is the beginning but it goes on in a very right wing stance imo.

"WORK is one of society’s most important institutions. It is the main mechanism through which spending power is allocated. It provides people with meaning, structure and identity. Yet work is a less generous, and less certain, provider of these benefits than it once was. Since 2000 economic growth across the rich world has failed to generate decent pay increases for most workers. Now there is growing fear of a more fundamental threat to the world of work: the possibility that new technologies, from machine learning to driverless cars, will cause havoc to employment."

I'm afraid I don't believe we live to work but that we work to live (where necessary). People - in my opinion - will not stop being usefully employed, in the full sense of the word, just because their basic needs are met and it is better than starving and the riots that would go with it.

Speak for yourself. And it's hardly likely.

Wow, that's decisive. Shame, though. Have to look to Finland now and Iceland, I think, to see if it works.
Now all we want is a similar vote for the Uk to remain in the EU.

Voted out by about 80% of voters.

The vote was this morning so the result will be interesting when it comes out. Been on duty all afternoon at our local Museum- must go and check the election results (and if I have be re-elected on the Council, lol)

I see the projections from the vote in Switzerland anticipate the proposal for a monthly basic income of £1,755 with children at about a quarter of that figure will be rejected. That sounds very high but perhaps not for Switzerland. A basic income of £1,000 would take many, many people out of benefits completely here - including pensioners.

Gracesgran, this is an interesting idea.

www.opendemocracy.net/transformation/max-harris/will-universal-basic-income-make-us-lonely

One of the statements is that it values unpaid work, e.g., carers and voluntary charity work. I do not see how that would make us lonely.

sciscomedia.co.uk/basic-income-guarantee-gains-popularity/

I don't think you are dreaming Jen. As far as I can see you may have to seed corn the first tranche of change but the savings should enable that same money to be pushed forward so each tranche should be pretty much self funding. Over time, with this giving more people the ability to work, (counter intuitive as a I have said but it is possible to see why) there should be a positive effect which would allow the base rate to rise.

The only complaint I can see would come from the capitalists and that is that it will allow people the same flexibility that businesses now have with zero hours and variable contracts.

I meant does it happen that the people can ask for a debate, and it be ignored.
MPs just say they have discussed it, but then do nothing even if there are over 200,000 asking for a proper debate.

Switzerland is tiny- about the size of London. (circa 8 million)

Not quite sure what you mean re 'does that happen in Switzerland?'

But if you read my 'copy and paste' - if a significant group of citizens signs a petition re a new proposed Law or amendment to the Constitution- it doesn't have to be discussed in Parliament- it has to go to the popular vote. Be it on education, health insurance, new roads, the army, immigration, whatever...

In Februara 2014- a vote to limit immigration was very narrowly voted in- putting the Swiss Government in real difficulty, as it is in direct opposition to the bilateral treaties with Europe- threatening jobs, imports and exports, massive research projects, and so much more - and pointing to the difficulties of direct democracy. A more recent intitative to automatically deport any foreigner after 2 criminal offences, even minor- without any legal representation- was rejected!

Not questioning you, Gracesgran; just musing.

There is enough money in the country. The government managed to print enough money to keep the banks afloat. Once they start with PQE and use basic income for a few months, it will surely pay for itself. People at the bottom end of the economic scale spend money because they have to. They do not have enough to save, despite Osborne's ridiculous promise of giving them 50% extra if they save over a year. That will not cost him anything because many on benefits cannot feed themselves, let alone save.
A basic income and PQE will kickstart the economy, start house building, get rid of homelessness, give those who are on benefits at the moment a sense of pride, as they will be given the same as anyone else and not have to beg for it.

Or am I dreaming again?

I'm not sure I said it would start at that level Jen; I don't know what is possible. I was just explaining how it would differ from a means tested benefit.

But it depends on what level it is set as.
The reason the Green Party faultered was because it was too low. JSA level is much too low for people to feel as if they are getting enough to live on. They will still have to get a 40 hour minimum wage job in order to survive, which means that if you do not have that job, you will still need benefits.
Will there be any advantage to it at that rate?

The whole point is that Citizen's/Basic income is:

- unconditional. You do not get it because you are unemployed, nor is it dependant on the money you have, you get it because you are a citizen and you go on getting it whether you are in or out of work.

- it is automatic. If you are a citizen you would get it paid weekly or monthly.

- it is not withdrawable. It is not means tested. If your income increased you would continue to get it.

- it is individual. You get it regardless of your partners income, etc. It does not depend on what a couple or a household has; everyone gets the same.

- It is a right of citizenship. Legal residents, subject to a minimum period and continuing citizenship through most of the year will receive it.

So bikergran you would be getting it before you became unemployed, while you were unemployed and when you were back in employment. You would not have to sign on or do anything else to get it.

I hear my name popped up

not much to add to the thread..but lurking around (waves)

talking about Jobseekers a great many people also do not realise that Jobseekers is a "taxable" income, hence when you get your personal allowance if you start work etc, then the amount of Jobseekers you have had over that last the period of time counts towards your personal allowance.as income lol ....just another little hurdle

Jobseekers/basic income what ever fancy name they will call it, in the end you will never win! you will never gain, they will find a way of taking anything above what "they" say you need to live on away from you, be it 2 pence or £2.