Citizen's, or Basic Income

Crossed posts, dj

I suppose setting CI at JSA level it would mean that nobody is worse off.

I couldn't find the raw data for the CIT's claim and have given up, but I think I see where Ana's article is coming from.

A person with income below the tax threshold doesn't pay tax and some will receive tax credits. However, if the tax threshold is abolished along with tax credits, a person would have to pay tax on the CI.

There are two solutions:

1 Retain the tax threshold OR
2 Set the CI at a level to offset the tax which would have to be paid.

A great deal of research and modelling will need to be done, but I agree it has 'legs'. It's what the benefits system is supposed to do anyway: ensure that people have an absolute minimum, but reward work and enterprise. The trouble is that the whole system is so riddled with anomalies, unfairness and administrative cost that it's becoming unworkable and expensive. It's a shame IDS didn't adopt a CI as his 'mission' rather than Universal Credit.

What is needed now is a real commitment to the idea of a genuine safety net, which will have to go in tandem with action on tax havens, various anomalies in the tax and NI system itself, etc. It won't happen overnight, but it could be a reality in the not too distant future.

Maybe this links to your thread, dj, on the 'Tipping Point'. People who want to go back to the 1950s should maybe go a bit further and go back to the ideals and hopes of 1945. Hopefully we don't have to have a war or bloody revolution to make change happen.

The green party talks about the contribution point which is the point where the amount you pay in taxes is equal to your citizen's income. They reckoned it to be £13,000. So anyone earning up to that amount keeps it all. Over £13,000 you start to pay more in tax, so that's when you start contributing.

policy.greenparty.org.uk/assets/files/Policy%20files/Basic%20Income%20Consultation%20Paper.pdf

The green party consultation paper.

I think the idea of starting with a sum equivalent to JSA was just that - a starting point.

I agree it would have to be based on what people need, although this is of course debatable. The level of JSA is ridiculous and I defy anybody to live on it for long. I expect most people could survive for a couple of months, but not when the washing machine or boiler breaks or there's a fault in the wiring, which means there's no electricity or when a child needs a new pair of school shoes, etc.

Higher earners, who might have to pay the most, would also receive the money, which they would be able to save, so might even be better off too.

The current way of working out MIS, however, undermines the idea of a CI, because it looks at household income, whereas a CI would pay all individuals the same (maybe on an age-related sliding scale).

The big thing, as you've already written, is that millions possibly billions would be saved on the administration of means-testing and work programmes.

Something needs to happen, because the future is short-term contracts and zero contract hours and nobody needs a crystal ball to see that. A civilised society needs to accept that every citizen should have a minimum income. If somebody can then earn an extra £50 from doing a little job, they should be able to keep it rather than having it deducted from JSA, which is what happens at the moment. And woe betide anybody who is offered a week's work, because the claimant then has to come off JSA and start all over again - and ends up worse off anyway. Universal Credit is even worse in this respect.

What I am saying is that the basic income has to be based on what people/households need, not on the minimum wage, or on JSA which is designed to get people to look for work.

The most important task is to get rich people to realise that they would be living in a better society if it was a more equal society.
Why does Martin Sorrell think it's okay for him to be paid £63 million for a year's work when people who work for him are on minimum wage?
The societies that are happiest are those that are more equal.

Still can't find the raw data, but it seems the Greens are still in favour of the idea.

For those who don't freak out at links, especially to the Guardian, here's another one:

www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/13/should-we-scrap-benefits-and-pay-everyone-100-a-week-whether-they-work-or-not

It's a more recent article than the one you posted.

I think it has legs but someone with access to all the information would have to prepare to go into government and set it in place. The people on benefits cannot be any worse off initially: you would have to make sure of that but, as we said many of those would then be able to work - beit here only on zero hours contracts, knowing CI could not be taken away from them. Tax would always be set above the level of CI - which the current personal allowance would be. The more you got rid of means testing, sanctions and the edifice that pushes people into poverty the more we would save.

In a recent article in the New Statesman it says

" If we don't disconnect work and income, humans will have to compete more and more with computers, Bohmeyer explains. "This is a competition they will lose sooner than we think. the result will be mass unemployment," he says, "and no money left for consumption."

With this in mind, Bohmeyer began an experiment in anti-capitalism that has been more successful than he could have imagined. So far, 39 people, chosen at random from a pool of applicants, have received 1,000 a month through the scheme - and almost none has spent the year twiddling their thumbs. One quit his job at a call centre to retrain as a pre-school teacher; another found that the removal of daily stress about work and money cleared up his chronic illness. Others found fulfilling jobs, having given up on the prospect years earlier, and almost all have been sleeping better, worrying less and focusing more on family lift. What would society look like if that sort of freedom were available to everyone; if advances in technology and productivity could benefit not only the very rich, but all of us?

It sounds to me as if the NHS might benefit too

I'm still looking for it. I'd be interested in any further details, if anybody has them. The CIT is still all in favour, according to its website.

Well, all I know is that the Green Party backed off and didn't include the proposal in any detail in their manifesto. I'm sure someone else will have more information.

Ana, I'm not claiming that people haven't. I wasn't trying to sound 'oh woe is me' and I know very well that many people have been in a similar situation. For me, that makes it worse. If I were the only one, I'd just accept that life's a sh*t at times, but it really does get up my nose when people think that people 'on benefits' are shirkers and living the life of Riley at other people's expense. Most people grossly overestimate how much people 'on benefits get. In any case, work by the IFS shows that people tend not to be poor for most of their lives, but there are troughs and peaks. A proper NI system could be thought of as compulsory savings to cover the rough times. The IFS proposes that people get back any surplus when they retire.

I've been looking for the raw date from the Citizen's Income Trust, but can't find it on their website. I still don't see how the poorest could be poorer.

Dapnedill, re your post of 19.58, I know very well that the DWP only pays mortgage interest - I was in a very precarious position several years ago myself when I was made redundant and the Building Society I was with kept phoning me up and asking when I was going to find work..! I was a single mum and trying to keep afloat, yes, being on benefits can be very, very difficult. Many of us on here have gone through hard times in the past.

The biggest losers would be the providers of the dodgy (so-called) work programmes, which is probably why it won't happen. :-(

Ana, I agree with your last comment. MIS would be an aspirational amount, but not necessarily how much citizen's income would pay.

PS. To my comment about the Guardian article - I've just read a number of the comments under the article and many of them agree with me. I just don't see how the poorest would be poorer. I am one of them and I most certainly wouldn't be poorer.

That link just gives information about the Minimum Income Standard, nothing to do with any proposed Citizens' Income.

Ana, I survived on JSA for two years. 'Hard' isn't the word! I lost my house, because I couldn't afford the repayments. The DWP only pays mortgage interest. As my mortgage was almost repaid, I was repaying mainly capital, which the DWP wouldn't pay. Mortgage interest relief stops after two years anyway.

dj, I think the CIT is wrong. They are including the personal tax allowance in its calculations, which is a theoretical loss to the poorest, but the unemployed and lowest paid don't benefit from it anyway.

I have to admit I have a vested interest, because I would be much better off. My income is too low to pay tax (I'm in the lowest 10% of people) , but I'm not eligible for ANY benefits, because I have savings from when my house was repossessed and am forced to draw on those savings until they're gone. I don't benefit from any increase in the personal tax threshold, because I'm way below the threshold anyway - as are many people, especially women. I'd be delighted with an extra £70pw!

If the amount were set just a bit higher than the current average of JSA and the highest amount of child tax credit and child benefit, I don't see how anybody could be poorer. All the poorest would lose would be free school meals, which people in work don't get anyway, and free prescriptions, which most people don't use.

The 'spanner in the works' would be housing costs, which would have to be assessed on a regional basis. If the amount were averaged out, some people would be making a profit and others still not being able to afford anywhere.

One of the main points of the citizens income is that it is individual - not calculate on + child or as a couple. Where does it say "people earning over £100,000 would have to pay 60% tax, those over £150,000 would pay tax of 70%" please Jen?.

Bikergran has posted on another thread.

Required minimum income payments for the proposed citizen's income are
£192.59 for a single person
£301.74 for a couple
£275.59 for a single parent, 1 child
£158.74 for a single pensioner

There is a long list of categories.

It would mean that people earning over £100,000 would have to pay 60% tax, those over £150,000 would pay tax of 70%.

This is from www.minimumincomestandard.org

Yes I wonder how she is doing, she hasn't posted for a few weeks.

BTW we have a GN member who was having to survive on JSA due to personal circumstances. If the mortgage on her property hadn't already been paid of she'd have been in serious difficulties - of course it's hard!

www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jan/27/green-party-citizens-income-policy-hits-poor

This is one article that spells it out, Daphnedill. I wasn't just speculating.

Ana, How much do you think families 'on benefits' get? The bar wouldn't have to be set anywhere near as high as you think. A family with nobody working currently receives the most. As a rule of thumb, they receive approximately £70pw per person plus housing costs.

How do you think single, unemployed people survive? Maybe you can see why people who have had their SPA increased are annoyed, because there's very little work for unemployed people in their late 50s and 60s. They're very annoyed that they have to survive on £73.70 when people just a coupe of years older (if single) are guaranteed almost double from state pension and Pension Credit.

It's ironic that people say that it's not possible to survive on £70pw, when that's exactly what unemployed people have to do.