"Citizens income"

[CheltenhamHacker]

So this really quite interesting article has been posted a few times on fb, and i'm interested to see what the esteemed economic experts of GM make of it! From my brief review, it does look like a really interesting proposal, but I'm sure there must be more downsides that aren't highlighted......

http://www.newstatesman.com/politic...come-71-week-person-would-make-britain-fairer

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Is that suggesting that everyone should be given money from the state ?

 

[CheltenhamHacker]

Is that suggesting that everyone should be given money from the state ?

Long and short of it, yes. Basically everyone gets the same amount, so no such thing as JSA or such like. Gives a proper incentive to work, as you wouldn't lose your benefit. And in practice, would no doubt find many people who don't need it could donate it/refuse it!

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Long and short of it, yes. Basically everyone gets the same amount, so no such thing as JSA or such like. Gives a proper incentive to work, as you wouldn't lose your benefit. And in practice, would no doubt find many people who don't need it could donate it/refuse it!

Or possibly defer it into a pension plan ?

Not sure about it tbh

 

[fundy]

Not gonna comment on its viability but would love to see the maths that makes it cost neutral to the current benefits system, either thats some very clever maths (ie lying) or the current benefits system is ridiculously bloated (and i expect the truth is somewhere between the 2)

 

[Fyldewhite]

Very interesting idea. It's taking non means tested benefit to the extreme I suppose. The savings in terms of bureaucracy and red tape are massive and would certainly be a better value spend. It doesn't address housing benefit though which is the biggest fault with the systems in place now. You hear about the family on £40,000 benefit but the Daily Mail doesn't mention that £25,000 of that is going to their (probably Daily Mail reading ) landlord. It's a fair system and certainly removes the benefit trap which is the biggest single factor in condemning people to benefits. It does treat everyone equally but I'd really question if it could ever be cost neutral.

 

[Birchy]

Sounds far too good to be true. The hard working person on the street doesn't get screwed on this system either so it wont happen.

 

[HomerJSimpson]

Interesting concept but would need to see more detailed figures and confirmation of where this capital is coming from and at what expense to other things (education, health or even defence budgets) and whether other things would need to increase to offset it.

From a selfish perspective I like the idea as it's a new set of C/F clubs and several pairs of FJ's per year!!!!!!!

 

[Val]

Not gonna comment on its viability but would love to see the maths that makes it cost neutral to the current benefits system, either thats some very clever maths (ie lying) or the current benefits system is ridiculously bloated (and i expect the truth is somewhere between the 2)

Im of this chain of thought

 

[BTatHome]

Concept is good, but benefit fraud would still exist as people would still try to claim multiple instances (same way people try to defraud the system currently by claiming for multiple children etc that don't exist). You'll never get rid of some of the overheads of a benefit system, and even if you did you'll end up making many people unemployed from the current departments that work in the system.

Swings and roundabouts, but great concept.

 

[Doon frae Troon]

I read about this in the Greens paper a while ago and initially dismissed it as 'pie in the sky'

Makes a bit of sense to me, well off pensioners will obviously pay back most of the 'extra benefit' to tax.
Only drawback is the Yes Minister question..........what about the thousands of existing benefit staff who will lose their jobs.