(Original post by TopHat)
Well, in the real world, people who are on benefits are considered "willing" to work, even if perhaps they aren't, the reason being seeking a job is compulsory whilst on benefits, so they do count as unemployed, even if they're only "technically" willing.
I personally don't see the problem with people choosing not to work and surviving from the Resident's Income, and I'm surprised anyone on the left would, when thinking about. You have to consider how TSR works. In real life, government revenue is raised by a wide and varied number of sources, but the largest are income tax and VAT. That means most of the money that goes towards benefits in real life is taken from those who have (probably) worked for it. That means, if people try to stay on benefits as long as possible, it is taking money from those who (probably) worked, to give to those who are definitely not and would prefer to avoid working if possible. Now, I agree, that's totally wrong. It's not a fair way of doing things, and in real life, those on benefits really should be forced to get a job where possible. That way, people who are genuinely in need can get provided for, but people who are working don't have to sustain people who just decide they want to contribute.
But, that's real life. Now consider TSR land. On TSR, the vast, vast majority of government revenue is raised from the LVT - land value tax. Our VAT is something like 5% (and I'd personally like to see it abolished), our income tax bands are some of the lowest in the world. TSR money is not raised from people working hard. It's raised from land. Now, every single person who is on the left should consider land communal property. How can anyone have a right to own land? Think about that. Why does anyone own land? Because a few thousand or hundred years ago, someone with bigger muscles and a bigger sword said "this is mine". How can anyone lay a claim to what exists independent of humans? You simply can't justify it. Land should be the collective, equal property of every man, woman and child. Marx believed that, Proudhon believed that, Hobhouse believed that, Lloyd George believed that. Even modern Labour figures express some interest in a Land Value Tax - it was part of Andy Burnham's leadership campaign. So why do we allow private ownership? It's because of a problem called the "tragedy of the commons", and also because allowing people to own land gives them incentive to improve it. However, on TSR, what we don't do is allow people to make unearned profits from land. So, that's where government revenue on TSR comes from. It doesn't come from taxing the working, it comes from the natural value of land.
As such, everyone is entitled to land. Every single person in the community is entitled to an equivalent share of the land value tax. Resident's Income is not paid uniquely to the unemployed. Every single person who lives in TSR land is paid the Resident's Income, not just the unemployed. The richest get it, the poorest get it. It is something you, as a member of the community, are entitled to. It is not a benefit. It is your right to share in the collective rewards of land. As such, if you want to do nothing, and simply live from the amount of money that provides, I am fine with that. That money hasn't been taking from the (probably working). It's not money taken from determined and persevering working class men trying to improve their situation. It's money that naturally belongs to the community anyway, and those who decide to live from it and not find employment don't get any more than anyone else does. If they want to do so, it is their choice - it really is their money.
But, even if you don't accept that argument, this Bill does not change whether people will choose not to go into employment or not. You've said:
How does repealing the minimum wage make people who choose not to go into employment better off? It doesn't. They don't get any more money than they did before. Repealing the minimum wage doesn't even encourage more people to voluntarily remove themselves from the labour market, if you think that is a bad thing (which I don't, and the left shouldn't). Repealing the minimum wage will hopefully actually get more people to work, as there will be more jobs on offer. If you really think that the Resident's Income was a bad idea (and given the idea actually originates with the left, and wasn't really picked up by Libertarians until afterwards, you shouldn't) then repeal the Welfare Bill. This bill is looking at something entirely different.