Should we scrap benefits and pay everyone £100 a week?
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/13/should-we-scrap-benefits-and-pay-everyone-100-a-week-whether-they-work-or-not?CMP=fb_gu
forgive me for being an avid Guardian reader.
Really interesting article and I find myself inclined to agree that it could be a fantastic idea (although I'm sure it'll get shredded in the comments). Universal basic income can stimulate growth in poorer areas, allow people to have a chance of a more dignified living. It would help to bring down birth rates among those who cannot feasibly afford to care for their family without going to work. I actually think it would increase employment too as it would allow people to seek further education without having to sacrifice economic agency which, as there is a declining amount of low-skill work in Britain, would help us make a shift further into the services sector. It would do wonders in advancing social mobility. Granted it could be seen as quite devisive, but I think UBI has elements which could appeal to all parts of the political spectrum.
forgive me for being an avid Guardian reader.
Really interesting article and I find myself inclined to agree that it could be a fantastic idea (although I'm sure it'll get shredded in the comments). Universal basic income can stimulate growth in poorer areas, allow people to have a chance of a more dignified living. It would help to bring down birth rates among those who cannot feasibly afford to care for their family without going to work. I actually think it would increase employment too as it would allow people to seek further education without having to sacrifice economic agency which, as there is a declining amount of low-skill work in Britain, would help us make a shift further into the services sector. It would do wonders in advancing social mobility. Granted it could be seen as quite devisive, but I think UBI has elements which could appeal to all parts of the political spectrum.
Scroll to see replies
Normally I'd disregard this kind of thing as lefties being lefties, but I'll bite and take this on...
Economics, when heavily simplified, is supply/demand. When something is in demand it is worth more than something in supply. This is also, at a very simple level, how currency value is calculated. It is a common argument among the left that the rich owning a disproportionate amount of wealth compared to the rest of us is an unjustifiable evil that is causing the very downfall of civilisation as we know it. In reality it's more of a necessary evil as it keeps a large amount of money from circulation and therefore raises the value of the currency.
Now onto the subject of universal income. Firstly, I'm going to make an assumption that you support taxing the rich to fund this and I will base this entire explanation on this premise so keep that in mind. The population of the UK is somewhere between 64-65 million people, so to fund this we'd need at a minimum £6400000000 a week, which in a year is £332800000000. All of which will be put into circulation, this ties into why its a bad idea to print more money, as more money in circulation means less value per pound. So the extra 100 may not actually be as useful as you'd initially think.
I'd go further but I need to get on with my lesson, perhaps later I'll add more to this if people have any questions.
Economics, when heavily simplified, is supply/demand. When something is in demand it is worth more than something in supply. This is also, at a very simple level, how currency value is calculated. It is a common argument among the left that the rich owning a disproportionate amount of wealth compared to the rest of us is an unjustifiable evil that is causing the very downfall of civilisation as we know it. In reality it's more of a necessary evil as it keeps a large amount of money from circulation and therefore raises the value of the currency.
Now onto the subject of universal income. Firstly, I'm going to make an assumption that you support taxing the rich to fund this and I will base this entire explanation on this premise so keep that in mind. The population of the UK is somewhere between 64-65 million people, so to fund this we'd need at a minimum £6400000000 a week, which in a year is £332800000000. All of which will be put into circulation, this ties into why its a bad idea to print more money, as more money in circulation means less value per pound. So the extra 100 may not actually be as useful as you'd initially think.
I'd go further but I need to get on with my lesson, perhaps later I'll add more to this if people have any questions.
Original post by Xelfrost
Normally I'd disregard this kind of thing as lefties being lefties, but I'll bite and take this on...
Economics, when heavily simplified, is supply/demand. When something is in demand it is worth more than something in supply. This is also, at a very simple level, how currency value is calculated. It is a common argument among the left that the rich owning a disproportionate amount of wealth compared to the rest of us is an unjustifiable evil that is causing the very downfall of civilisation as we know it. In reality it's more of a necessary evil as it keeps a large amount of money from circulation and therefore raises the value of the currency.
Now onto the subject of universal income. Firstly, I'm going to make an assumption that you support taxing the rich to fund this and I will base this entire explanation on this premise so keep that in mind. The population of the UK is somewhere between 64-65 million people, so to fund this we'd need at a minimum £6400000000 a week, which in a year is £332800000000. All of which will be put into circulation, this ties into why its a bad idea to print more money, as more money in circulation means less value per pound. So the extra 100 may not actually be as useful as you'd initially think.
I'd go further but I need to get on with my lesson, perhaps later I'll add more to this if people have any questions.
Economics, when heavily simplified, is supply/demand. When something is in demand it is worth more than something in supply. This is also, at a very simple level, how currency value is calculated. It is a common argument among the left that the rich owning a disproportionate amount of wealth compared to the rest of us is an unjustifiable evil that is causing the very downfall of civilisation as we know it. In reality it's more of a necessary evil as it keeps a large amount of money from circulation and therefore raises the value of the currency.
Now onto the subject of universal income. Firstly, I'm going to make an assumption that you support taxing the rich to fund this and I will base this entire explanation on this premise so keep that in mind. The population of the UK is somewhere between 64-65 million people, so to fund this we'd need at a minimum £6400000000 a week, which in a year is £332800000000. All of which will be put into circulation, this ties into why its a bad idea to print more money, as more money in circulation means less value per pound. So the extra 100 may not actually be as useful as you'd initially think.
I'd go further but I need to get on with my lesson, perhaps later I'll add more to this if people have any questions.
Alright, good point. Im not an economist as you might expect but ill attempt to respond.
I dont know if you read the article but the title is somewhat exacerbated. I was referring to the model used by the Netherlands and by Dutch towns and cities, where its only given to benefits claimants or those earning below a certain income level. So that would slice your 64million statistic, even though it would only be applied to adults so that should have been 61million.
Regardless, lets stick to the exacerbated title cos im not sure the problem you highlighted works. UK currently pays about 694.88 billion pounds per year in welfare to claimants anyway. I could be incorrect, but even if every adult (or indeed every person as you used to reach your statistic) were to recieve this UBI wouldnt the number you quoted (i read it as 332.8billion but its hard to count all those 0s!) be significantly lower than the current payments anyway?
(edited 8 years ago)
I feel it might not be the best idea, but being my age and still doing exams, I'd love getting £100 a week, obviously I'd be biased.
Original post by Dinasaurus
I feel it might not be the best idea, but being my age and still doing exams, I'd love getting £100 a week, obviously I'd be biased.
Lol same. All the stuff i could buy
Original post by picklescamp
I was referring to the model used by the Netherlands and by Dutch towns and cities, where its only given to benefits claimants or those earning below a certain income level. So that would slice your 64million statistic, even though it would only be applied to adults so that should have been 61million
Therein lies the issue. Who decides the threshold? What about disagreements? If they're getting benefits already, what does this really change? Some people will end up getting less, what happens to them then?
Too many people - on both sides - would find flaws and consequently it would gain little agreement. It would not get through parliament.
Original post by picklescamp
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/13/should-we-scrap-benefits-and-pay-everyone-100-a-week-whether-they-work-or-not?CMP=fb_gu
forgive me for being an avid Guardian reader.
Really interesting article and I find myself inclined to agree that it could be a fantastic idea (although I'm sure it'll get shredded in the comments). Universal basic income can stimulate growth in poorer areas, allow people to have a chance of a more dignified living. It would help to bring down birth rates among those who cannot feasibly afford to care for their family without going to work. I actually think it would increase employment too as it would allow people to seek further education without having to sacrifice economic agency which, as there is a declining amount of low-skill work in Britain, would help us make a shift further into the services sector. It would do wonders in advancing social mobility. Granted it could be seen as quite devisive, but I think UBI has elements which could appeal to all parts of the political spectrum.
forgive me for being an avid Guardian reader.
Really interesting article and I find myself inclined to agree that it could be a fantastic idea (although I'm sure it'll get shredded in the comments). Universal basic income can stimulate growth in poorer areas, allow people to have a chance of a more dignified living. It would help to bring down birth rates among those who cannot feasibly afford to care for their family without going to work. I actually think it would increase employment too as it would allow people to seek further education without having to sacrifice economic agency which, as there is a declining amount of low-skill work in Britain, would help us make a shift further into the services sector. It would do wonders in advancing social mobility. Granted it could be seen as quite devisive, but I think UBI has elements which could appeal to all parts of the political spectrum.
What an excellent idea.
I hope we also scrap exams and just award degrees so I can be done with revision, and while we're at it I'll also like to scrap paying for food. I don't appreciate money, which could be spent elsewhere, having to go on living.
Original post by Drewski
Therein lies the issue. Who decides the threshold? What about disagreements? If they're getting benefits already, what does this really change? Some people will end up getting less, what happens to them then?
Too many people - on both sides - would find flaws and consequently it would gain little agreement. It would not get through parliament.
Too many people - on both sides - would find flaws and consequently it would gain little agreement. It would not get through parliament.
Im not concerned with whether itd get through parliament, im interested in political theory. You're saying something can't be considered because people would disagree about it? Isn't that the case with every political theory ever, even the vast majority of things that are implemented through parliament?
Original post by BaronK
What an excellent idea.
I hope we also scrap exams and just award degrees so I can be done with revision, and while we're at it I'll also like to scrap paying for food. I don't appreciate money, which could be spent elsewhere, having to go on living.
I hope we also scrap exams and just award degrees so I can be done with revision, and while we're at it I'll also like to scrap paying for food. I don't appreciate money, which could be spent elsewhere, having to go on living.
Thanks for your sterling contribution. You are excused. Please go revise.
100 x 65 million you're looking at 6.5 bil per week
6.5 x 52 = 338 billion
What's the current cost of benefits?
Where are we getting that money from?
I assume it would be targeted towards the poor
6.5 x 52 = 338 billion
What's the current cost of benefits?
Where are we getting that money from?
I assume it would be targeted towards the poor
Original post by picklescamp
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/13/should-we-scrap-benefits-and-pay-everyone-100-a-week-whether-they-work-or-not?CMP=fb_gu
forgive me for being an avid Guardian reader.
Really interesting article and I find myself inclined to agree that it could be a fantastic idea (although I'm sure it'll get shredded in the comments). Universal basic income can stimulate growth in poorer areas, allow people to have a chance of a more dignified living. It would help to bring down birth rates among those who cannot feasibly afford to care for their family without going to work. I actually think it would increase employment too as it would allow people to seek further education without having to sacrifice economic agency which, as there is a declining amount of low-skill work in Britain, would help us make a shift further into the services sector. It would do wonders in advancing social mobility. Granted it could be seen as quite devisive, but I think UBI has elements which could appeal to all parts of the political spectrum.
forgive me for being an avid Guardian reader.
Really interesting article and I find myself inclined to agree that it could be a fantastic idea (although I'm sure it'll get shredded in the comments). Universal basic income can stimulate growth in poorer areas, allow people to have a chance of a more dignified living. It would help to bring down birth rates among those who cannot feasibly afford to care for their family without going to work. I actually think it would increase employment too as it would allow people to seek further education without having to sacrifice economic agency which, as there is a declining amount of low-skill work in Britain, would help us make a shift further into the services sector. It would do wonders in advancing social mobility. Granted it could be seen as quite devisive, but I think UBI has elements which could appeal to all parts of the political spectrum.
i'd love to live in a home with loads of ppl in then i'd just steal all their money as a parent
Original post by DanteTheDoorKnob
100 x 65 million you're looking at 6.5 bil per week
6.5 x 52 = 338 billion
What's the current cost of benefits?
Where are we getting that money from?
I assume it would be targeted towards the poor
6.5 x 52 = 338 billion
What's the current cost of benefits?
Where are we getting that money from?
I assume it would be targeted towards the poor
I refer you to a prior post
Original post by picklescamp
Alright, good point. Im not an economist as you might expect but ill attempt to respond.
I dont know if you read the article but the title is somewhat exacerbated. I was referring to the model used by the Netherlands and by Dutch towns and cities, where its only given to benefits claimants or those earning below a certain income level. So that would slice your 64million statistic, even though it would only be applied to adults so that should have been 61million.
Regardless, lets stick to the exacerbated title cos im not sure the problem you highlighted works. UK currently pays about 694.88 billion pounds per year in welfare to claimants anyway. I could be incorrect, but even if every adult (or indeed every person as you used to reach your statistic) were to recieve this UBI wouldnt the number you quoted (i read it as 332.8billion but its hard to count all those 0s!) be significantly lower than the current payments anyway?
I dont know if you read the article but the title is somewhat exacerbated. I was referring to the model used by the Netherlands and by Dutch towns and cities, where its only given to benefits claimants or those earning below a certain income level. So that would slice your 64million statistic, even though it would only be applied to adults so that should have been 61million.
Regardless, lets stick to the exacerbated title cos im not sure the problem you highlighted works. UK currently pays about 694.88 billion pounds per year in welfare to claimants anyway. I could be incorrect, but even if every adult (or indeed every person as you used to reach your statistic) were to recieve this UBI wouldnt the number you quoted (i read it as 332.8billion but its hard to count all those 0s!) be significantly lower than the current payments anyway?
Original post by picklescamp
Im not concerned with whether itd get through parliament, im interested in political theory. You're saying something can't be considered because people would disagree about it? Isn't that the case with every political theory ever, even the vast majority of things that are implemented through parliament?
Fine, if you want to ignore that bit then focus on the other bit;
The groups you de-selected it to already get benefits, so what is this going to change?
It should be noted that one of the original proponents of this was that noted Communist sympathizer Milton Friedman.
The idea has merit. But you would need somebody with a huge degree of economic competence and respectability (As welll as being a household name) in order to sell it, ie a modern day Keynes otherwise they would get torn to pieces by the usual suspects.
The idea has merit. But you would need somebody with a huge degree of economic competence and respectability (As welll as being a household name) in order to sell it, ie a modern day Keynes otherwise they would get torn to pieces by the usual suspects.
Original post by picklescamp
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/13/should-we-scrap-benefits-and-pay-everyone-100-a-week-whether-they-work-or-not?CMP=fb_gu
forgive me for being an avid Guardian reader.
Really interesting article and I find myself inclined to agree that it could be a fantastic idea (although I'm sure it'll get shredded in the comments). Universal basic income can stimulate growth in poorer areas, allow people to have a chance of a more dignified living. It would help to bring down birth rates among those who cannot feasibly afford to care for their family without going to work. I actually think it would increase employment too as it would allow people to seek further education without having to sacrifice economic agency which, as there is a declining amount of low-skill work in Britain, would help us make a shift further into the services sector. It would do wonders in advancing social mobility. Granted it could be seen as quite devisive, but I think UBI has elements which could appeal to all parts of the political spectrum.
forgive me for being an avid Guardian reader.
Really interesting article and I find myself inclined to agree that it could be a fantastic idea (although I'm sure it'll get shredded in the comments). Universal basic income can stimulate growth in poorer areas, allow people to have a chance of a more dignified living. It would help to bring down birth rates among those who cannot feasibly afford to care for their family without going to work. I actually think it would increase employment too as it would allow people to seek further education without having to sacrifice economic agency which, as there is a declining amount of low-skill work in Britain, would help us make a shift further into the services sector. It would do wonders in advancing social mobility. Granted it could be seen as quite devisive, but I think UBI has elements which could appeal to all parts of the political spectrum.
£100 a week is not enough actually. It is far below the Living Wage (which would be £313.50 per week outside London).
Original post by DanteTheDoorKnob
100 x 65 million you're looking at 6.5 bil per week
6.5 x 52 = 338 billion
What's the current cost of benefits?
Where are we getting that money from?
I assume it would be targeted towards the poor
6.5 x 52 = 338 billion
What's the current cost of benefits?
Where are we getting that money from?
I assume it would be targeted towards the poor
It wouldn't work :s
Yanis Varoufakis has this to say on the idea: I think he's spot on.
Hope is what is in deficit. Britain, the British public, has no hope. When they voted for Cameron last year it was not hopefully. It was reluctantly and because they did not like Ed [Miliband] and they did not trust the Labour Party. Now they will vote to stay in Europe out of fear, not out of hope. So what do we need to do to capture hope? That is the issue. In the 50s and 60s the dream of shared prosperity was that which gave hope. Even the Tories latched onto it: Ted Heath, the one nation Tories and so on. So I think the basic income approach is capable of doing this as long as (and this is what I emphasise when I talk to the Corbynistas) you can explain to them where the money will come from, that it will not be simply debt, that we are going to generate a lot more income and a chunk of it is going to fund this. But we, the Left, must not be fearful. I gave a talk some time ago in the United States and said: yes, surfers in California must be fed by the rest of us. We may not like that, we may feel they are bums, but they deserve a basic income too.[Laughs]
OK, they don’t “deserve”, but they should have a basic income, because this is the way to stabilise society. But you need politicians that are capable of going out there and saying: “You see that lazy bum over there that you hate? We should feed him. And we should make sure he has a house. Because if he does not have a house and he gets sick and so on, he is a greater burden for all of us. And if there are lots of them and technological innovation produces a lot more of them, that would be macro-economically unsustainable. Those of us who want to work—because we enjoy it and have the opportunity—have the technology to produce so much wealth that we can feed the surfers.” But who says that?
Hope is what is in deficit. Britain, the British public, has no hope. When they voted for Cameron last year it was not hopefully. It was reluctantly and because they did not like Ed [Miliband] and they did not trust the Labour Party. Now they will vote to stay in Europe out of fear, not out of hope. So what do we need to do to capture hope? That is the issue. In the 50s and 60s the dream of shared prosperity was that which gave hope. Even the Tories latched onto it: Ted Heath, the one nation Tories and so on. So I think the basic income approach is capable of doing this as long as (and this is what I emphasise when I talk to the Corbynistas) you can explain to them where the money will come from, that it will not be simply debt, that we are going to generate a lot more income and a chunk of it is going to fund this. But we, the Left, must not be fearful. I gave a talk some time ago in the United States and said: yes, surfers in California must be fed by the rest of us. We may not like that, we may feel they are bums, but they deserve a basic income too.[Laughs]
OK, they don’t “deserve”, but they should have a basic income, because this is the way to stabilise society. But you need politicians that are capable of going out there and saying: “You see that lazy bum over there that you hate? We should feed him. And we should make sure he has a house. Because if he does not have a house and he gets sick and so on, he is a greater burden for all of us. And if there are lots of them and technological innovation produces a lot more of them, that would be macro-economically unsustainable. Those of us who want to work—because we enjoy it and have the opportunity—have the technology to produce so much wealth that we can feed the surfers.” But who says that?
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- opinions on scrapping GCSEs?
- I am eligible for Childcare Grant but have been denied
- Cambridge Maths School or Hills Road
- Rwanda bill likely to be stalled at least till April after seven defeats in the Lords
- Close to repaying student loan
- 2024 Budget: Chancellor Jeremy Hunt under pressure to cut taxes
- Should nurses be paid more?
- Labour plans to add 20% VAT to Private School fees.
- Lost 3 months of University and catching up
- medic mentor summer school
- What do you think of HS2 only going to Birmingham
- How and which of my mums benefits for me will be effected-
- Footballers aren't overpaid
- how would i improve my science GCSE grades?
- Thames Water boss says bills need to rise by 40%
- Anyone heard the rumours?
- MyTutor pricing changes
- Where can I find cash-in-hand jobs?
- Travel grant
- GCSE wjec/eduqas computer science coursework
Latest
Last reply 2 minutes ago
AQA A Level Sociology Paper 2 (7192/2) - 4th June 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 3 minutes ago
Which Peel Park Quarter rooms look out over the parks?Last reply 5 minutes ago
Amazon Apprenticeships 2024Last reply 5 minutes ago
Loughborough or Cardiff for architecture?Last reply 7 minutes ago
Grade 9 English GCSE Creative Writing 40 Mark ExampleLast reply 7 minutes ago
Accenture Degree Apprenticeship 2024Last reply 7 minutes ago
Medical doctor degree apprenticeship 2024Last reply 10 minutes ago
Temporary Withdrawl/Suspension of studies and Student Fianance.Last reply 11 minutes ago
MPhil Advanced Computer Science Cambridge - 2024 EntryLast reply 14 minutes ago
Standard Chartered Apprenticeships 2024Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 5 days ago
Rayner denies wrongdoing over council house sale amid police reviewLast reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
2024 UK general election speculation and build-up threadLast reply 2 weeks ago
Trump needs a $464m bond in six days. What if he can't get it?Last reply 3 weeks ago
How did John Major become PM with barely any qualifications?Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 5 days ago
Rayner denies wrongdoing over council house sale amid police reviewLast reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
2024 UK general election speculation and build-up threadLast reply 2 weeks ago
Trump needs a $464m bond in six days. What if he can't get it?Last reply 3 weeks ago
How did John Major become PM with barely any qualifications?
