Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    I actually really agree with citizens income. If people don't want to work then fine, until there are enough jobs for everyone we need people who are happy enough to live off £72 a week.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cambio wechsel)
    I've added a bit to the above.

    The conservative case is that it massively simplifies the benefits system, reduces state intrusion (there's no 'qualifying' for it: no forms, no interviews), and for people now on benefits removes the financial disincentive to work (because you can't lose the citizen's income anyway).
    I'm confused how giving people free money works. The money has to come from somewhere.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    The de-militarization I don't agree with but the rest is reasonable

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    I'm confused how giving people free money works. The money has to come from somewhere.

    1. CI replaces some/many current benefits - i.e. you don't get JSA and CI.
    2. Money is saved through not having to manage/assess claims.
    3. A lot of it is clawed back through higher marginal tax rates, i.e. if you're earning 40k you get 3500 CI but as well see your income tax bill go up by that much.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    I'm confused how giving people free money works. The money has to come from somewhere.
    Increased general taxation.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    It's a left extremist party, the natural successor to the Communist Party of Great Britain.

    I am looking forward to the UKIP vs Green TV debate.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cambio wechsel)
    I suppose you're asking after right wing advocates.

    Hayek is the most notable. It was Conservative cabinet minister Alan Duncan's policy hobby-horse throughout the 90s.

    Edit: here's some more detail of conservative support for the idea: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...income/375600/
    Hayek proposed it as an alternative to all benefits, i.e. the £18.2k benefits cap would become a £3.5k benefits cap.

    Friedman advocated a negative income tax which is a sort of citizens' income that fades out with greater earned income. That is essentially the tax credit system that we actually already have, although again Friedman proposed it as a universal solution not something to layer on top of a welfare state and a menagerie of other benefits.

    The Atlantic is a left wing magazine and the sense of this article is very much, "Why aren't those right wing idiots supporting our good left wing policy?". What you'd really want is an article in this sort of magazine attacking the idea.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    I will be voting for the Green Party and have done since I could vote. The reason is not because I want to necessarily see these policies implemented - lets face it, they're not exactly going to get into power any time soon - its because I feel their underlying ideals are under-represented and giving them a voice, be it a direct voice in parliament or an indirect voice by making the big parties pay attention and alter their own policies, is in my opinion a great thing and the way to get the most from this democracy.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    I'm confused how giving people free money works. The money has to come from somewhere.
    We have a universal health system. It comes from similar places as that. So progressive taxation. There are loads of studies that show wealth redistribution being good for the economy. Universal basic income is the most efficient form of doing that. Minimal bureaucracy involved and thereof the role of the state, poorer people spend more of their money. If you take some of the wealth horded away by the ultra rich and sprinkle is thinly among those at the bottom they will spend it which is good for everyone. Plus you wouldn't have the problem of those without work having a financial incentive not to find work (which is insane) since anything they earn is additive rather than loosing benefits as they start working. It isn't a left vs right thing either as it is supported by people on both sides and everyone gets it so you don't have people resenting those on benefits whilst they work.

    It just requires people loose their fetish for wanting to see jobless and poor people have everything taken off them.

    The only real problem with it is how do you combat inflation of essentials.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cambio wechsel)
    I've added a bit to the above.

    The conservative case is that it massively simplifies the benefits system, reduces state intrusion (there's no 'qualifying' for it: no forms, no interviews), and for people now on benefits removes the financial disincentive to work (because you can't lose the citizen's income anyway).
    It really does seem like a common sense solution to a lot of problems.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    We have a universal health system. It comes from similar places as that. So progressive taxation. There are loads of studies that show wealth redistribution being good for the economy. Universal basic income is the most efficient form of doing that. Minimal bureaucracy involved and thereof the role of the state, poorer people spend more of their money. If you take some of the wealth horded away by the ultra rich and sprinkle is thinly among those at the bottom they will spend it which is good for everyone. Plus you wouldn't have the problem of those without work having a financial incentive not to find work (which is insane) since anything they earn is additive rather than loosing benefits as they start working. It isn't a left vs right thing either as it is supported by people on both sides and everyone gets it so you don't have people resenting those on benefits whilst they work.

    It just requires people loose their fetish for wanting to see jobless and poor people have everything taken off them.

    The only real problem with it is how do you combat inflation of essentials.
    The money would have to rise with inflation sureley? Otherwise it becomes kind of pointless, like the current minimum wage which is far too low to give anyone even the 'minimum' of essentials
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    We have a universal health system. It comes from similar places as that. So progressive taxation. There are loads of studies that show wealth redistribution being good for the economy. Universal basic income is the most efficient form of doing that. Minimal bureaucracy involved and thereof the role of the state, poorer people spend more of their money. If you take some of the wealth horded away by the ultra rich and sprinkle is thinly among those at the bottom they will spend it which is good for everyone. Plus you wouldn't have the problem of those without work having a financial incentive not to find work (which is insane) since anything they earn is additive rather than loosing benefits as they start working. It isn't a left vs right thing either as it is supported by people on both sides and everyone gets it so you don't have people resenting those on benefits whilst they work.

    It just requires people loose their fetish for wanting to see jobless and poor people have everything taken off them.

    The only real problem with it is how do you combat inflation of essentials.
    It's a bit difficult to compare it to a universal health care system. A universal healthcare system is similar to insurance. You hope less people draw off the service than pay into it.

    If everybody used te healthcare system IT would collapse.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by redferry)
    The money would have to rise with inflation sureley? Otherwise it becomes kind of pointless, like the current minimum wage which is far too low to give anyone even the 'minimum' of essentials
    Yup. But to do that you got to kick out the governments that are adverse to regulation of that kind.

    It is the only legitimate criticism of UBI I can think of. How to deal with the inflation of the stuff it is supposed to cover. Do you just keep increasing the UBI or do you regulate certain markets. How do you stop TESCO from just ramping up food prices? Like when child benefit from was introduced (or something like that) child care costs just sky rocketed.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    Yup. But to do that you got to kick out the governments that are adverse to regulation of that kind.

    It is the only legitimate criticism of UBI I can think of. How to deal with the inflation of the stuff it is supposed to cover. Do you just keep increasing the UBI or do you regulate certain markets. How do you stop TESCO from just ramping up food prices? Like when child benefit from was introduced (or something like that) child care costs just sky rocketed.
    Actually I think supermarkets are one area where they aren't really at risk of ramping up prices - competition has actually worked a bit too well until the point their prices are so low they're putting producers out of businesses. The main problem may be oil prices rising again.

    I'd say just increase/decrease it with inflation.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by redferry)
    Actually I think supermarkets are one area where they aren't really at risk of ramping up prices - competition has actually worked a bit too well until the point their prices are so low they're putting producers out of businesses. The main problem may be oil prices rising again.

    I'd say just increase/decrease it with inflation.
    But any mention of rising min wage and you get all kinds of prophecies of doom from people :argh:

    You'd think the min wage has destroyed the western world as we know it the way people go on about it.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    But any mention of rising min wage and you get all kinds of prophecies of doom from people :argh:

    You'd think the min wage has destroyed the western world as we know it the way people go on about it.
    People are stupid though and don't actually bother to look at evidence.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Not really sure, you should take the word of a right wing newspaper reporting on a left wing parties policies for what they're actually claiming. If I wanted to learn about tory policies I wouldn't read the guardian to do it.

    For instance the £71 a week thing, that's effectively jobseekers allowance. It's also a small version of Universal Basic Income as a replacement of the benefits system, which has a wide range of support across the political spectrum (although actual UBI is considerably more than £71/wk and is designed to keep people out of absolute poverty).

    This guy explains it a bit better:
    http://anotherangryvoice.blogspot.co...ic-income.html

    The rest I can't comment on, because I haven't read the Greens manifesto recently, so I can't remember if it says anything like what the paper is saying, or if it's just a right wing paper doing what the media always does of twisting what actually happens. I probably will end up voting Green because I have no reason to vote for any of the big three and I loath UKIP. Plus atleast the Greens are vaguely honest (although they've never had a great deal of power) in opposing things like TTIP whereas other parties claim they do oppose it then their members either abstain or vote in favour of it.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gwilym101)
    Plus atleast the Greens are vaguely honest (although they've never had a great deal of power) in opposing things like TTIP whereas other parties claim they do oppose it then their members either abstain or vote in favour of it.
    Which parties oppose TTIP? I thought free trade was wildly popular in Britain - what are we some kind of Italy?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Why on earth would anyone vote Green, unless they don't know what their policies are? Here below are a nice taste of policies.

    You can't say these are "Labour lies" because each policy is quoted in their own words next to its policy ID number and can be found here (http://policy.greenparty.org.uk/)

    AR402 To take pressure off wild animals by voluntarily limiting our population

    AR410 The Green Party will support a progressive transition from diets dominated by meat and other animal products to healthier diets based on plant foods

    HE103 Health services can create dependence on the part of users, which is itself unhealthy

    EN110 We will require energy use for space heating, and electrical use to be reduced by a third by 2020, by half by 2030 and by two-thirds by 2050, based on 2012 final energy demand levels.

    EN141 We will target energy efficiencies for the UK industrial sector of reductions on 2012 levels of 15% by 2020, 33% by 2030 and 60% by 2050

    EC201 Current dependence on economic growth to cease, and allow zero or negative growth

    PD443 Legalise membership of terrorist organisations, including Al Qaeda and ISIS

    MG203 Richer regions and communities do not have the right to use migration controls to protect their privileges from others in the long term.

    MG300 We will work to achieve greater equity between the UK and non-Western countries. In step with this, we will progressively reduce UK immigration controls.

    MG403 We will abolish the 'primary purpose' rule under which partners are refused entry if it is thought that the primary purpose of relationship is for them to gain entry to the UK.

    NY500 The Green Party will therefore base the right to vote and to stand in elections on residence rather than nationality.

    NY511 The concept of nationality is inherently racially discriminatory

    NY203 In the long term, the Green Party wishes to see the concept of legal nationality abolished.

    NY300 We will work to create a world of global inter-responsibility in which the concept of a 'British national' is irrelevant and outdated.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by young_guns)
    Why on earth would anyone vote Green, unless they don't know what their policies are? Here below are a nice taste of policies.

    You can't say these are "Labour lies" because each policy is quoted in their own words next to its policy ID number and can be found here (http://policy.greenparty.org.uk/)
    By what standard do you judge the Greens to be literally insane, may I ask?

    AR402 To take pressure off wild animals by voluntarily limiting our population - excellent policy, wild animals shouldn't be under great deals of pressure and voluntarily limiting our population will help to reduce population growth, and therefore the destruction of the environment by humanity.

    The Green Party will support a progressive transition from diets dominated by meat and other animal products to healthier diets based on plant foods - again, excellent policy. The vast majority of people here who eat meat do so unnecessarily. Thus, they are unnecessarily inflicting suffering on other sentient beings, which, under the scope of almost any ethical theory, is immoral. In addition, the meat industry is one of the biggest contributors to global warming and, as the Greens point out, meat is high in saturated fat which increases the risk of cardiovascular disease, and red meat, the processed type in particular, increases one's risk of cancer and Type 2 diabetes. So, it will reduce the burden on the NHS if more people adopt a vegetarian diet.

    The stuff about energy efficiency is a no-brainer, our infatuation with short-term economic growth has proven to be foolish time and time again and is bad for the environment. Nationality is irrelevant - we're all humans and, more importantly, sentient beings at the end of the day. The concept of nationality is a primitive, short-sighted one.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.