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

Universal Basic Services Watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Institute for Global Prosperity has come out with a report calling for free housing, food, transport and access to the internet to be given to British citizens in a massive expansion of the welfare state as an alternative to a basic income. Essentially expanding the principles of the NHS to other areas of the economy.

    https://www.ucl.ac.uk/bartlett/igp/n...basic-services

    https://www.theguardian.com/business...P=share_btn_tw

    https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ces-inequality

    John McDonnell, the shadow chancellor, said the recommendations would “help inform Labour’s thinking”. Labour are increasingly the party of the future with all the new ideas :beard:

    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    New ideas? This is like something copied and pasted from the Communist Manifesto

    https://www.ucl.ac.uk/bartlett/igp/about-us
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    This is one of those things that is described as 'radical' when in reality its just common sense.

    In a country as rich as this it is not acceptable to have people with no access to food, clean water and simewhere dry and warm to sleep.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    New ideas? This is like something copied and pasted from the Communist Manifesto

    https://www.ucl.ac.uk/bartlett/igp/about-us
    :ninja:

    A spectra is haunting Britain.

    That ucl link you posted reads like this...

    https://medium.com/@s8mb/im-a-neolib...o-b809a2a588d6

    ...except the same reasoning leads to a dismissal of such dependency on liberal markets and more support for state intervention. Given the melt down of neo-liberalism I'd say ucl makes more sense (also I am a leftist). Also it is not like Thatcher didn't get any of her inspiration from an 18th century philosopher... As long as capitalism is the dominant mode of production socialism, and by extension communism, will always be around criticising it. Socialism is capitalism's shadow, it goes where ever capitalism goes.

    I'd say it is more boring none-communist Social Democratic. None of this withering away of the state stuff, sadly.

    http://stumblingandmumbling.typepad....democracy.html

    My preferred cause of (Marxist) action is centred around worker self-directed enterprises, rather than heavily centralised statist social democracy.

    https://thenextsystem.org/start-with...ed-enterprises
    https://thenextsystem.org/sites/defa.../RickWolff.pdf

    Labour are ahead in this area as well.

    https://www.facebook.com/james.doran...type=2&theater

    https://newsocialist.org.uk/labours-...ership-report/

    Ideas of the future
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    I don't see what warrants this level of state intervention. People can surely provide for themselves and people who cannot there is a safety net that already exists to help them provide for themselves. The costs of doing this is most likely not cheap, and I hope someone doesn't reply by saying "tax the rich" - you can only tax people so much before you won't get anything. The exact same people you're trying to help are the people who will foot the bill.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CoffeeGeek)
    I don't see what warrants this level of state intervention. People can surely provide for themselves and people who cannot there is a safety net that already exists to help them provide for themselves. The costs of doing this is most likely not cheap, and I hope someone doesn't reply by saying "tax the rich" - you can only tax people so much before you won't get anything. The exact same people you're trying to help are the people who will foot the bill.
    The safety net is, from personal experience, a pile of ****.
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mojojojo101)
    The safety net is, from personal experience, a pile of ****.
    What were you expecting? Loads of cash to spend on lavish stuff?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CoffeeGeek)
    The exact same people you're trying to help are the people who will foot the bill.
    No they wont. It's called progressive taxation.
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    No they wont. It's called progressive taxation.
    Then you really haven't read my response properly.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CoffeeGeek)
    Then you really haven't read my response properly.
    I disagree there is no more money to be taxed... People like you back in the day said the NHS was impossible for similar reasons. Yet here we are. One of the reasons the NHS is still here is because ti is universal. It's harder to take away "free stuff" when every can use it as apposed to when it is means tested. As soon as it is means tested it is very easy for a party (lets say the Tories -_-) to then play divide and rule and of those who don't rely on the service against the minority that do. That poor minority can then be ignored by parties and made to soldier the burden of a capitalist disaster (lets say 2008 financial crisis -_-) without worrying about an electoral threat. The weakest suffer most in times of hardship. Means tested welfare is not safe from people like you taking it away all the time. If health care is a right so should shelter. Universalise both!
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CoffeeGeek)
    What were you expecting? Loads of cash to spend on lavish stuff?
    What the **** is that supposed to mean?
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    I disagree there is no more money to be taxed... People like you back in the day said the NHS was impossible for similar reasons. Yet here we are.
    I thought there was more money to be taxed? I'm confused.

    The Labour government had to cover the cost of the NHS which makes sense because national insurance was expanded around the same time - which many of us, including the working-class, have to pay for. That was just one sector. This proposes to do the same but to more than one. People like you back in the day said the NHS would be cheap... yet the cost of it has increased by 776%... Not exactly cheap now is it?
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mojojojo101)
    What the **** is that supposed to mean?
    It's supposed to mean that the benefits aren't supposed to replace work, so it's understandable that you receive less than what you would if you were working - which is probably why you think it's a pile of ****.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    Labour are increasingly the party of the future with all the new ideas :beard:
    Limitless free stuff for you on the taxpayer's dime is not a 'new idea'.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CoffeeGeek)
    It's supposed to mean that the benefits aren't supposed to replace work, so it's understandable that you receive less than what you would if you were working - which is why you probably think it's a pile of ****.

    I have a job but still I am never more than 2 pay checks away from losing my house, I still have to decide which bills I can afford to pay. I still have to watch what I spend like a hawk or I wont be eating the last few days of the month.

    Compared to some I am doing alright and yet it is still a real **** show most of the time.
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CoffeeGeek)
    I don't see what warrants this level of state intervention. People can surely provide for themselves and people who cannot there is a safety net that already exists to help them provide for themselves. The costs of doing this is most likely not cheap, and I hope someone doesn't reply by saying "tax the rich" - you can only tax people so much before you won't get anything. The exact same people you're trying to help are the people who will foot the bill.
    Ah yes, like all of those people who have starved to death because they've had their benefits stopped. All those people declared "fit to work" who've died awaiting appeal.

    If you think people can provide for themselves better than the state can, why do you even support a benefit system. If you think our own benefit system is sufficient why do you oppose this specific report?
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CoffeeGeek)
    I thought there was more money to be taxed? I'm confused.

    The Labour government had to cover the cost of the NHS which makes sense because national insurance was expanded around the same time - which many of us, including the working-class, have to pay for. That was just one sector. This proposes to do the same but to more than one. People like you back in the day said the NHS would be cheap... yet the cost of it has increased by 776%... Not exactly cheap now is it?
    Yeah, because the health service is so good it's actually keeping people alive longer.
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    One of the reasons the NHS is still here is because ti is universal.
    No. It's here because we can still afford it whilst the foundations keeping the NHS up are crumbling due to the increasing ageing population exerting pressure on it. Demand is increasing, cost is increasing - people will use things endlessly if the service is free. When you introduce a cost however, people react differently.

    (Original post by mojojojo101)
    I have a job but still I am never more than 2 pay checks away from losing my house, I still have to decide which bills I can afford to pay. I still have to watch what I spend like a hawk or I wont be eating the last few days of the month.

    Compared to some I am doing alright and yet it is still a real **** show most of the time.
    That is true, compared to some you are doing alright. It unfortunately is and the state intervening in everything won't make things better for everyone.

    (Original post by That Bearded Man)
    Yeah, because the health service is so good it's actually keeping people alive longer.
    Do you want me to deny that?
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    We need an actual trial of this kind of system involving universal basic income. One of the big issues with that though is that implementing them are deeply unpopular (way before any results can be ascertained) thus the party implementing them are voted out and the issue is either half-baked (Finland) or abandoned (Ontario)
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by That Bearded Man)
    Ah yes, like all of those people who have starved to death because they've had their benefits stopped. All those people declared "fit to work" who've died awaiting appeal.
    Do you have any proof that this is directly linked to welfare reforms? Or are we assuming that these deaths must be caused by the welfare reforms?

    If you think people can provide for themselves better than the state can, why do you even support a benefit system. If you think our own benefit system is sufficient why do you oppose this specific report?
    By stating the existence of the benefit system with a purpose to help those who cannot provide themselves does not mean I support it.
 
 
 
  • 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
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
    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

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