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

Universal Basic Services Watch

    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    I am a tax payer.

    Yeah, right wing market capitalism isn't a new idea either. It;s been hegemonic for decades and it is ****ing up and not delivering the goods.
    I'm sure I saw you post about being a master's student. In any event, I'm going to make an assertion and leave it open to you to correct me if I'm wrong: you are a large net beneficiary of present state spending and would be of all of these programs you propose.

    Well, no, capitalism isn't a new idea. I didn't claim it was. I was responding to your claim that Labour is the 'party of the future' because it has in some way endorsed the 'new idea' of taking people's money and spending it on stuff for others.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    Never heard of it before. Doubtful if it can replicated though (essentially religious nationalists colonising the ‘promised land’)

    From my reply to your pre edited version:

    Very much for improving people’s lives- just has to work in practise and in theory which, to me, this doesn’t seem to. I’m not a complete nay sayer though- I’m a big fan of a universal basic income (as long as it’s capped so that it’s always better to work) for instance and I think we could tinker with our institutions somewhat.

    That said- healthy skepticism or even cynicism of radical new ideas is no bad thing. Most of our ideas have evolved organically because simply they work and have tried and tested the results. Tinkering with this on balance is more likely to make things worse rather than better. Just look at films- how often is a reboot or a sequel better than the original?
    Weren't you discussing putting Dan Hannan in charge of the NHS and radically changing that through privatising it? Hardly seems 'conservative'.
    Keynsianism was rather revolutionary, before that we just had Victorian style capitalism and before that feudalism. The NHS was also revolutionary and it's been a massive success.

    Sometimes ideas evolve organically, sometimes radical change is beneficial. Despite being called a radical, both by supporters and opponents, a Corbyn government would aim roughly to make us equivalent to a Scandinavian type Social Democratic country.

    Admittedly, that comes across as radically left wing to some, but that's largely due to how much the economic debate had shifted to the right. Neoliberalism doesn't have 'tried and tested results' anymore than Scandanvian Socialism does or even a social market type capitalism.

    However, neoliberalism gets this reputation as 'working' largely due to its proponents being a mixture of big businesses and the press who largely set the agenda.

    The good thing though is the consensus is shifting.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    Nope, it should be like the NHS. Everyone pays into it and everyone gets to use it.



    How is a family member supposed to provide expert social care? Also if you haven't noticed capitalism has totally atomised and broken up families. It's totally normal for children to now move miles away once they become adults, if not to a different country. Gone are the days when large family units would stay in the same geographic area. As soon as you reach 18 you are supposed to push off to university and explore the world, then get a full time job. I'm more traditional in that I am 25 and still living with my parents, but I am considered a social anomaly and loser. The time when large family clans would take the role of social care of the elderly are long gone. Also people used to die in poverty in old age. Nature is brutal, old animals just drop dead and die. You can advocate for that kind of barbarism if you like. Personally if we are going to have high capitalist division of labour I want to to look after the elderly.

    The nuclear family unit combined with children being expected to fly the nest means you can't familial social care.
    Hmm, the thing is you see, there would be no point of it if it were a new addition to the state. The creation of the NHS made sense in an economic climate where access to decent healthcare was severely restricted by income and wealth. Access to the proposed universal basic services as outlined would perhaps be of benefit to the issue of housing but little else. We Brits aren't exactly limited in our access to food, internet or transport through income. Even the poorest members of our society on benefits and unemployed can access a decent internet connection and although there are people using foodbanks, people aren't starving in the same way as people in the third world do. "Extending the NHS principle" to other areas of the economy is basically just nationalising other areas of the economy for the sake of it. You could pretty much justify the nationalisation of anything with that logic. This makes more sense as a replacement should replacement for the welfare state.
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sycatonne23)
    Hmm, the thing is you see, there would be no point of it if it were a new addition to the state. The creation of the NHS made sense in an economic climate where access to decent healthcare was severely restricted by income and wealth. Access to the proposed universal basic services as outlined would perhaps be of benefit to the issue of housing but little else. We Brits aren't exactly limited in our access to food, internet or transport through income. Even the poorest members of our society on benefits and unemployed can access a decent internet connection and although there are people using foodbanks, people aren't starving in the same way as people in the third world do. "Extending the NHS principle" to other areas of the economy is basically just nationalising other areas of the economy for the sake of it. You could pretty much justify the nationalisation of anything with that logic. This makes more sense as a replacement should replacement for the welfare state.
    Surely we should be aiming higher than being a 3rd world country? Always seems a strange point to highlight that as if its some kind of victory.

    I know the clashes in Catelonia are bad, but its nowhere near as bad as world war one.

    Likewise for starvation, yes people in the first world do starve to death but surrounded by unaffordable food while third world there is a lack of any. Since "starving to death" has the same end product why exactly is starving to death in the first world better?
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    I'm sure I saw you post about being a master's student. In any event, I'm going to make an assertion and leave it open to you to correct me if I'm wrong: you are a large net beneficiary of present state spending and would be of all of these programs you propose.

    Well, no, capitalism isn't a new idea. I didn't claim it was. I was responding to your claim that Labour is the 'party of the future' because it has in some way endorsed the 'new idea' of taking people's money and spending it on stuff for others.
    I know my own class interest it's true

    Greed is good.

    I have had jobs and paid into national insurance etc. I also pay VAT and other regressive taxes even though I have hardly any money at the moment. I just paid about £70 in VAT :eek3:

    I don't plan on staying at the the bottom of the heap though but I can't ever see myself being in a position where I would benefit from no public services like the NHS and I would hope i never become a selfish ********* if I do.


    (Original post by Iridocyclitis)
    How much more are you willing to be taxed?
    Depends how much money I make and how I make that money. If I make a **** tonne and it is all based on rent extractions... tax me until my pips speak.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mojojojo101)
    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.
    People have that. We have a benefits system.

    The problem is of course that things like homelessness have deeper causes than simply a lack of a home. We're often talking about people who have built up long term rent arrears when they have had a home, or in the case of people sleeping rough a whole range of issues from mental illness to addiction.

    If we could spend a few extra quid and have everyone in a home, with a job, a mortgage, disposable income, 2.4 children and a subscription to the Sunday Times we would do that. The problems of those who are not living in adequate conditions are not straightforward.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sycatonne23)
    Brilliant idea. Should totally replace the welfare state. People who are unemployed or on low incomes should receive guaranteed access to basic services rather than direct transfer payments.
    This is just the "we should give them foodstamps rather than money" argument recast.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    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:

    I read a small amount about this yesterday and from what I saw a lot of it is retarded.

    Why not just increase the money that people on benefits receive?

    Universal income conditions aren’t with us yet and won’t be for some time to come.

    On a closely linked point, if we want to tackle the bottom half of society’s living standards the measures are all long term.

    Investment in technology, skills, huge investment in housing by the government and labour restrictions to put up the cost of labour.

    That goes along side giving people on benefits enough money to live properly.
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    This is just the "we should give them foodstamps rather than money" argument recast.
    Why is that a bad thing in principle? I believe we should move away with the obsession with relative poverty which looks at poverty based on comparisons with median incomes. No matter how high incomes rise, by the definition of relative poverty, there will always be poverty even if living standards for the poorest improve astronomically. The aim is to force a degree of income equality.

    Why not just focus on material needs instead?
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    These people keep reinventing the wheel.

    The welfare state, UBI and now UBS.

    The problem is capitalism.

    I can't stand people who want capitalism but hate the effects of it. Cognitive dissonance ehhhhh
 
 
 
  • 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
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
    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.