Citizen's Income

[Boom Boom]

The rich can equally choose not to work if there isn't sufficient incentive.

A citizen's wage isn't inflationary, so they won't be significantly disinsentivised . Surely the rich would welcome being able to emply people for whatever they are prepared to work for? A citizen's income obviates the need for a minimum wage, if a company can find staff to work for £1/hr that's fine. It seems to me that implicit in your objections to this idea, is the acknowledgement that people like you make their businesses work with the aid of a benefits system, that keeps the poor under constant threat of sanction.

[SNACR]

Does the wide availability of oxygen diminish its usefulness? All wealth is a decree, because it is backed by a decree of law which enforces property rights.

Find me one example in which a citizen's income has caused inflation.

It would have to be entirely taken up by a large western democracy for an example to have any meaning.

[CrashConnoisseur]

Also the well-off won't need a CI to spend on food so they could spend it elsewhere creating bubbles in other commodities that the purely CI recipients become priced out of.

The well-off already get the equivalent of a CI. A personal tax allowance of £7,500 a year at 40% income tax rate is worth about £60 a week (in a few years it will be worth £80). With a CI they would get this as a fixed payment instead and pay tax from their first pound of income.

As Milton Friedman famously said: "inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon". Since no new money is required for a CI, there will be no inflation caused by a CI.

[SNACR]

A citizen's wage isn't inflationary, so they won't be significantly disinsentivised . Surely the rich would welcome being able to emply people for whatever they are prepared to work for? A citizen's income obviates the need for a minimum wage, if a company can find staff to work for £1/hr that's fine. It seems to me that implicit in your objections to this idea, is the acknowledgement that people like you make their businesses work with the aid of a benefits system, that keeps the poor under constant threat of sanction.

If it were possible to implement without instant destruction of its purchasing power by inflation from a self-interested point of view I would favour it.

If my only interest was my own personal wealth the argument for further taxation of my wealth would be very hard to make when everyone is in receipt of a universally agreed acceptable standard of living.

Or, how about, a complete reboot. Everyone loses all their wealth and starts again from scratch with the Citizen's Income as seed money. There could be no accusations of silver spoons or unlevel playing fields and everyone can keep whatever they earn. True fairness, how could anyone be against it.

[Boom Boom]

It would have to be entirely taken up by a large western democracy for an example to have any meaning.

Indeed it would. So where is your evidence it would be inflationary?

[Boom Boom]

If it were possible to implement without instant destruction of its purchasing power by inflation from a self-interested point of view I would favour it.

If my only interest was my own personal wealth the argument for further taxation of my wealth would be very hard to make when everyone is in receipt of a universally agreed acceptable standard of living.

Or, how about, a complete reboot. Everyone loses all their wealth and starts again from scratch with the Citizen's Income as seed money. There could be no accusations of silver spoons or unlevel playing fields and everyone can keep whatever they earn. True fairness, how could anyone be against it.

A citizen's income is a practical possibility without the advent of a civil war; your suggestion is not. A CI is not inflationary as it does not involve inflating the money supply. It redistributes, it does away with a myriad of other benefits and a complex tax system. The proposed Robin Hood tax could fund a good chunk of the shortfall from other saving required to pay the circa £800/monthly figure that is most frequently put forward.

[SNACR]

The well-off already get the equivalent of a CI. A personal tax allowance of £7,500 a year at 40% income tax rate is worth about £60 a week (in a few years it will be worth £80). With a CI they would get this as a fixed payment instead and pay tax from their first pound of income.

As Milton Friedman famously said: "inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon". Since no new money is required for a CI, there will be no inflation caused by a CI.

This isn't what the results of having an, attempted inflation pegged, minimum wage suggest.

I

[SNACR]

A citizen's income is a practical possibility without the advent of a civil war; your suggestion is not. A CI is not inflationary as it does not involve inflating the money supply. It redistributes, it does away with a myriad of other benefits and a complex tax system. The proposed Robin Hood tax could fund a good chunk of the shortfall from other saving required to pay the circa £800/monthly figure that is most frequently put forward.

It doesn't matter that the money supply isn't being inflated it's inflation in terms of price rises. The market could force up the price of basic commodities but other things financially out of reach of a purely CI recipient could deflate.

[SNACR]

Indeed it would. So where is your evidence it would be inflationary?

I'd prefer your half-witted scheme wasn't implemented over the pleasure of saying I told you so once the country's wrecked.

[cletus]

OK all you delusional do gooding posters, who been slurping at the blue nun.

We are in Europe, which means we have to be EU law off the same wages to every EU citizen regardless. So if you were to introduce a Citizens Income, everyone from every European Country, will be queuing up here for, forceing up house prices due to demand.

Before you, say lets leave the EU, do it first, then we'll talk universal benefits and this is from a Dad, who will be missing his child benefits from his kids in a few years time.

[Boom Boom]

I'd prefer your half-witted scheme wasn't implemented over the pleasure of saying I told you so once the country's wrecked.

My scheme? You flatter me. We have plenty of evidence both theoretical and practical that a CI is not inflationary and that it actually boosts productivity. You can't muster a single theoretical or practical argument suggesting otherwise. All the criticisms ultimately boil down to the expression of a puritanical work ethic generally espoused by people who have barely worked a day in their pampered lives. The rich simply cannot stomach the idea that their workers could down tools and live modestly off of their share of the wealth of the nation.

[Boom Boom]

OK all you delusional do gooding posters, who been slurping at the blue nun.

We are in Europe, which means we have to be EU law off the same wages to every EU citizen regardless. So if you were to introduce a Citizens Income, everyone from every European Country, will be queuing up here for, forceing up house prices due to demand.

Before you, say lets leave the EU, do it first, then we'll talk universal benefits and this is from a Dad, who will be missing his child benefits from his kids in a few years time.

You've been reading the Daily Mail haven't you? Please point us to the European directive that says any such thing and is applicable in the circumstances outlined here. I'll wire transfer £5000 to an account of your choosing should you manage to do so.

[cletus]

You've been reading the Daily Mail haven't you? Please point us to the European directive that says any such thing and is applicable in the circumstances outlined here. I'll wire transfer £5000 to an account of your choosing should you manage to do so.

I'll take your £5000 if your man enough to stick to your word.

The part of the EU treaty regarding Labour Law. All wages must be equal to all EU citizens residing in the (UK - in our case).

So if you have a job, you cant pay an UK worker £10ph and a French worker £5 ph for the same job.

This means if their was a citizens income, then all citizens would be entitled as we are no longer British Citzens, but rather European Citizens.

Didnt get the memo ???

Alot of people didnt.

[Boom Boom]

I'll take your £5000 if your man enough to stick to your word.

The part of the EU treaty regarding Labour Law. All wages must be equal to all EU citizens residing in the (UK - in our case).

So if you have a job, you cant pay an UK worker £10ph and a French worker £5 ph for the same job.

This means if their was a citizens income, then all citizens would be entitled as we are no longer British Citzens, but rather European Citizens.

Didnt get the memo ???

Alot of people didnt.

Furnish me with the relevant directive and if it states as you suggest you're £5000 richer.

[SNACR]

My scheme? You flatter me. We have plenty of evidence both theoretical and practical that a CI is not inflationary and that it actually boosts productivity. You can't muster a single theoretical or practical argument suggesting otherwise. All the criticisms ultimately boil down to the expression of a puritanical work ethic generally espoused by people who have barely worked a day in their pampered lives. The rich simply cannot stomach the idea that their workers could down tools and live modestly off of their share of the wealth of the nation.

You have an ill-considered socialist utopian fantasy that starts from the highly optimistic assumption that the currently productive will continue to be as productive when they're given the option of a universal standard of living which requires them to produce nothing at all.

What percentage of the currently productive would have to choose a life of leisure over their current life of work before there's insufficient tax revenues to fund the universal CI?

And what do you do if it's breached?

Not print money, I hope, I've heard it's inflationary.

Edited October 22, 2010 by Soon Not a Chain Retailer

[libspero]

And what do you do if it's breached?

Perhaps we could offer a citizen's wage, divided equally, every time we run a budget surplus.

I won't expect to retire just yet though

[Boom Boom]

You have an ill-considered socialist utopian fantasy that starts from the highly optimistic assumption that the currently productive will continue to be as productive when they're given the option of a universal standard of living which requires them to produce nothing at all.

What percentage of the currently productive would have to choose a life of leisure over their current life of work before there's insufficient tax revenues to fund the universal CI?

And what do you do if it's breached?

Not print money, I hope, I've heard it's inflationary.

You keep attributing this idea to me, but it predates both of us. It has its roots with serious and well regarded economists and public intellectuals of all political persuasions. The existence of a CI will not alter the nature of those in receipt of it. The indolent will remain so, the industrious likewise. Indeed, it fosters entrepreneurship as it gives people greater freedom to try out business ideas, pursue formal or independent study, and generally free themselves from the shackles of dead end employment. I'm sure you think the points you've raised are novel and insightful, but they're not. They are the same tired assumptions spouted by those who have not bothered to read any of the literature in support of the concept. Why not take a look here...

http://www.citizensincome.org/

...and you may then be able to muster some arguments that haven't been addressed and debunked a thousand times before.

[Boom Boom]

Perhaps we could offer a citizen's wage, divided equally, every time we run a budget surplus.

I won't expect to retire just yet though

Another one that hasn't read anything on the subject. If we had a CI in place we wouldn't be engaging in deficit spending.

[SNACR]

You keep attributing this idea to me, but it predates both of us. It has its roots with serious and well regarded economists and public intellectuals of all political persuasions. The existence of a CI will not alter the nature of those in receipt of it. The indolent will remain so, the industrious likewise. Indeed, it fosters entrepreneurship as it gives people greater freedom to try out business ideas, pursue formal or independent study, and generally free themselves from the shackles of dead end employment. I'm sure you think the points you've raised are novel and insightful, but they're not. They are the same tired assumptions spouted by those who have not bothered to read any of the literature in support of the concept. Why not take a look here...

http://www.citizensincome.org/

...and you may then be able to muster some arguments that haven't been addressed and debunked a thousand times before.

I've read all about it it's just the same tired socialist and communist wealth redistribution and planned economy by another name.

It won't foster any entrepreneurship all safety nets do is encourage mediocrity. Some people may choose to use their spare time to self-education others will not. The whole thing is just like a human zoo where every chimpanzee is provided with a cage, food and water. Some chimps might play on the rope swing others might w@nk in their hands and throw it at each other, I can't see how it's progress.

I'd much rather the chimps were out in the wild even if it does mean it might get eaten by a predator or die of starvation now or again.

Edited October 22, 2010 by Soon Not a Chain Retailer

[Boom Boom]

I've read all about it it's just the same tired socialist and communist wealth redistribution and planned economy by another name.

It won't foster any entrepreneurship all safety nets do is encourage mediocrity. Some people may choose to use their spare time to self-education others will not. The whole thing is just like a human zoo where every chimpanzee is provided with a cage, food and water. Some chimps might play on the rope swing others might w@nk in their hands and throw it at each other, I can't see how it's progress.

I'd much rather the chimps were out in the wild even if it does mean it might get eaten by a predator or die of starvation now or again.

I see. In support of your social Darwinism will you be divesting yourself of limited liability? How about the protection of the state in defence of your property rights?

[SNACR]

I see. In support of your social Darwinism will you be divesting yourself of limited liability? How about the protection of the state in defence of your property rights?

Provided the state got rid of its fixed cost taxes like business rates and refused to enforce property leases for landlords then no problem with the limited liability.

If the state wil let me keep a selection guns then no problem on the property rights either.

[Boom Boom]

Provided the state got rid of its fixed cost taxes like business rates and refused to enforce property leases for landlords then no problem with the limited liability.

If the state wil let me keep a selection guns then no problem on the property rights either.

Of course, without these protections you'd have no foundation on which to have built your business. All a CI seeks to do is give everyone the foundation to survive in the society in which they find themselves in exchange for them living by laws imposed upon them.

[Ologhai Jones]

It's a bit like QE on a grand scale. It's as flawed as the minimum wage, which is a similar attempt at social engineering by the hard of thinking.

Minimum wage doesn't work for anything other than a brief period when it's jacked up, This is because everyone else's pay goes up, in short order, to maintain the pay differentials. Then those higher up the pay scale spend their extra money of houses, which go up in price and become no more affordable for those on minimum wage.

Same with the sinister Citizen's Income idea. It would be alright for the first few payments but then food prices etc. would rocket up and render it insufficient to meet living costs.

Government would then increase the Citizen's Income and promptly food prices would fly up again rinse and repeat. They might then try rigging food prices etc. but you'd soon be on the road to totalitarianism because it's the only stucture under which this naive scheme would work.

And it is naive because those who advocate it quaintly think they're helping to deliver social justice and Labour's fabled 'Fairer Society'. In reality they're opening the door to state fascism and all the places it inevitably leads.

An interesting post. The potential similarities between a citizens' income and a minimum wage hadn't occurred to me.

Although I tend towards perpetual fence-sitting, I do lean somewhat towards the view that the introduction of a minimum wage is inflationary (and/or encourages unemployment and bankruptcy), although, like a true fence-sitter, I could be persuaded otherwise.

My reasoning for tending towards the minimum wage is inflationary view goes something like this:

Every individual has their own 'True Economic Value'. A person's TEV depends on many factors, for example: skills[1], experience, conscientiousness, inertia[2] and so on. All else being equal, individuals will, on average, get what they're worth, based on the simple principle that, if they were actually worth more (rather than just thinking they're worth more), then they'd be able to get more -- even if this requires a change of employer to achieve.

If an employer can't afford to pay the TEV for its employees, then the firm isn't economically viable; the employer is trapped between paying employees more and making a loss, or not paying more and losing their employees to better-paying employers. Sometimes, an employer can fix their inability to pay higher wages[3], sometimes not. If not, then the business will fail.

In the short term, minimum wages artificially increase individuals' effective TEVs (without those individuals actually becoming more valuable). Some employers will be able to stand it (by reducing profits, increasing efficiency, or raising the cost of their products), some employers will fail, making their employees unemployed (at least temporarily).

Even if an employer can stand the introduction of a minimum wage, it reduces profits (thereby reducing, say, share values and the probability of future investment, thus weakening the company), or it causes redundancies (thereby increasing the wages of some, but making others unemployed), or it increases the cost of goods and services (which is inflationary, thus reducing the spending power of those minimum wages).

So I can see (I think) how minimum wages can cause the price of goods and services to become higher by causing the cost of those goods and services to increase.

And (finanlly!) the question is: Is there a similarly specific line of reasoning that you know of for the inflationary nature of a universal citizens' income?

[1] Including how rare or common, and how useful those skills are.

[2] How willing an individual is to seek out better-paid work, or, on the other hand, to tolerate being paid lower than they think they could potentially get rather than actually take the trouble to try to move on.

[3] For example, efficiency improvements (perhaps including redundancies), or increasing the price of the goods and/or services the firm offers (if the market will stand it), or just simply accepting smaller profits.

[tomandlu]

I would vote like a shot for any credible party supporting the citizen's wage and, reading through this thread, I've yet to see a single objection to it that isn't ideological masquerading as practical.

• Inflationary - how is it inflationary if it is paid for out of tax-take?
  
• EU - we'd have to give it to everyone who came here from the EU. No we don't. Such laws (if they exist) can be changed, and we would have leverage and reason on our side.
  
• No one would do demeaning work for low pay. No - they just wouldn't do it for unreasonably low pay. Good.
  
• The feckless would just give up work altogether. Possibly, dunno, but the current benefit trap is a much worse moral hazard. Besides, if you link it to tax take, then as taxes fall so would the CW, allowing for a built-in equilibrium.
  

Basically, find me someone who supports our current benefit system, but has practical objections to CW and I might listen. Most people who are against CW either want all benefits scrapped, or reduced to a practically sub-human level. Why should I listen to them?

(edit) I would add that the idea of the CW isn't that it allows everyone to do nothing. You could potentially just about get by on it, but it would be pretty close to subsistence living. The incentive to work would still be there.

Edited October 22, 2010 by tomandlu

[Injin]

Of course, without these protections you'd have no foundation on which to have built your business. All a CI seeks to do is give everyone the foundation to survive in the society in which they find themselves in exchange for them living by laws imposed upon them.

If you are going to have a system of extortion, then a CI or benefits is absolutely essential to stop the extortionists from getting murdered in their beds.

It's not an actual solution though, hand outs to the dispossessed from the extortionists just guarantees the status quo will last a bit longer, before it fails completely.

I mean, look at what happens to peopel who get hand outs in the long term - they lose the ability to fend for themselves When the money runs out to pay them (because extortion is actually pretty difficult to maintain as those being stolen from constantly wriggle to avoid it) then they are twice as ******ed as they would have been in the first place.

As things go, benefits, dole, CI etc are a better option for society in general than the thieves just keeping the loot (the tory plan) but a very distant second best to getting rid of the theft entirely.