Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
John51

A Different Look At Ci

Recommended Posts

Definitely worth a read. Thanks for posting.

I don't know if CI would work, but I'd like to see a small-scale country-wide trial somewhere, I'm not sure this guy's trial will be significant enough.

Edited by Eddie_George

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting.....here we get to the same place when we get the basic state pension which is enough to live on if you prefer the freedom of not having to work for a living and adjust your circumstances accordingly. It's a pity one has to wait so long to get to this point though. Also I don't think you'd be able to do as well if you had to pay rent so this is another reason to want to own your own house.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

$1,300 per month, across the UK that's ITRO a trillion dollars per annum, not very affordable IMO.

I think we concluded on the long running thread a while back that maybe £6,000 p/a could be affordable, the problem was that when you looked at it in detail it added up to a massive cut in benefits for single parent families to fund a huge tax giveaway to the well off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

$1,300 per month, across the UK that's ITRO a trillion dollars per annum, not very affordable IMO.

I think we concluded on the long running thread a while back that maybe £6,000 p/a could be affordable, the problem was that when you looked at it in detail it added up to a massive cut in benefits for single parent families to fund a huge tax giveaway to the well off.

On today's spending - its about £350 per month per person. But that doesn't include the quite humongous cost savings that would result from it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

$1,300 per month, across the UK that's ITRO a trillion dollars per annum, not very affordable IMO.

I think we concluded on the long running thread a while back that maybe £6,000 p/a could be affordable, the problem was that when you looked at it in detail it added up to a massive cut in benefits for single parent families to fund a huge tax giveaway to the well off.

Which long-running thread was that? I don't recall any that was devoted specifically to CI.

Was this £6k for adults only, or was there half of this for minors?

On today's spending - its about £350 per month per person. But that doesn't include the quite humongous cost savings that would result from it.

£350 per month is £4200 per year not £6000....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which long-running thread was that? I don't recall any that was devoted specifically to CI.

Was this £6k for adults only, or was there half of this for minors?

There were several but I think this is the one I was thinking about: http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/index.php?/topic/193707-citizens-income/?hl=%20citizens%20%20income

I think the idea was £6,000 for over 21s and £4,000 for those under.

My comment re: benefit cuts/tax giveaway is on page 4.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which long-running thread was that? I don't recall any that was devoted specifically to CI.

Was this £6k for adults only, or was there half of this for minors?

£350 per month is £4200 per year not £6000....

That was me simply dividing the total budget spend on social security with the population.

It doesn't include the huge cost savings that would also occur.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe not an accurate way of doing this as there is always the law of unintended consequences.

CI = £6.5k. Tax of 40% on any extra income. Those with an income of £16,250 pay for their own CI, so their net income is £16,250. Current NAW is about £27k. 90% employed = tax surplus of £4,300 per worker, £38,700 surplus for every CI recipient that choses not to work, leaving £3,220 surplus for every adult after paying CI. So CI can be paid just from income tax.

Unless, of course, poor people really are as lazy as some suggest. I doubt this, as pre Maggie, any adult could sign on and not be pressured into looking for work but unemployment got as low as 5%. How come unemployment wasn't 30% or higher if anyone could sign on with no comeback?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Free market proponent Friedman proposed similar.

Even denninger has noted how the US could do similar and bring everyone above the poverty level.

Of course, it will never happen as the welfare state is not structured to allieviate poverty, its structured to employ a vast bureaucratic class of moron civil servants to administer it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unless, of course, poor people really are as lazy as some suggest.

Oddly the people that tend to hold this view often also hold the contradictory view that humans are by nature greedy and driven by self interest-so strictly speaking in their world view there are no 'lazy' people, they cannot exist since the term 'lazy' is a pejorative term implying a moral failure of some kind.

But since they insist that people are motivated by self interest not morality such a moral failure is not only impossible but completely without meaning.

In the universe of 'greed is good' (since it drives effort and innovation) the notion of 'lazy' can at best be translated as 'lacking sufficient incentive to act' - but since incentive is subjective the 'lazy' person is by definition acting in their own self interest by being 'lazy' and therefore behaving with impeccable rationalism in the face of that insufficient incentive.

After all if my perception is that my self interest is best served by my doing nothing then doing nothing is the correct thing to do- there is no moral dimension to this decision, just a self interest calculation that delivers the outcome of inactivity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe not an accurate way of doing this as there is always the law of unintended consequences.

CI = £6.5k. Tax of 40% on any extra income. Those with an income of £16,250 pay for their own CI, so their net income is £16,250. Current NAW is about £27k. 90% employed = tax surplus of £4,300 per worker, £38,700 surplus for every CI recipient that choses not to work, leaving £3,220 surplus for every adult after paying CI. So CI can be paid just from income tax.

Unless, of course, poor people really are as lazy as some suggest. I doubt this, as pre Maggie, any adult could sign on and not be pressured into looking for work but unemployment got as low as 5%. How come unemployment wasn't 30% or higher if anyone could sign on with no comeback?

I think the unemployed is the wrong demographic for people who will stop working. Someone like myself who has decent amount of savings / investments but not enough to fully retire as of yet would definitely stop working if I had another £6,000 a year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the risk of being destitute was removed with a citizen's income, I'd go set up my own business in a heartbeat. As it is I can't risk it - house prices inflate as fast as I can save, so the possibility of ending up back at zero, fifteen years behind in the race, keeps me working for the man.

I guess that's how the government wants it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you honestly believe that owning your own house costs nothing? Believe me it does. Things go wrong and have to be paid for - your landlord is on the hook if you rent. Also you have the opportunity of using the money for something different if you don't own.

Indeed the only pensioners who have a guaranteed CI are those that rent since there is a minimum income guarantee and the rent is 100% covered by housing benefit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   211 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.