The economics of the madhouse ..... or the future of benefits?

[JohnfromUK]

I see that John McDonnell is considering a "Universal Basic Income" along the lines of :  A universal basic income is a cash pay-out - often estimated at around £10,000 - paid to every eligible citizen of a country.

This has been trialled (notably in Canada and Finland, where both found it too expensive. 

Mr McDonnell is quoted as having said the idea of replacing the current benefits system with a flat rate handout to everyone was an idea that 'a lot of people are pressing for' despite the eye-watering costs of introducing it.

Others have condemned it as "the economics of the madhouse" and as 'buying votes".

Thoughts?

Edited August 1, 2018 by JohnfromUK

[JRDS]

Barking mad vote buying thinking there will soon be an election much like they bought the student vote last time round.

[Rewulf]

10 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

I see that John McDonnell is considering a "Universal Basic Income" along the lines of :  A universal basic income is a cash pay-out - often estimated at around £10,000 - paid to every eligible citizen of a country.  paid to every potential labour voter at the next election .

 

 

[motty]

Post Brexit, the focus should be on getting our work-shy into jobs, rather than offering ridiculous incentives for them to stay at home!

[Vince Green]

Buying votes, plain and simple, and it will , no doubt about it.

Labour has got a magic money tree that will pay for it all so you don't have to worry

"every eligible CITIZEN of a country", yeah right. They could do well to apply that to the present benefits scheme.

Edited August 1, 2018 by Vince Green

[old man]

16 minutes ago, motty said:

Post Brexit, the focus should be on getting our work-shy into jobs, rather than offering ridiculous incentives for them to stay at home!

??

[mick miller]

You just don't get it do you? 

[manthing]

3 minutes ago, mick miller said:

You just don't get it do you? 

Who doesn't get what? Please clarify. 

[mick miller]

You lot, you just don't get the genius of corbynomics.

[blackbird]

If the past governments had the balls to sort out our pathetic welfare system out I am 100% certain we would not have voted for brexit as let’s face it the majority of the country voted out because of the influx of east Europeans invading our country to rape our money for nothing welfare system. It’s time for the hard working people of this land to be looked after not the lazy idle #######

Edited August 2, 2018 by blackbird

[Vince Green]

1 hour ago, mick miller said:

You lot, you just don't get the genius of corbynomics.

Corbyn has nothing to do with it, he's probably still in bed, he doesn't like to get up early

[Gordon R]

I didn't consider the

Quote

pathetic welfare system

when I voted, so that is a quantum leap in logic. Brexit would have happened without this factor - I am 101% certain.

As for the flat rate - it is pie in the sky. For some it would be an increase - for others it would be a massive drop in their income and they would clamour for more. This is the simplistic stupidity proposed by those who will never be in power to implement it.

[SpringDon]

Well I think it could be a good idea. Scrap the benefits system entirely, scrap tax credits and focus what was the benefits apparatus on getting people into work. Possibly combining citizen wage with citizen service.

(although I won’t be voting labour even if you paid me. Would consider offers though)

[Lord Geordie]

I think it's a bargain actually, currently the majority get their benefit, housing benefit, council tax benefit so it all adds up. I think if this £10k was a SINGULAR payment, and they had to pay their housing costs themselves! It would make a saving

[mick miller]

This is the key to this solution. Currently government takes tax from working people, then sets up departments to distribute and administer those taxes to those poorest in society or those who already do work but don't earn a decent wage. In this system there is inevitable bloat and mismanagement which hemorrhages off vast amounts of money into the wrong places. the system is also open to frequent abuse. Very, very wealthy people are already given tax benefits and incentives under the current system so why shouldn't everyone else  be to a lesser degree?

However, the idea of giving a lump sum to many folk would be, I believe, a huge mistake, it would have to be a monthly payment. But, as already mentioned, this only works if we scrap all the child benefits, tax credits, disability living allowances etc. provided under the current, mind-bendingly complicated, system. It would need a lot of thought to get it right.

There is also a side issue of our own human evolution which this solution helps to address. Given that we are increasingly living in a mechanised and automated world where many peoples traditional jobs have been replaced by automation these types of solutions are going to be forwarded with increasing frequency to prevent mass unemployment. Or, I suppose we could have strict birth control limits and perhaps euthanise anyone deemed academically not gifted enough to be able to succeed in this bright, new, automated world?

Mind you, I still  believe that the idea of a debt jubilee instead of austerity is a grand concept too, provided that the key caveat that any money gifted to people, rather than banks and institutions that – let's make no mistake about it – caused the financial crash is used first and foremost to pay down any existing personal debt before it can be spent on anything else.

Edited August 2, 2018 by mick miller

[JohnfromUK]

16 minutes ago, SpringDon said:

Well I think it could be a good idea. Scrap the benefits system entirely, scrap tax credits and focus what was the benefits apparatus on getting people into work.

Actually, I can see some merits, but I cannot see the logic of giving rich men (examples such as Alan Sugar, Richard Branson etc. to quote a couple of well known names) £10,000 - then taking it back in tax.  Just makes needless work for civil servants and opportunities for tax avoidance/evasion.  The serious question then becomes 'who is entitled' - and then you are back on the whole means tested benefits game again.

For example - for most normal working people and many pensioners with a private pension, they will be given £10,000 basic income - then it will be taken straight back by an additional £10,000 tax burden - and require a whole pile of additional government officials and tax collectors to operate the collection part of the scheme.  It has been shown many times that the more tax you try and take from people, the harder they try and avoid having it taken.  IF people feel a tax is fair, they won't try and avoid it, but if they feel it is unfair (to them) then they will do their best to avoid (or evade) paying it.  Inheritance tax is a classic example where a great many people think that it is a tax on money you have saved from income that has already been taxed - i.e. paying tax twice.  Most peole think it a very unfair tax, hence the widespread attempts to minimise the amount to be paid - attempts which work better the richer you are.

 

19 minutes ago, Lord Geordie said:

I think it's a bargain actually, currently the majority get their benefit, housing benefit, council tax benefit so it all adds up. I think if this £10k was a SINGULAR payment, and they had to pay their housing costs themselves! It would make a saving

No details are given, but I rather suspect that the idle and feckless will get a series of other payments so that their overall 'take' will be far above the basic £10,000.

[Lloyd90]

I don’t like the sound of it but the current system is hardly any better! 

When a man loses his job and he and his family when looking at their entire “benefit package” are on around £26,000 a year, why on earth would that person then go and get a job that pays £15,000? Or £20,000? 

 

[JohnfromUK]

1 minute ago, Lloyd90 said:

When a man loses his job and he and his family when looking at their entire “benefit package” are on around £26,000 a year, why on earth would that person then go and get a job that pays £15,000? Or £20,000?

I don't know the benefits system well at all, but I doubt that very many will get £26,000 in benefits.  Many people have assets/savings and cannot claim many of the benefits.  I know at the time I took redundancy, I did look into what I might be able to claim ...... and it was actually very little (because I received a redundancy package and have savings and assets) being only job seekers allowance.  I claimed nothing in the end and used the opportunity to take early retirement, but I'm of an age where that was possible, which obviously isn't the case for everyone.

The idea behind the current move to 'Universal Credit' was to ensure that people would always be supported for essential needs, but always be better off in work.  That is a sound idea, but it seems to have been (surprise, surprise) badly implemented.

[krugerandsmith]

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

If the past governments had the balls to sort out our pathetic welfare system out I am 100% certain we would not have voted for brexit as let’s face it the majority of the country voted out because of the influx of east Europeans invading our country to rape our money for nothing welfare system. It’s time for the hard working people of this land to be looked after not the lazy idle #######

You have a snowballs chance in hell of that ever happening no matter how much money this and other governments save when  in power. We have hard working people now having to attend food banks and I am talking about sensible people not spendthrifts.

[blackbird]

Totally agree with you.

 

[Lloyd90]

2 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

I don't know the benefits system well at all, but I doubt that very many will get £26,000 in benefits.  Many people have assets/savings and cannot claim many of the benefits.  I know at the time I took redundancy, I did look into what I might be able to claim ...... and it was actually very little (because I received a redundancy package and have savings and assets) being only job seekers allowance.  I claimed nothing in the end and used the opportunity to take early retirement, but I'm of an age where that was possible, which obviously isn't the case for everyone.

The idea behind the current move to 'Universal Credit' was to ensure that people would always be supported for essential needs, but always be better off in work.  That is a sound idea, but it seems to have been (surprise, surprise) badly implemented.

When looking at the entire package as I said, someone could get: 

housing benefits

income support 

job seekers 

employment and support allowance 

incapacity 

child benefit and child tax credits 

disability allowance 

universal credit 

there was even a benefit cap introduced ... outside London it is £384.62 a week (Over £20,000 a year) and in London it’s £442.31 (just under £23,000). 

 

Whilst not everyone will be up to the full amount, lots of people know the system and will get the maximum they can, they all speak to each other and know how it all works. 

Why would someone on £20,000 a year sat at home, take a minimum wage job, most likely not a very nice job working in poor conditions and they end up with less free time and less money? 

8 minutes ago, krugerandsmith said:

You have a snowballs chance in hell of that ever happening no matter how much money this and other governments save when  in power. We have hard working people now having to attend food banks and I am talking about sensible people not spendthrifts.

We also have people to attend food banks so they can do their “weekly shopping” for free, so they can keep their money to spend on other luxuries ... like going out, fags and drink ... 

[oldypigeonpopper]

hello, could have been possable if that gordon brown had not sold off all that gold, but then its a mad idea, oh bit like the labour party we now have, maybe they should try living on a basic pension instead of the gold plated ones the MPs will get

Edited August 2, 2018 by oldypigeonpopper

[Rewulf]

25 minutes ago, Lloyd90 said:

 

there was even a benefit cap introduced ... outside London it is £384.62 a week (Over £20,000 a year) and in London it’s £442.31 (just under £23,000). 

 

The benefit cap?
Is that applied rigorously ?
How does someone in London, or indeed in other areas pay rent out of that ?
An average 3 bed house in London can be £1500- 2000 a month.
The flats in Grenfell were valued at nearly £1 million a piece, what were their rents ?
Not disputing your figures Lloyd , just genuinely interested how that works.

https://www.foxtons.co.uk/living-in/hackney/rentals/

Edited August 2, 2018 by Rewulf

[mick miller]

As, outlined; It's a grand concept , but the devil is in the detail and the detail suggests the idea is not quite fully thought through yet.

[Newbie to this]

No money should change hands if you are on welfare. 

You should not be able to spend welfare money on luxuries like fags, booze, games consoles, TVs, Pay for TV like sky, etc the list is endless.

Welfare should not be a way of life, but mearly a stepping stone to getting work.

Unless of course you are genuinely unable to work.