Finland plans to pay each citizen 800 euros per month, in national basic income proposal

[Gwylan]

Thanks for the links, aren't they the exception though? I can't see how 'the right' would be in favour of this. It is the antithesis of everything they believe in.

The idea is that it takes people off benefits and makes it easier for them to work. At the moment, if you earn x pounds and your benefit is y pounds then money is deducted from your benefits payment. This creates bureaucracy (ie more government spending) but often the person declines the work as there's no gain (for example, any additional money is eaten by transport to a job). A universal income means that it's a lot easier to earn extra money as your not losing any - and there's a big cut in public sector expenditure as lots of civil servant jobs disappear.

If someone has a full-time job then the additional money they earn can be spent in the economy, thus creating more jobs.

Cutting welfare benefit, cutting government bureaucracy and given people more cash in their pockets are all generally accepted conservative beliefs - which is why so many right wingers support the concept

 

[Uh_huh_him]

Thanks for the links, aren't they the exception though? I can't see how 'the right' would be in favour of this. It is the antithesis of everything they believe in.

The main advantage for the right is to simplify the cost of administering a complex benefits system. A huge amount of public sector jobs will becoming irrelevant by this simple change.
Therefore the government can reduce the cost to the state whilst making the state handouts applicable to all.

This will also remove the socialist concept behind benefits, namely that the rich should pay for the less fortunate (this is the bit the right object to)
The rich will be getting the same handout from the government as the poor. The government then just decides how much it can afford to give to each citizen.

The poor will have to find work if they want to have anything more than the absolute bare minimum.

 

[Ernest]

It's a great incentive to work and spend the excess income creating demand in the service industry as well as manufacturing, if you work knowing that the more you earn the more you have to spend is a forward thinking move. Trouble is we have a government who think poverty for all but their chums is how it should be

 

[pastafarian]

The idea is that it takes people off benefits and makes it easier for them to work. At the moment, if you earn x pounds and your benefit is y pounds then money is deducted from your benefits payment. This creates bureaucracy (ie more government spending) but often the person declines the work as there's no gain (for example, any additional money is eaten by transport to a job). A universal income means that it's a lot easier to earn extra money as your not losing any - and there's a big cut in public sector expenditure as lots of civil servant jobs disappear.

If someone has a full-time job then the additional money they earn can be spent in the economy, thus creating more jobs.

Cutting welfare benefit, cutting government bureaucracy and given people more cash in their pockets are all generally accepted conservative beliefs - which is why so many right wingers support the concept

I see the Swiss Right Wing are indeed broadly if favour of the concept,but as long as the borders are closed adding its "suicide" for a country that is wealthy which also has open borders.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25415501

 

[Uh_huh_him]

but people sometimes through no fault of their own do find themselves in a no job trap,would 800 euros be enough for these people to survive on?

No Idea to be honest. I would hope there would still be state assisted charities to assist those that genuinely cannot work. I would also suspect there would be cases where families can use the additional monthly income coming in to help support their family members who cannot find work.

Personally I think the idea makes a lot of sense.

 

[pastafarian]

No Idea to be honest. I would hope there would still be state assisted charities to assist those that genuinely cannot work. I would also suspect there would be cases where families can use the additional monthly income coming in to help support their family members who cannot find work.

Personally I think the idea makes a lot of sense.

sort of like benefit agencies with a state funded budget then

 

[Uh_huh_him]

sort of like benefit agencies with a state funded budget then

To be honest a great many of these types of arrangements are already in place.
I don't know whether these are in scope for the chop within the proposed model.

I think the reality is that the majority of long term unemployed people are capable of finding at least some work.
Currently too many are either afraid of losing their benefit, or are not any better off if they work.

the system doesn't work.

 

[looney]

In the past jobs lost to tech have been replaced by more jobs elsewhere. It has been argued were approaching a time where this won't happen.

based on what exactly? Its been argued for decades by sociologists who have a good track record of getting things wrong.

 

[looney]

I see the Swiss Right Wing are indeed broadly if favour of the concept,but as long as the borders are closed adding its "suicide" for a country that is wealthy which also has open borders.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25415501

Its long been economic law that you can have a generous welfare system or open borders but not both, As the Swedish are discovering.

 

[beorhthelm]

The poor will have to find work if they want to have anything more than the absolute bare minimum.

and this is where it will get the most resistance, from those of the political persuation that "bare minimum" isn't good enough, and people deserve more. and it reduces the overall involvment of the state, which would increase its initial touch upon the population but put no other involvement in their affairs. those of a clasical economic persuastion seem to be open to the idea that it can be cost neutral, so their politcal bedfellows may be persuaded despite the obvious misgivings.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

The idea is that it takes people off benefits and makes it easier for them to work. At the moment, if you earn x pounds and your benefit is y pounds then money is deducted from your benefits payment. This creates bureaucracy (ie more government spending) but often the person declines the work as there's no gain (for example, any additional money is eaten by transport to a job). A universal income means that it's a lot easier to earn extra money as your not losing any - and there's a big cut in public sector expenditure as lots of civil servant jobs disappear.

If someone has a full-time job then the additional money they earn can be spent in the economy, thus creating more jobs.

Cutting welfare benefit, cutting government bureaucracy and given people more cash in their pockets are all generally accepted conservative beliefs - which is why so many right wingers support the concept

The main advantage for the right is to simplify the cost of administering a complex benefits system. A huge amount of public sector jobs will becoming irrelevant by this simple change.
Therefore the government can reduce the cost to the state whilst making the state handouts applicable to all.

This will also remove the socialist concept behind benefits, namely that the rich should pay for the less fortunate (this is the bit the right object to)
The rich will be getting the same handout from the government as the poor. The government then just decides how much it can afford to give to each citizen.

The poor will have to find work if they want to have anything more than the absolute bare minimum.

I can see the theoretical appeal but in practise we already have tax credits morphing into Universal credit, plus the incoming living wage, plus record numbers in employment/ relatively low unemployment . Will any transition to a basic national income system mean some of the poorest will be worse off? Seeing the furore caused when anyone deemed poor loses money (tax credits) I can't see politicians of any party taking the risk.

Can there really be a workable system that combines support from Corbynista's and the right? I must be missing something!

 

[Hampster Gull]

Can there really be a workable system that combines support from Corbynista's and the right? I must be missing something!

All in the detail. The Corbynistas will want to pay an amount that is unaffordable, probably along with benefits of some sort as they cant help dabbling, it comes with the territory, ie we know best and we can manage it all from the centee. They will end up incentivising staying at home and penalises those who work hard and create jobs and wealth. Something like that

 

[Murray 17]

I know my economics is a bit rusty, but I always understood that if you pump millions of pounds into an economy you will increase inflation? If this happens then £700 doesn't buy you as much as it once did, meaning more money is needed, and so on?

 

[Gwylan]

Can there really be a workable system that combines support from Corbynista's and the right? I must be missing something!

Well, there's no support for this within the Labour party, Corbynista's or Blairites. And there's not much support in the Tory party either - so I wouldn't hold your breath on this being introduced

 

[JC Footy Genius]

All in the detail. The Corbynistas will want to pay an amount that is unaffordable, probably along with benefits of some sort as they cant help dabbling, it comes with the territory, ie we know best and we can manage it all from the centee. They will end up incentivising staying at home and penalises those who work hard and create jobs and wealth. Something like that

Ah yes that sounds entirely plausible creating large scale dependency on the state is the ultimate aim of socialism after all.

 

[Hampster Gull]

I know my economics is a bit rusty, but I always understood that if you pump millions of pounds into an economy you will increase inflation? If this happens then £700 doesn't buy you as much as it once did, meaning more money is needed, and so on?

In theory, with a few conditions in place like no slack in the economy, then yes. But you can do this and not increase inflation if you remove benefits

 

[Gwylan]

In theory, with a few conditions in place like no slack in the economy, then yes. But you can do this and not increase inflation if you remove benefits

Yes, most proponents of this see it as cost neutral

 

[JC Footy Genius]

Well, there's no support for this within the Labour party, Corbynista's or Blairites. And there's not much support in the Tory party either - so I wouldn't hold your breath on this being introduced

Fair enough I just noticed the Corbynista/Labour right or wrong element on NSC were supportive hence my confusion.

 

[Hampster Gull]

Fair enough I just noticed the Corbynista/Labour right or wrong element on NSC were supportive hence my confusion.

There just wrong most of the time

 

[beorhthelm]

I know my economics is a bit rusty, but I always understood that if you pump millions of pounds into an economy you will increase inflation? If this happens then £700 doesn't buy you as much as it once did, meaning more money is needed, and so on?

you pay for the income out of taxes, so no net increase in the amount of money in the economy. those who chose to work would still have to pay taxes on their income. one suggestion is that the tax allowanace is at the same point as national income, currently puts it at £833p/m. which also puts the cost at around £600bn, a tad more than the combined welfare and pensions budget.