£155 a week may be an idea whose time has come

Introducing a basic income guarantee would be costly, but it could be the answer to a lot of different problems


The “basic income guarantee” - under which everyone would receive a certain minimum level of income from the state, regardless of other earnings - is one of those ideas that attracts support from both left and right, and for good reason; it’s both a neat answer to the potentially devastating problem of “technological unemployment” and it theoretically deals with many of the perverse, anti-work incentives created by modern welfare systems.

To date the idea has been confined largely to an eclectic mix of utopian and libertarian thinkers. Certainly, it has been easy to dismiss the concept as costly, unrealistic idealism. But now it seems that Finland might actually introduce one, set at a level of €800 (£576) per citizen a month, or just enough to live on.

But hold on, you might say. If everyone gets €800 a month, won’t a significant minority stop working altogether? Well, perhaps, but in a country where unemployment already tops 10pc, it scarcely seems to matter. It’s unlikely to be much higher.
In any case, the hope is that it would have the opposite effect, by encouraging the unemployed to work part time to top up the basic income guarantee.

What about the costs? This is certainly where it gets tricky. A quick back of the envelope calculation reveals that paying the equivalent of the UK state pension – a little bit more than the basic income proposed in Finland - to all over 16-year-olds in Britain would have cost £413.6bn last year, or around 55pc of all UK Government managed expenditure.

Cont: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/12037623/Paying-all-UK-citizens-155-a-week-may-be-an-idea-whose-time-has-come.html

What a great idea. I could get £155 a week for doing absolutely nothing then. Those who manage to live on JSA now would be laughing all the way to the bank. I doubt very much they would bother to get any part time work. In any case, if there's part time work available they should be doing it anyway if they're on benefits.

oh bloody 'ell.....

the world is finally catching up with me...


if any of you bothered to read the post i made a while back on social matters you will see that i postulated this idea about 5 years ago, and again on here about a year or so ago......

Lord Foul wrote:oh bloody 'ell.....

the world is finally catching up with me...


if any of you bothered to read the post i made a while back on social matters you will see that i postulated this idea about 5 years ago, and again on here about a year or so ago......

That we should all get £155 a week for doing nothing?

Lord Foul wrote:oh bloody 'ell.....

the world is finally catching up with me...


if any of you bothered to read the post i made a while back on social matters you will see that i postulated this idea about 5 years ago, and again on here about a year or so ago......

Well you were about 1400 years behind the times, also.

A minimum guaranteed idea was originally a Muslim idea, introduced by Muslim caliph Abu Bakr.



Yes Rags, it is a good idea. It includes all benefits, including housing and child, etc.

We are paying much more than £8,060 per year (as taxpayers) at moment.

Seems a good plan, can't see them ever doing it though.

Plageraism from the Muslims again claiming they invented zero, when it is first found in Cambodia and now  a living wage which has been used. When in Sumeria can be found some of the first ideas of a fair wage

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:oh bloody 'ell.....

the world is finally catching up with me...


if any of you bothered to read the post i made a while back on social matters you will see that i postulated this idea about 5 years ago, and again on here about a year or so ago......

Well you were about 1400 years behind the times, also.

A minimum guaranteed idea was originally a Muslim idea, introduced by Muslim caliph Abu Bakr.



Yes Rags, it is a good idea. It includes all benefits, including housing and child, etc.

We are paying much more than £8,060 per year (as taxpayers) at moment.

What if someone doesn't have housing costs? They could double their JSA money. I don't think that's a good idea.

So if someone had a part time job which paid £100 a week, they could get £155 a week on top of that for doing absolutely nothing?

No, they would get £55

At the moment they would get Working Tax Credit

sassy wrote:No, they would get £55

At the moment they would get Working Tax Credit

The “basic income guarantee” - under which everyone would receive a certain minimum level of income from the state, regardless of other earnings

Perhaps it's the wording which is confusing.

£155 per week wouldn't be enough if someone had housing costs anyway.

Raggamuffin wrote:

sassy wrote:No, they would get £55

At the moment they would get Working Tax Credit

The “basic income guarantee” - under which everyone would receive a certain minimum level of income from the state, regardless of other earnings

Perhaps it's the wording which is confusing.

Maybe I'm wrong, but that's the way I thought it would work, so that everyone gets £155 coming in.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Well you were about 1400 years behind the times, also.

A minimum guaranteed idea was originally a Muslim idea, introduced by Muslim caliph Abu Bakr.



Yes Rags, it is a good idea. It includes all benefits, including housing and child, etc.

We are paying much more than £8,060 per year (as taxpayers) at moment.

What if someone doesn't have housing costs? They could double their JSA money. I don't think that's a good idea.

There's always winner and losers.

But there are always advantages to this idea, also. Knowing you cannot earn anymore may encourage you to supplement your income with some sort of work.

sassy wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:



Perhaps it's the wording which is confusing.

Maybe I'm wrong, but that's the way I thought it would work, so that everyone gets £155 coming in.

Yup - that's the idea.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

What if someone doesn't have housing costs? They could double their JSA money. I don't think that's a good idea.

There's always winner and losers.

But there are always advantages to this idea, also. Knowing you cannot earn anymore may encourage you to supplement your income with some sort of work.

Supplement their income with some sort of work?

So is the idea that people's basic income should be in the form of a handout, and if they want more they could possibly find a job if it's not too much trouble?

If there are jobs going, those on JSA should be doing them or lose their JSA.

Richard The Lionheart wrote:Plageraism from the Muslims again claiming they invented zero, when it is first found in Cambodia and now  a living wage which has been used. When in Sumeria can be found some of the first ideas of a fair wage

Do you have a reference for that?

This makes no sense at all. So if someone earns £155 per week, they would get nothing from the State?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

There's always winner and losers.

But there are always advantages to this idea, also. Knowing you cannot earn anymore may encourage you to supplement your income with some sort of work.

Supplement their income with some sort of work?

So is the idea that people's basic income should be in the form of a handout, and if they want more they could possibly find a job if it's not too much trouble?

If there are jobs going, those on JSA should be doing them or lose their JSA.

Not many can live on £155 pw. So most will have to supplement their income.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Richard The Lionheart wrote:Plageraism from the Muslims again claiming they invented zero, when it is first found in Cambodia and now  a living wage which has been used. When in Sumeria can be found some of the first ideas of a fair wage

Do you have a reference for that?

Yes, look up the history of Sumeria.
Maybe you missed that at school

Raggamuffin wrote:This makes no sense at all. So if someone earns £155 per week, they would get nothing from the State?

No, they will now earn £310 pw.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2013/05/20/how-i-rediscovered-the-oldest-zero-in-history/

Richard The Lionheart wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Do you have a reference for that?

Yes, look up the history of Sumeria.
Maybe you missed that at school

Yes, I missed the bit about Sumerian miminum income.

Which is why I asked: do you have a reference specifically about that, Dick?

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:This makes no sense at all. So if someone earns £155 per week, they would get nothing from the State?

No, they will now earn £310 pw.

So the £155 is on top of anything they earn, whatever they earn? That's not what Sassy said.

This is absurd either way. The whole benefits system is set up to be a lifestyle choice. People say - oh if I get a job I'll lose benefits. Well yes - that's how it's supposed to work. The incentive would be to tell them that if they don't get a job, they'll lose their benefits anyway. That'll make them get off their arses.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Richard The Lionheart wrote:

Yes, look up the history of Sumeria.
Maybe you missed that at school

Yes, I missed the bit about Sumerian miminum income.

Which is why I asked: do you have a reference specifically about that, Dick?

I have given you the chace to teach yourself.

Also evidence of the zero before Muslims posted above

In his very instructive work, Must History Repeat Itself? Antony Fisher[8] calls our attention to a king of Sumeria,[9] Urukagina of Lagash, whose reign began about 2350 BC. Urukagina, from the scanty records that have come down to us, was apparently a precursor of Ludwig Erhard, who began his rule by ending the burdens of excessive government regulations over the economy, including controls on wages and prices.

Richard The Lionheart wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Yes, I missed the bit about Sumerian miminum income.

Which is why I asked: do you have a reference specifically about that, Dick?

I have given you the chace to teach yourself.

Also evidence of the zero before Muslims posted above

In his very instructive work, Must History Repeat Itself? Antony Fisher[8] calls our attention to a king of Sumeria,[9] Urukagina of Lagash, whose reign began about 2350 BC. Urukagina, from the scanty records that have come down to us, was apparently a precursor of Ludwig Erhard, who began his rule by ending the burdens of excessive government regulations over the economy, including controls on wages and prices.

Control on wages and prices is not miminum guaranteed income. D'UH!

Raggamuffin wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

No, they will now earn £310 pw.

So the £155 is on top of anything they earn, whatever they earn? That's not what Sassy said.

This is absurd either way. The whole benefits system is set up to be a lifestyle choice. People say - oh if I get a job I'll lose benefits. Well yes - that's how it's supposed to work. The incentive would be to tell them that if they don't get a job, they'll lose their benefits anyway. That'll make them get off their arses.

Every adult gets £155 pw.

There is sometimes an income reduction when someone goes from benefits to wages. In this system, you will not get more than minimum wage.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

So the £155 is on top of anything they earn, whatever they earn? That's not what Sassy said.

This is absurd either way. The whole benefits system is set up to be a lifestyle choice. People say - oh if I get a job I'll lose benefits. Well yes - that's how it's supposed to work. The incentive would be to tell them that if they don't get a job, they'll lose their benefits anyway. That'll make them get off their arses.

Every adult gets £155 pw.

There is sometimes an income reduction when someone goes from benefits to wages. In this system, you will not get more than minimum wage.

Sassy said they would only get an amount to take them up to £155.

So someone who's 20 could live with their parents and get £155 for doing fuck all. Do you really think that's going to encourage them to get a job and pay their way?

Someone who earns £400 a week can also get a hand out of £155 per week?

What kind of daft system is this?

Someone who's currently earning enough to live on, including their rent, may well say - stuff this, I'm reducing my hours because I can get a hand out anyway.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Every adult gets £155 pw.

There is sometimes an income reduction when someone goes from benefits to wages. In this system, you will not get more than minimum wage.

Sassy said they would only get an amount to take them up to £155.

So someone who's 20 could live with their parents and get £155 for doing fuck all. Do you really think that's going to encourage them to get a job and pay their way?

Someone who earns £400 a week can also get a hand out of £155 per week?

What kind of daft system is this?

There some caveats but essentially that's the plan.

The Finnish system is that EVERY ADULT gets the income.

Raggamuffin wrote:Someone who's currently earning enough to live on, including their rent, may well say - stuff this, I'm reducing my hours because I can get a hand out anyway.

Now you're just being ridiculous.

I doubt you can pay your rent on £155 pw. And then live.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Sassy said they would only get an amount to take them up to £155.

So someone who's 20 could live with their parents and get £155 for doing fuck all. Do you really think that's going to encourage them to get a job and pay their way?

Someone who earns £400 a week can also get a hand out of £155 per week?

What kind of daft system is this?

There some caveats but essentially that's the plan.

The Finnish system is that EVERY ADULT gets the income.

Well perhaps Finland isn't full of people on the make who would love to sit around doing nothing for £155 a week. Who is paying for all this? Not the people sitting around raking in that amount obviously.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Someone who's currently earning enough to live on, including their rent, may well say - stuff this, I'm reducing my hours because I can get a hand out anyway.

Now you're just being ridiculous.

I doubt you can pay your rent on £155 pw. And then live.

Let's say they earned £400 a week, and could live on that, including their rent. If they can get that same amount by only earning £245 per week, they'll reduce their hours if they can.

Dick - you fucked up. I gave you a chance to give me a reference.

Show me your evidence that the Sumerians invented the minimum guaranteed income.

There used to be another arrogant idiot on this board called Didge. I turned him into a nervous reck and had he ran away like a little pussy.

is this £155 taxable? If it's not, they'll reduce their hours even more to pay less tax.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Now you're just being ridiculous.

I doubt you can pay your rent on £155 pw. And then live.

Let's say they earned £400 a week, and could live on that, including their rent. If they can get that same amount by only earning £245 per week, they'll reduce their hours if they can.

Fine. That gives them the freedom to spend time with their family, charity or sit on their arse. It's called freedom. This ain't communism.

Raggamuffin wrote:is this £155 taxable? If it's not, they'll reduce their hours even more to pay less tax.

Not taxed.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:is this £155 taxable? If it's not, they'll reduce their hours even more to pay less tax.

Not taxed.

Right, so they need to earn even less then.

Let's say someone earned £150 in a part time job but didn't have housing costs. They could manage on that IMO, but if they get £155 as a hand out, they'll just think - stuff this, I'm packing in the job - thanks very much for the dosh.

This is supposed to encourage people to work? I don't think anyone thought this through.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Let's say they earned £400 a week, and could live on that, including their rent. If they can get that same amount by only earning £245 per week, they'll reduce their hours if they can.

Fine. That gives them the freedom to spend time with their family, charity or sit on their arse. It's called freedom. This ain't communism.

Talk about encouraging a nation of benefit scroungers. We have enough of those as it is.

So all the high tax payers will be paying for this obviously, and people wonder why they get pissed off and avoid paying tax or leave the country.

It's not 1st April is it?

Fuzzy Zack wrote:Dick - you fucked up. I gave you a chance to give me a reference.

Show me your evidence that the Sumerians invented the minimum guaranteed income.

There used to be another arrogant idiot on this board called Didge. I turned him into a nervous reck and had he ran away like a little pussy.

Never fucked up at all

Dude?
How old are you two?

You seriously cannot understand many things as seen,

I heard there was a little weasel Muslim on this forum, I gather this is you

The Code established a minimum wage for workers.

Hammurabi’s Code was surprisingly ahead of its time when it came to laws addressing subjects like divorce, property rights and the prohibition of incest, but perhaps most progressive of all was a stipulation mandating an ancient form of minimum wage. Several edicts in the Code referenced specific occupations and dictated how much the workers were to be paid. Field laborers and herdsmen were guaranteed a wage of “eight gur of corn per year,” and ox drivers and sailors received six gur. Doctors, meanwhile, were entitled to 5 shekels for healing a freeborn man of a broken bone or other injury, but only three shekels for a freed slave and two shekels for a slave.

http://www.history.com/news/history-lists/8-things-you-may-not-know-about-hammurabis-code

This isn't about a minimum wage though is it?

I am in favour of ditching these daft tax credits. The way to do that is to either raise the minimum wage or lower the cost of housing - for everyone not just those in social housing.

From next April the minimum wage for those over 25 will be £7.20 per hour. They're calling it a living wage, but it's really just a rise in the minimum wage.

Richard The Lionheart wrote:

The Code established a minimum wage for workers.

Hammurabi’s Code was surprisingly ahead of its time when it came to laws addressing subjects like divorce, property rights and the prohibition of incest, but perhaps most progressive of all was a stipulation mandating an ancient form of minimum wage. Several edicts in the Code referenced specific occupations and dictated how much the workers were to be paid. Field laborers and herdsmen were guaranteed a wage of “eight gur of corn per year,” and ox drivers and sailors received six gur. Doctors, meanwhile, were entitled to 5 shekels for healing a freeborn man of a broken bone or other injury, but only three shekels for a freed slave and two shekels for a slave.

http://www.history.com/news/history-lists/8-things-you-may-not-know-about-hammurabis-code

You Dick, fucked up again.

Do you understand the differences between "minimum wage" and a "guaranteed income"?

It seems you have no proof. Do you want to try again?

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Richard The Lionheart wrote:

The Code established a minimum wage for workers.

Hammurabi’s Code was surprisingly ahead of its time when it came to laws addressing subjects like divorce, property rights and the prohibition of incest, but perhaps most progressive of all was a stipulation mandating an ancient form of minimum wage. Several edicts in the Code referenced specific occupations and dictated how much the workers were to be paid. Field laborers and herdsmen were guaranteed a wage of “eight gur of corn per year,” and ox drivers and sailors received six gur. Doctors, meanwhile, were entitled to 5 shekels for healing a freeborn man of a broken bone or other injury, but only three shekels for a freed slave and two shekels for a slave.

http://www.history.com/news/history-lists/8-things-you-may-not-know-about-hammurabis-code

You Dick, fucked up again.

Do you understand the differences between "minimum wage" and a "guaranteed income"?

It seems you have no proof. Do you want to try again?

This is what Zack the twat wrote:


"Show me your evidence that the Sumerians invented the minimum guaranteed income."

Does the above show a minimum guarnateed wage?

Yes

Did zack just prove his is an ignorant little runt?

Yes

Ha ha

Did he just try to move th3e goalpost because I shattered his delusions over islam plagerism.

Twat ha ha

The Code established a minimum wage for workers.

Hammurabi’s Code was surprisingly ahead of its time when it came to laws addressing subjects like divorce, property rights and the prohibition of incest, but perhaps most progressive of all was a stipulation mandating an ancient form of minimum wage. Several edicts in the Code referenced specific occupations and dictated how much the workers were to be paid. Field laborers and herdsmen were guaranteed a wage of “eight gur of corn per year,” and ox drivers and sailors received six gur. Doctors, meanwhile, were entitled to 5 shekels for healing a freeborn man of a broken bone or other injury, but only three shekels for a freed slave and two shekels for a slave.

http://www.history.com/news/history-lists/8-things-you-may-not-know-about-hammurabis-code

A minimum wage is different to a minimum guaranteed income though. A minimum wage implies that people actually do something to earn it.

You have to hand to him, he excels at being Dick.

In words of one syllable

minimum guaranteed income - money you are given whether you work or not

miniumum income - money you get if you work

sassy wrote:You have to hand to him, he excels at being Dick.

In words of one syllable

minimum guaranteed income - money you are given whether you work or not

miniumum income - money you get if you work

Seems sassy is also proving how thick she is lol

Read again

The Code established a minimum wage for workers.

Hammurabi’s Code was surprisingly ahead of its time when it came to laws addressing subjects like divorce, property rights and the prohibition of incest, but perhaps most progressive of all was a stipulation mandating an ancient form of minimum wage. Several edicts in the Code referenced specific occupations and dictated how much the workers were to be paid. Field laborers and herdsmen were guaranteed a wage of “eight gur of corn per year,” and ox drivers and sailors received six gur. Doctors, meanwhile, were entitled to 5 shekels for healing a freeborn man of a broken bone or other injury, but only three shekels for a freed slave and two shekels for a slave.

http://www.history.com/news/history-lists/8-things-you-may-not-know-about-hammurabis-code