Re~Stirred Forum

12p for a tin of rice pud at Tesco, so I'd be more than happy to live on 12k per year for doing nothing.

Surely the state's role would be huge if I'm totally reliant on the state for my income? Where would the 500bill+ per year to fund a CW come from?

If everyone behaved like me & just sponged from a free handout, wouldn't the whole system collapse?

You would have to pay for your housing out of that. Also according to LiKW:
"...citizen's income would see the abolition of housing benefit, child benefit*, tax credits (working and family), jobseekers allowance, statutory maternity leave etc etc. "
So if you had children you would have to provide for them. It may be possible to live very frugally doing nothing but most people want more and the incentive to work would be there.
Another point is that if everyone had a basic income it might push up the 12p cost of your tin of rice pud at Tesco!

*other versions of CI allow for a children's income, but usually not eniugh to cover the cost of raising them.

Good for you if you can live on 3 tins of Tesco rice pud every day. Can't imagine that's particularly healthy though.


Aside from the fact that you already are reliant on state spending to help create your income (as we all are), the policy removes direct involvement in many of people's lives - no more job centres, benefit administration would be considerable lower, no need for parasitic companies such as A4e to exist etc. In short, you remove the micromanagement and bullying that exists.

It would be an experiment in allowing people to make choices for themselves rather than the state doing so on their behalf. This is a reduction in the role of the state - try not confusing that with the size of the state.


As my system is tapered, it wouldn't cost £500bn as you suggest. And once you start abolishing child benefit, working tax credits, housing benefit, council tax benefit, maternity and paternity payments, state pensions etc, you see where current spending can be reallocated.

Then there is taxation - for one thing, everyone would pay council tax and I would look to reduce the state grant that local councils receive and ring-fencing what central grant they do receive. I would also reintroduce a poll tax element to the council's fund-raising powers as well as rates (choices for what mixture each council uses would be up to them).


But everyone doesn't behave like you though - haven't you noticed that yet? Some will and that's okay but others won't. Of course, such a system means (as Dom pointed out on another thread) that four people sharing a house could have a comfortable lifestyle to play X-box all day and live off tins of rice pud. They would still be consuming though and paying the landlord rent, creating employment for Tesco and game designers and manufacturing firms.

But, for example, there wouldn't be any incentive for having children to generate income. The costs of having them would rest with the parents themselves. And many will want to consume and have a bigger house or nice holidays - all of which is economic activity and will generate revenue for the state and require that people be employed to service such activity. I did say that I wanted this to be a boost to the regions (or a capital transfer as its normally called) to stimulate their local economies.

The other thing I said is that the £12,000 figure is designed to minimise the need for transitional support because of issues such as the costs of the South East. So my thinking is to set this high initially but freeze it for say four years and allow inflation to depreciate the citizen's income to a lower effective amount. This would also create additional incentive to maintain their living standard through work.

And a nice article about the continuing futility of policies as espoused by Cameron. After 400 years, the message might have gotten home by now...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... ng-history

Must say you make a good argument LiKW, but what about the people who fall through the net, the ones who find for instance, they couldn't manage the money, maybe they borrowed money , then couldn't pay the rent, their probs escalate leading to them being evicted?, ( I mean the people who are already on the "citizen's income".)
The Idea of not having to "sign on" and being interigated about what I have done to find work? showing my little record book as evidence, ( this after working for 40 years with only a year out with both of my sons). It makes me want to scream!! I feel like a child, then the person just types it on your record , ready for the big interview to find out why your not working arghhhhhhhhhhhh.
I am lucky I have an Idea for a business of my own, I will do something.
I didn't make myself redundant, I want to earn my own money. ---Sorry LiKW, back to the people who fall through the net?

Well this occurs now and there is a whole industry devoted to them "the financially excluded and the financially illiterate" (these should be treated as separate issues although there is significant overlap for the group you're talking about).

For the citizen's income to work, we must treat adults as adults and let them make their own mistakes and suffer the consequences of those mistakes. This is the root of learning for most people. For fear of being compared to Margaret Thatcher by Andy again, its only when there are market failures (the people you refer to) should the state step in.

For such individuals, I prefer supportive intervention through structured financial support. The obvious place for this would be credit unions where the state would fund support and the CUs would provide what's called "Jam Jar" banking. That is the CU would separate the monthly CI payment into different accounts (bills, debts, savings, spending). It would be a useful tool for courts to order such financial intervention and the banks would be relived that they didn't have to deal with that client group. Such an offering would also be helpful for those who need support in the community to function as independently as possible.

For some that fall through to the CU safety net, they can build up their financial skills and take control of their finances and allow them to move back into the mainstream provision. Others will choose to stay there because it just makes their lives easier.

What I do think is needed is more responsible ways of dealing with debt if a CI is introduced. Bankruptcy should be a harder choice than currently it is. I do also think that, for example, mortgage companies that repossess homes and sell them should take the losses made on that home themselves rather than continue to chase the debtor for the outstanding amount. Moral hazard should work both ways.

You have been having tea with Mrs. Thatcher.

There are people who are not that good at coping with things and any system that is devised cannot simply turf them on the streets. This is why we need things like direct payment of landlords for rent etc. Far too many people end up in a real mess because they spend their rent money on other things and then get evicted. This also results in landlords who are unwilling to accept people on LHA.

LiKW's proposals seem excellent providing the wedge is fundable.

I was once approached by a landlord to become a tenant of his & 'make some money'. He asked me to get divorced so that myself & future ex-wife could become tenants of his. We could then claim against an inflated rental charge & split the inflation gain between myself & the landlord.

Would direct payments to landlords reduce the amount of inflated rental claims?

Condorcet, unlike the Philosopher you take your name from, you have failed to look into the philosophical morality of those hard workers paying tax enriching the, often feckless, in our society.

The Capital sum of a mortgage is often repaid after 25 years and often linked to an appropriate endowment policy. In simple terms a sum of £10,000 25 years ago was a considerable amount today it is not. An interest only mortgage is just that, you only pay the interest on the capital sum over the life of the mortgage and if unemployed the Tax Payer picks up the bill. Having to pay back the capital sum in 25 years is a negligible amount in relation to the average increase in a properties value at the end of a 25 year term.

I am sure if you popped into your local Conservative and Unionist Club an accountant member would explain it all to you.

Support for Mortgage Interest is now limited to two years payments and there is an upper limit on the mortgage (£200,000 I think). I take you point about rising property values, but on the other hand people who lost their job may find they also lose their home, and have to sell then move into rented property. This might actually cost more.

Take your point old dear, but that is what bicycles were invented for to get on them and look for work, good network of Young Men's Christian Association accommodation for them to stay at while they look for work in other parts of the country.

A million jobs being filled by foreign guest workers and each year 200,000 coming for summer work, shortage of fruit pickers, no excuse to not have some work.

That is the last thing he is trying to do. This is a simple attempt at divide and rule, and the pity of it is that too many workers are falling for it.

Nobody particularly admires a benefit scrounger, but the Tories are attempting to identify the word "benefit" with "scrounger". Go along to any Tory meeting - as I did for far too many years - and you will find the words are transposable.

The state has a contract with us. We pay a proprtion of our incomes, week in, week out, in return for help when we can not avoid the need for it. That is what Labour needs to repeat over and over again until it sinks in - that those in work are not paying for those who are unavoidably out of work. Those who are out of work have in the vast majority paid their dues and are entitled to help, not demonisation.

Reading what has been written it is clear that Thatcherism is thriving in the Tory party and with its acolytes.

This was an argument back in the 1980's. The Thatcher government announced that it was appointing 500 people to chase benefit fraudsters who were claiming benefits to the tune of something like £50,000. Inland Revenue Tax Federation said `give us the 500 staff and we can recoup 50 times more money from tax avoidance and tax fraud. Needless to say they were ignored.

Same today. PCS MOD unions want to speak to Philip Hammond to advise him on how to save £10 million but he refuses to speak to the unions. Did the same as Transport Secretary.

This government is unreconstitued Thatcherism and want to create an underclass of people who cannot feed themselves. Next thing you know we will be having workhouses again!!!! There is an answer but this government will not implement it as it will affect most of their party.

So it's a case of hound the penny , ignore the £1.
we used to say take care of the pennies, and the pounds will take care of themselves.

Perhaps we should have tea Andy to discuss both the role and limitations of the state with regards to notions of socialism.

I would point out that just as our American friends cried "no taxation without representation" so the opposite should be true "no representation without a contribution to society". Even if its just a £100 poll tax for every individual that comes out of their Citizen's Income - this would connect the individual with the behaviour of their elected officials. So a minimum contribution through a poll tax I would support. If parties stood for a different proportion of local tax and were elected, I wouldn't have a problem with that. I wouldn't have a problem if they chose a mixture of rates, poll tax and a local income tax. Local democracy will only become significant if local government has real influence over people's lives.

Its inherantly WRONG for people to pay for their vote!! As has been said, get the money out of the tax dodgers - oops, can't do that, they're the condems friends!!!

Try reading what has been written above.

The state gives an individual £12,000 per annum in a citizen's income and ask that they pay at least £100 towards the upkeep of their community. Its a contribution to society...

Just give them £11,900

I went back and looked at the bits on child benefit, which you propose to abolish. Child benefit is there for the child, not the parent. If you have an anarchic parent or couple who have many children without the money to support them, what happens to the kids under your system? I know the Polly Toynbees of this world, for all their worth, are always laying down the law; but that doesn't mean you forget some of their basic principles.

I'd prefer beer, if that's OK...

Well no - they need to go through the experience of handing over the money to create the bond. That's the important part.

I think they have read it. You are asking people on the lowest incomes (i.e those who have for the most part just been unfortunate to find themselves in their current sitaution) to pay for the right to vote. I'm truly gobsmacked you are making such a reactionary proposal.

Someone pointed this out earlier on this thread but this endless focus on the "feckless poor" is so depressing. Firstly, you are just swallowing whole the propaganda that you read and hear in the media (and I know, you all know someone who knows someone with a mansion and fleet of limos that they receive in benefits .......), secondly the welfare bill is exploding because of stupid government policies not mass laziness and immorality and thirdly it is all a drop in the ocean compared to the money lost each year through tax evasion, avoidance and the lack of genuinely progressive taxation system, which for some reason doesn't prompt the level of forensic analysis that 'welfare reform' does. How curious.

Oh and all the many money-saving proposals that have been made so far are just fascinating. Anyone who suggests they are abstract theorizing with no understanding of the issues and social consequences of the cuts they have planned clearly doesn't know what they are talking about.

Of course Child Benefit is there for the children but its meant to be used as part of a budget anyway. I know that Credit Unions are able to mandate it for their users against loans for example.

I did say that existing claimants would receive transitional support if they were receiving support above what the Citizen's income provided (e.g. high rent areas). Generally, for two parents, £24,000 is more than reasonable to bring up several children.

Where you have chaotic parental lifestyles then the state has an obligation to intervene in order to help those involved just as now. Where you have absentee parents then the Child Support Agency would be able to mandate a percentage of the CI in order to transfer to the parent who has custody. There are also other ways of supporting children with chaotic parents such as wrap-around care with schools/nurseries/holiday schemes (including providing meals such as breakfast & tea). None of this would stop.

Happy to have a pint Andy.

Oh good grief.

It is not reactionary to require a social contract between the state and the individual. Its a necessity in order to build a real sense of community. The symbolism of paying £100 (my preferred option) to the local authority regardless of circumstances means that everyone has a stake in the organisation of their local community.

This is about rights and responsibilities. The contract is that the state will provide a minimum income for citizens and they have a responsibility to contribute something to their community. The vote is only a small part of that contract.

But you carry on promoting the "something for nothing" culture but that doesn't have any place in any socialist traditions.

That contribution should not be in money!! It is still no less than being forced to pay for your vote.

Look - its very simple. If you abolish council tax benefit as I propose then you'll be liable to contribute to council financing. That's because what consisted of council tax benefit is now wrapped up in the citizen's income. If you live in society, you contribute to society.

Stop with this "something for nothing" concept.

LiKW, I’m cheering you on all the way.

Rather than a flat £100, I suggest a reduced fee of 10% of the annual council tax for those with no income other than citizen income.
Now that citizens are choosing how to spend their income (from Jam Jar accounts), council tax can be factored in as well.
Any rise (or fall) in council tax for the services provided then impacts everyone and motivates people to take an interest.

(I still think you can achieve a simpler C.I. system with universal payment (without taper) and flat tax rate. I would however reduce the citizen income to £6,000 for the over 60’s and introduce a flat rate Inheritance Tax of 80%.)

But it’s your dictatorship so whatever you say.

If giving me 12k per year to sit at home eating rice pud isn't "something for nothing" I don't know what is?


80% of the dead individuals entire accumulations?

If so, what happens if the dead individual owned a commercial organisation employing perhaps a few dozen people & the inheritees have to stump up 80% of the value of the business in order to keep people in a job?

Ah but a citizen's income is a contract between you and the state. It requires that you contribute to the society which has provided you with a basic subsistence lifestyle. What Mambo and glynisrose want is that they keep the proportion that represented council tax benefit for themselves rather than to local government as is paid now. They haven't understood the concept.

OK that's fair enough.

Outside TV news broadcasts always seem to mention 'community leaders'. Should I discuss what I'd have to contribute in exchange for my free rice pud with a 'community leader'?

If so, could anyone recommend a good 'community leader' in the Oldbury area as I haven't got a clue where to look for one?