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.
Good for you if you can live on 3 tins of Tesco rice pud every day. Can't imagine that's particularly healthy though.
Surely the state's role would be huge if I'm totally reliant on the state for my income?
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.
Where would the 500bill+ per year to fund a CW come from?
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).
If everyone behaved like me & just sponged from a free handout, wouldn't the whole system collapse?
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.