£12 billion in welfare cuts
Comments
-
Gargh. For the love of God. I'm not saying you want no benefits.
I don't know what you do want. So tell me. How, in your ideal world, would the unemployed make ends meet? Would they rceive benefits? Wouldn't they? You tell me.
I'm not proposing anything at all apart from policies based more explicitly on apolitical evidence based research, and the Finish example is that. Not rejected something out of hand because it's so different to what currently exists or that has evidence that suggests conventional theory may not stand up to empirical scrutiny.0 -
Happy to let Finland try this if they want to do that. They are (still) a sovereign nation that can make their own decisions.
So how is paying people to do nothing going to help reduce unemplyment in future?
Not sure how that is fundamentally different from benefits of approx £570 pcm? Which is far from unusual over here. Lets look at Finnish unemployment patterns:So read the studies on basic income, and you'll see the answer; there isn't all that much change. More people in education, longer maternity leave.
http://qz.com/566702/finland-plans-to-give-every-citizen-a-basic-income-of-800-euros-a-month/
I'm not saying it's perfect. I'm just pleased at least one government is actually looking at evidence rather than theory.
http://yle.fi/uutiset/unemployment_rate_at_10_every_fifth_young_person_without_work/8171703
And surprise, surprise its pretty high and rising. What do you think happens when you pay people enough to do nothing? :roll:
The article that you have linked says that the main problem is a lack of opportunities, rather than the benefits system.
Also, Rick is talking about a proposed policy. You can't blame a future plan for current high unemployment.
Why not read Rick's links?
You also seem to assume that giving people enough to live on will be a disincentive to work. It might be for a small number of people, but the plan is to give all citizens the money, not just the unemployed, so people in receipt of this money would still have an incentive to work. The proposal is €800/month (about £575) - I'm very confident that the vast majority of people would not be happy with that sort of money and would still want to go out and work.
I don't know if the proposal is feasible or not, I guess we'll have to wait and see, but if another country's trying it out, why not give it a fair hearing?
If you are saying this is a payment to all adults regardless of circumstance, let's try to put this into a UK perspective lets and estimate the cost:
Say 40 million people at £7k per year each. That's £280 billion a year if my maths are right...
I look forward to your idea on funding this
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Happy to let Finland try this if they want to do that. They are (still) a sovereign nation that can make their own decisions.
So how is paying people to do nothing going to help reduce unemplyment in future?
Not sure how that is fundamentally different from benefits of approx £570 pcm? Which is far from unusual over here. Lets look at Finnish unemployment patterns:So read the studies on basic income, and you'll see the answer; there isn't all that much change. More people in education, longer maternity leave.
http://qz.com/566702/finland-plans-to-give-every-citizen-a-basic-income-of-800-euros-a-month/
I'm not saying it's perfect. I'm just pleased at least one government is actually looking at evidence rather than theory.
http://yle.fi/uutiset/unemployment_rate_at_10_every_fifth_young_person_without_work/8171703
And surprise, surprise its pretty high and rising. What do you think happens when you pay people enough to do nothing? :roll:
The article that you have linked says that the main problem is a lack of opportunities, rather than the benefits system.
Also, Rick is talking about a proposed policy. You can't blame a future plan for current high unemployment.
Why not read Rick's links?
You also seem to assume that giving people enough to live on will be a disincentive to work. It might be for a small number of people, but the plan is to give all citizens the money, not just the unemployed, so people in receipt of this money would still have an incentive to work. The proposal is €800/month (about £575) - I'm very confident that the vast majority of people would not be happy with that sort of money and would still want to go out and work.
I don't know if the proposal is feasible or not, I guess we'll have to wait and see, but if another country's trying it out, why not give it a fair hearing?
If you are saying this is a payment to all adults regardless of circumstance, let's try to put this into a UK perspective lets and estimate the cost:
Say 40 million people at £7k per year each. That's £280 billion a year if my maths are right...
I look forward to your idea on funding this
It would replace all spending on benefits & pensions. if my research is correct, benefit spending in the uk is c. £160bn and pensions is £160bn so that'd cover it fairly easily.0 -
Somewhere else: total spending on benefits and tax credits is £217bn and DWP spending is £171bn
So it'd be fairly easy funding wise to replace those with a flat basic income of £7k a year tax free.0 -
I'm not proposing anything at all apart from policies based more explicitly on apolitical evidence based research, and the Finish example is that. Not rejected something out of hand because it's so different to what currently exists or that has evidence that suggests conventional theory may not stand up to empirical scrutiny.
Apparently the British government has been asked to respond to rumours that future policy will be based on evidence, and they replied:
Thanks for the links by the way, they made interesting reading.0 -
It wasn't particularly clear which bit you meant so I've quoted the bit below that I think was your magic solution - can you confirm?So what's the answer then, oh Oracle of Stranraer?
You still haven't read my post, Basher of Bromley.
"What... have?"
I never suggested some sort of magic solution. I was taking a step back to attempt some reasoning behind the issue of unemployment.
The side effect of any modern economic system is unemployment, agreed? After all, full employment is nigh on impossible, agreed? So this is an argument about how we fund those who can't/won't work, agreed? I have to be careful here because you might start banging your keyboard in frustration and chucking your toys out of your idealistic pram.
As far as funding the scheme is concerned, those who are earning above a certain level will pay most of the 'flat rate' back in tax. Has anyone calculated this against the cost of delivering such a scheme?
The current benefit system does not work. It does not encourage some to work and is getting more and more expensive to deliver. At some point, we need to look at an alternative or we will continue muddling through by tinkering with it ineffectually in that true indomitable British style.
What does it actually cost to run the current benefits system?seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
Maybe that system would concern accountants as less of them would be required.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Maybe that system would concern accountants as less of them would be required.
I cannot see Stevo being a civil servant. That would be like batting for the other side or buying a road bike to him.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
Maybe that system would concern accountants as less of them would be required.
I cannot see Stevo being a civil servant. That would be like batting for the other side or buying a road bike to him.
That's the thing though, as a Tory and therefore someone who wants to see the state as small as possible I would have thought he'd be all over such a policy. The chance to get rid of loads of government departments with a simplification in the way welfare is handled is surely a true Conservatives wet dream?0 -
Right up to the point where things change from you being the hammer, to being the nail.Maybe that system would concern accountants as less of them would be required.
I cannot see Stevo being a civil servant. That would be like batting for the other side or buying a road bike to him.
That's the thing though, as a Tory and therefore someone who wants to see the state as small as possible I would have thought he'd be all over such a policy. The chance to get rid of loads of government departments with a simplification in the way welfare is handled is surely a true Conservatives wet dream?The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Right up to the point where things change from you being the hammer, to being the nail.Maybe that system would concern accountants as less of them would be required.
I cannot see Stevo being a civil servant. That would be like batting for the other side or buying a road bike to him.
That's the thing though, as a Tory and therefore someone who wants to see the state as small as possible I would have thought he'd be all over such a policy. The chance to get rid of loads of government departments with a simplification in the way welfare is handled is surely a true Conservatives wet dream?
Or the lettuce rather than the slug?
Fair point VLL.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
As a true blue I agree that I would welcome a smaller state and any policy that would help to achieve that. But any such policy has to work. Giving benefits to people who don't need them whilst forcing some into poverty just because the system would be easier to manage is absurd.0
-
So you are proposing giving money to everyone, non means tested? As Bally quite rightly says, absurd. Even by your own standards this is daft as then the poor would get less of the pie while people who do not need it will get money. I am sure you are well meaning but you haven't thought this through properly.Somewhere else: total spending on benefits and tax credits is £217bn and DWP spending is £171bn
So it'd be fairly easy funding wise to replace those with a flat basic income of £7k a year tax free."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
I dont have an ideal world.Gargh. For the love of God. I'm not saying you want no benefits.
I don't know what you do want. So tell me. How, in your ideal world, would the unemployed make ends meet? Would they rceive benefits? Wouldn't they? You tell me.
I'm not proposing anything at all apart from policies based more explicitly on apolitical evidence based research, and the Finish example is that. Not rejected something out of hand because it's so different to what currently exists or that has evidence that suggests conventional theory may not stand up to empirical scrutiny.
The level of benefifs that people should get? No more than today. I'm happy to go with the recommendations of our democratically elected government who were after all elected on a manifesto pledge to cut benefits. The people have spoken "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
So you are proposing giving money to everyone, non means tested? As Bally quite rightly says, absurd. Even by your own standards this is daft as then the poor would get less of the pie while people who do not need it will get money. I am sure you are well meaning but you haven't thought this through properly.Somewhere else: total spending on benefits and tax credits is £217bn and DWP spending is £171bn
So it'd be fairly easy funding wise to replace those with a flat basic income of £7k a year tax free.
That's what Finland is looking into. That's what basic income is. Since it came up, that's what has been discussed.
I get the feeling you only half read....0 -
The state already does give money away, non means tested, and to everyone. It's called a state pension.
All you have to do to claim your cash is not snuff it in the meantime.
The principle is thus established. Why not move the date forward, and give everyone some money? If I needed more, I could get a job. If I decided I didn't, I could ride my bike all day long. Or do some charity work. The choice would be mine. The inequalities we have in Britain will not be solved by fannying around with tax breaks, benefits capping etc. I don't care if the rich get richer, good luck to 'em. But more could be done to help those less well off, and this is an interesting way of looking at the issue.
The biggest issue with this approach is setting the level of "free" money. Or a straightforward idealogical opposition.Ecrasez l’infame0 -
[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19758272#p19758272]BelgianBeerGeek[/url] wrote:The state already does give money away, non means tested, and to everyone. It's called a state pension.
All you have to do to claim your cash is not snuff it in the meantime.
The principle is thus established. Why not move the date forward, and give everyone some money? If I needed more, I could get a job. If I decided I didn't, I could ride my bike all day long. Or do some charity work. The choice would be mine. The inequalities we have in Britain will not be solved by fannying around with tax breaks, benefits capping etc. I don't care if the rich get richer, good luck to 'em. But more could be done to help those less well off, and this is an interesting way of looking at the issue.
The biggest issue with this approach is setting the level of "free" money. Or a straightforward idealogical opposition.
True, the state pension is not means tested but has it not always been that its level is dependant on contributions over your lifetime?
I too care not one jot if the rich get richer, but I can't see how giving money to them helps to alleviate the plight of the very poorest. I would still much prefer that benefits are targeted at those in most need.0
