[ rss / options / help ]
post ]
[ b / iq / g / zoo ] [ e / news / lab ] [ v / nom / pol / eco / emo / 101 / shed ]
[ art / A / beat / boo / com / fat / job / lit / map / mph / poof / £$€¥ / spo / uhu / uni / x / y ] [ * | sfw | o ]
logo
politics

Return ] Entire Thread ] First 100 posts ] Last 50 posts ]

Posting mode: Reply [First 100 posts]
Reply ]
Subject   (reply to 51753)
Message
File  []
close
600_2efc670bf91e705b3f6c314656acfa53.jpg
517535175351753
>> No. 51753 Anonymous
11th November 2013
Monday 11:24 pm
51753 spacer
Switzerland will hold a vote on whether to introduce a basic income for all adults, in a further sign of growing public activism over pay inequality since the financial crisis. A grassroots committee is calling for all adults in Switzerland to receive an unconditional income of 2,500 Swiss francs ($2,800) per month from the state, with the aim of providing a financial safety net for the population.

Under Swiss law, citizens can organize popular initiatives that allow the channeling of public anger into direct political action. The country usually holds several referenda a year. In March, Swiss voters backed some of the world's strictest controls on executive pay, forcing public companies to give shareholders a binding vote on compensation. A separate proposal to limit monthly executive pay to no more than what the company's lowest-paid staff earn in a year, the so-called 1:12 initiative, faces a popular vote on November 24.


http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/04/us-swiss-pay-idUSBRE9930O620131004

http://www.businessinsider.com/behind-the-swiss-unconditional-income-iniative-2013-10

I'm not entirely sure what to make of these. I reckong that if they tried the 1:12 thing over here then the lowest paid members of staff in some large organisations would end up being made redundant and replaced with contractors.
Expand all images.
>> No. 51754 Anonymous
11th November 2013
Monday 11:26 pm
51754 spacer
>reckong

Time for bed.
>> No. 51755 Anonymous
11th November 2013
Monday 11:38 pm
51755 spacer
I'm very interested in the first part of that. To be blunt, I think a basic universal income is one of those ideas that seem absurd now, but will be considered a basic human right in the future.
>> No. 51756 Anonymous
11th November 2013
Monday 11:46 pm
51756 spacer
>>51755
>I think a basic universal income is one of those ideas that seem absurd now, but will be considered a basic human right in the future.
Sure, after everyone in the third world is on the same economic scale as the rest of us. Because that's going to happen soon.
>> No. 51757 Anonymous
11th November 2013
Monday 11:58 pm
51757 spacer
>>51756

The third world doesn't count, basically. Things we've considered basic human rights for a hundred years are out the window in bongo bongo land.
>> No. 51758 Anonymous
11th November 2013
Monday 11:58 pm
51758 spacer
>>51755
I don't know about 'basic human right', for reasons that >>51756 is hinting at, but I can see it becoming increasingly necessary in developed societies as not just traditional labour, but many fields of work become obsolete with advancing technology.
>> No. 51759 Anonymous
12th November 2013
Tuesday 2:28 am
51759 spacer
That's a lot.

Rest in peace, Switzerland.
>> No. 51760 Anonymous
12th November 2013
Tuesday 2:32 am
51760 spacer
Dear OP,

Thanks for the tip off. I am now going to hide the thread as I can't be arsed to deal with economic illerates, and this is /pol/.
>> No. 51761 Anonymous
12th November 2013
Tuesday 2:33 am
51761 spacer
Can I move there and get the money?
>> No. 51762 Anonymous
12th November 2013
Tuesday 7:39 am
51762 spacer
>>51761
What's the cost of living like there? I remember them making a fuss about minarets, so I imagine they have relatively strict immigration controls to stop them getting flooded with sponging gypsies.
>> No. 51763 Anonymous
12th November 2013
Tuesday 8:45 am
51763 spacer
Green Party lad here. This is absolutely awesome.
>> No. 51764 Anonymous
12th November 2013
Tuesday 9:18 am
51764 spacer
>>51753
Wouldn't it make a huge impact on prices, though? Sounds outright insane.
>> No. 51765 Anonymous
12th November 2013
Tuesday 9:34 am
51765 spacer
>>51764

If the prices go up, it makes no difference, because the money will just recirculate back into the population. In any case, even if prices are lower, those on a lower income couldn't afford them anyway, which is why the change is needed.
>> No. 51767 Anonymous
12th November 2013
Tuesday 10:50 am
51767 spacer
>>51763

Green party are good and all but too... middle claaaahs. Join the proper socialists, lad. Not the SWP, mind.
>> No. 51768 Anonymous
12th November 2013
Tuesday 11:49 am
51768 spacer
>>51767
Oh here we go. Who are the 'proper socialists', again? The People's Front of Judea, I presume?
>> No. 51769 Anonymous
12th November 2013
Tuesday 11:59 am
51769 spacer
>>51768
The Socialist party?
>> No. 51770 Anonymous
12th November 2013
Tuesday 12:01 pm
51770 spacer
That's more than my mum earns, why should she work anymore?
>> No. 51771 Anonymous
12th November 2013
Tuesday 12:08 pm
51771 spacer
>>51769
Proletkult.
I remember a time back in the mid '80s when the in-thing with Militant and SWP (and WRP before all the Delta-ing came out) youngsters was to look as close to Brecht as possible. Now it's the same with Trotsky or an East German.

Join the LRC or something.
>> No. 51772 Anonymous
12th November 2013
Tuesday 12:32 pm
51772 spacer
I support this, since the natural place for most of Switzerlands multinationals to relocate to would be Britain. Silly Swiss.
>> No. 51785 Anonymous
12th November 2013
Tuesday 5:49 pm
51785 spacer
>>51770
Because she enjoys doing a job and contributing to the well-being of others rather than sitting on her arse. That's the only reason anyone should be working, not for money.

>>51771
Let's go Trotspotting!
http://libcom.org/blog/trotspotting-everything-you-always-wanted-know-about-sects-were-afraid-ask-18092009

The degree to which the left-wing is splintered is fucking ludicrous. The Greens are the biggest truly left-wing movement and I'm sticking with them.
>> No. 51787 Anonymous
12th November 2013
Tuesday 5:55 pm
51787 spacer
>>51785

Someone has to clean the bogs. Nobody wants to clean the bogs. Society currently has a pretty good way of finding someone to clean the bogs - economic necessity. How does a society in which nobody needs to work solve the problem of bog-cleaning and equally unpleasant work?

To give a practical example, a large proportion of the soft fruit crop in the UK simply rots in the fields, because there aren't enough pickers. The Eastern Europeans who do most of the fruit picking in this country earn well above minimum wage, but the locals just can't be arsed getting up at 5am to go and pick blackcurrants.
>> No. 51788 Anonymous
12th November 2013
Tuesday 5:56 pm
51788 spacer
>>51787

Simple answer. Unpleasant jobs should be paid better than the pleasant and desirable ones with high status. Why should the hard and messy jobs be paid the worst? This has always been a bad system which does not reward people properly.
>> No. 51789 Anonymous
12th November 2013
Tuesday 6:31 pm
51789 spacer
>>51788
Because hard work or desirability isn't a measure of how useful something actually is, the supply of labour that's capable of doing it is. If nobody actually wanted to clean toilets then the wages would be higher.
>> No. 51790 Anonymous
12th November 2013
Tuesday 6:39 pm
51790 spacer
>>51787
Bog cleaning jobs would start paying higher salaries, and it would be attractive.
>> No. 51792 Anonymous
12th November 2013
Tuesday 6:43 pm
51792 spacer
>>51785
>Because she enjoys doing a job and contributing to the well-being of others rather than sitting on her arse.
Who said she'd be sitting on her arse? Fuck you for pushing your sense of entitlement on my mum.
>> No. 51793 Anonymous
12th November 2013
Tuesday 7:08 pm
51793 spacer
>>51789

>If nobody actually wanted to clean toilets


Implying people actually want to do it? Seriously lad, sort yourself out. You've lost grip of reality.
>> No. 51794 Anonymous
12th November 2013
Tuesday 7:25 pm
51794 spacer
>>51793
Clearly they do, because they do.
>> No. 51795 Anonymous
12th November 2013
Tuesday 7:29 pm
51795 spacer
>>51787

Easy. Superloos and Fetlife.
>> No. 51796 Anonymous
12th November 2013
Tuesday 7:43 pm
51796 spacer
>>51788

Economics works on supply and demand not on arbitrary measures of 'desirability'. Unless you are physically disabled anyone is capable of doing menial work - even without a basic grasp of numeracy or literacy. However higher paid jobs are almost always tied to skills that are increasingly rare in the workforce and often require some form of higher education or training.

Let's say you think this is unfair and imagine an ideal benevolent government can control things to make pay inversely proportional to desirability. Ignoring the fact that ideally benevolent governments are in the same category as infinite energy sources of 'things that cannot physically exist', how do you define a by definition subjective quality like desirability? For example, I would absolutely despise any job that required waking up before 6am whereas for some people this would be fine so long as they don't have to work with the public (for example say). My point being one man's ideally desirable job isn't necessarily another's.
>> No. 51797 Anonymous
12th November 2013
Tuesday 7:49 pm
51797 spacer
>>51796

Except, you know, all those economists who have dismissed Supply and Demand as bollocks without any application in the real world and are calling for it, along with a hell of a lot more of the Dismal Science to be dropped from textbooks. How is that PPE coming along lad? Second year treating you well?
>> No. 51798 Anonymous
12th November 2013
Tuesday 7:50 pm
51798 spacer
>>51796

And I refer you to >>51795.
>> No. 51800 Anonymous
12th November 2013
Tuesday 7:51 pm
51800 spacer
>>51796
>Economics works on supply and demand
>not on arbitrary measures

Oh lad.
>> No. 51801 Anonymous
12th November 2013
Tuesday 7:51 pm
51801 spacer
>>51797
>all those economists who have dismissed Supply and Demand as bollocks without any application in the real world

It's as obvious as evolution, are we really going to go down this route?
>> No. 51802 Anonymous
12th November 2013
Tuesday 7:52 pm
51802 spacer
>>51800
Supply and demand aren't arbitrary, nobody just chooses a supply and chooses a demand.
>> No. 51804 Anonymous
12th November 2013
Tuesday 7:59 pm
51804 spacer
>>51801
>>51802

http://www.theguardian.com/education/2013/nov/10/economics-lecturers-accused-university-courses
http://www.theguardian.com/education/2013/nov/11/university-economics-teaching-overhaul

I know the Telegraph covered this as well, but am struggling to track it down.
>> No. 51805 Anonymous
12th November 2013
Tuesday 8:20 pm
51805 spacer
>>51804

Both articles are complete fiction. The most glaring factual error is that Michael Joffe is cited in both articles as professor of economics at ICL, when in fact he is neither an economist nor a professor. He is a retired reader in biology, who holds no economic qualifications and has never published a paper on economics in any known journal.

http://www.imperial.ac.uk/collegedirectory/index.asp?PeopleID=1038844
http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=michael+joffe
>> No. 51806 Anonymous
12th November 2013
Tuesday 8:27 pm
51806 spacer
>>51805

Fine. I'll accept your digging. So why have three Nobel laureates in Economics come out repeatedly over the past couple of years slating "Economic Science"? I am cooking at the mo, so apologies for not being able to pull stuff up - Google is not being very helpful.
>> No. 51807 Anonymous
12th November 2013
Tuesday 8:29 pm
51807 spacer
>>51805
Wrong.
http://cje.oxfordjournals.org/content/35/5/873.abstract?sid=a67d0319-274c-477d-b27e-e359d9d824e6

That took about a minute of looking.

Try harder next time please.
>> No. 51808 Anonymous
12th November 2013
Tuesday 8:38 pm
51808 spacer
>>51804
>The profession has been criticised for its adherence to models of a free market that claim to show demand and supply continually rebalancing over relatively short periods of time – in contrast to the decade-long mismatches that came ahead of the banking crash in key markets such as housing and exotic derivatives, where asset bubbles ballooned.

I'm going to assume this is the sum total of evidence you have proposed for the motion that "supply and demand is bollocks", seeing as I found no reference to neither supply nor demand in the Guardian article.

Obviously real life isn't going to perfectly follow a simple model. The above quoted text isn't claiming at all that the idea of supply and demand is false - it is saying that there are additional kinetic factors involved in the rebalancing.

It's analagous to how diamond doesn't spontaneously turn into the more stable graphite under standard conditions - the kinetics are far too slow and we need to consider non-equilibrium effects, not throw the entirety of thermodynamics (cf supply and demand) out the window.
>> No. 51809 Anonymous
12th November 2013
Tuesday 8:40 pm
51809 spacer
>>51805
As a further aid to you, undergraduatelad, google scholar is bollocks (well, not completely useless but you can't rely on it) and you're much better off just doing it the slow way.

JSTOR is shit too, just letting you know.
>> No. 51810 Anonymous
12th November 2013
Tuesday 8:58 pm
51810 spacer
>>51808

You are not replying to who you think you are replying to. Feel free to continue, it is always fucking hilarious to watch a Unilad try and defend psuedo-science. Or, you could start a thread in /IQ/ regarding the TOP BANTZ you are currently having.
>> No. 51811 Anonymous
12th November 2013
Tuesday 9:03 pm
51811 spacer
>>51810

Well I have now found all three laureates. Two minutes. I will leave it to Unilad to track them down however, his research skills seem a tad lacking. And I have apple and sausage stew to eat.
>> No. 51812 Anonymous
12th November 2013
Tuesday 9:39 pm
51812 spacer
>>51810
I have no time for TOP BANTS I'm working.

>>51811
You high?
>> No. 51813 Anonymous
12th November 2013
Tuesday 10:37 pm
51813 spacer
>>51802
Pretending that two concepts which are dependent on each other are easily definable and exist in a vacuum is indeed rather arbitrary. That's why even the Nobel committee has recognised the importance of behavioural economics.
>> No. 51814 Anonymous
12th November 2013
Tuesday 11:13 pm
51814 spacer
>>51767
'Green World' had some statistics about party membership which suggests otherwise. Unfortunately I can't remember which issue it was in.
>> No. 52194 Anonymous
4th December 2013
Wednesday 5:28 am
52194 spacer
>>51770>>51787

These are not benefits.

If you live under a system where you receive an unconditional income, and then choose to work, you now are in receipt of two incomes.

In a way that provides actually far more of an incentive to work than do typical current-day welfare systems.
>> No. 52195 Anonymous
4th December 2013
Wednesday 5:47 am
52195 spacer
>>52194

The basic income idea also eliminates the huge requirements and costs of administration as all you need to see is a pulse, basically. It also wipes out virtually all fraud issues and incentives to lie in this area. It would greatly encourage people to work, especially part time as no longer would there be clashes and worries about "declaring" it or the endless problems and hassle of signing off and on or the worry about losing benefits and the steady income and safety net for a potentially short term risky job. I really do think this might be a future foundation of the next big step in the development and improvement of society.
>> No. 52196 Anonymous
4th December 2013
Wednesday 7:31 am
52196 spacer
>>52195
How does it eliminate fraud? What's to stop someone pretending to be several people and claiming several incomes?
>> No. 52197 Anonymous
4th December 2013
Wednesday 7:58 am
52197 spacer
Anarchylad approves of a basic living income. It wouldn't be anarchism, but one of the founding notions in anarchist theory is that every individual has a right to the means of subsistence. This originally meant land for peasant farmers, in a nutshell, but a guaranteed basic income in a capitalist society is a step in that direction.
>> No. 52198 Anonymous
4th December 2013
Wednesday 8:24 am
52198 spacer
>>52196

Is that the only fraud that happens today then? Well that is a surprise. Don't be silly.

What you describe is one of the most extreme and far more difficult than most and also easier to deal with. That is the simple reality of things.
>> No. 52199 Anonymous
4th December 2013
Wednesday 8:36 am
52199 spacer
I am both impressed and amazed about the lack of "what about freeloaders" in this thread. Well done lads. I am...incredibly impressed.

Anyway, I thought I would paraphrase my friend on the issue anyway: "if someone wants to spend the rest of their life in a bedsit, lying in bed all day, and seating baked beans, then fine. I believe they need mental help, but if they really do, fuck 'em. I pity them, but that's fine with me. Their drain on our resources will be miniscule."
>> No. 52200 Anonymous
4th December 2013
Wednesday 9:24 am
52200 spacer
>>52199
>Their drain on our resources will be miniscule."
'miniscule' being equal to or greater than my tax money, meaning I am paying for their lifestyle and they're not paying for mine.
>> No. 52201 Anonymous
4th December 2013
Wednesday 9:27 am
52201 spacer
>>52199
> if someone wants to spend the rest of their life in a bedsit, lying in bed all day, and seating baked beans, then fine. I believe they need mental help, but if they really do, fuck 'em. I pity them, but that's fine with me.
Is your friend by any chance Al Murray, pub landlord?
Anyway, there's only one proper response to that sort of talk...

https://www.youtube.com/v/RaYonB4G40c
>> No. 52202 Anonymous
4th December 2013
Wednesday 9:29 am
52202 spacer
Also, I'd like to add
> seating baked beans
This made me imagine a lunatic carefully arranging baked beans around the house, some in little chairs, some leaning casually against the wall, a whole tableau of them dotted around his flat. Which would be mental.
>> No. 52203 Anonymous
4th December 2013
Wednesday 9:29 am
52203 spacer
>>52200

3/10 SEE ME
>> No. 52204 Anonymous
4th December 2013
Wednesday 4:17 pm
52204 spacer
>>52203

Keynes, please go.
>> No. 52205 Anonymous
4th December 2013
Wednesday 4:40 pm
52205 spacer
>>52199
Those are my feelings exactly. I hate those right-wingers who identify a tiny proportion of the population who have no real wish to contribute to society, and then use that as an excuse to slash public services for all users, legitimate or not. It's illogical.
>> No. 52206 Anonymous
4th December 2013
Wednesday 4:49 pm
52206 spacer
>>52205

And indeed, utter drivel. The vast, and I really do mean vast, majority of the population like to do productive things during their day. It really does expose a mix of mental illness and sheer laziness on the behalf of those who seem to think that THE DREAM is to sit around on their arse all day.
>> No. 52207 Anonymous
4th December 2013
Wednesday 4:56 pm
52207 spacer
>>52205
It's not illogical, it's a way of making a problem seem much larger than it actually is, therefore making it a more convincing argument. People are more concerned about the overall tax burden than just a few individuals.
>> No. 52208 Anonymous
4th December 2013
Wednesday 5:00 pm
52208 spacer
>>52207

Hmm...kinda, kinda not. And the thread was about a base income.
>> No. 52229 Anonymous
4th December 2013
Wednesday 11:52 pm
52229 spacer
>>52207

Really is dumb when you find about how the financial system works. Banks lending out more money than they have, getting more back in interest, and so on. Most tax is paid by the richest, who, with no mortgage or rent left to pay, benefit disproportionately from the financial system.
>> No. 52367 Anonymous
12th December 2013
Thursday 4:44 pm
52367 spacer
>>52205

Except that if everyone in Britain were given £1700 a month tax free for the rest of their days, why the fuck would you bother doing menial work? I work 40 hours a week for £1400 a month pre tax. I sure as hell wouldnt be getting up for that if I made £20k a year (40k with a missus) . Now if the money was only given to the employed and thus people were forced into work to claim it as long as you did a full working week, I would agree. It would make the money worth spending as it would ignite the industries that have fallen since the Crunch since people would be buying and upgrading their houses with the extra money since £1700 a month is a decent mortgage payer, especially if you work since you would only be paying the normal bills ontop and leaving you a sizable wage.

Hell, allow students to claim it too but only under the guise of paying a student loan and lodgings so that they are free to learn and work with no fear of debt.

Obviously only natives can apply to stop the johnny foreigner claiming it but it would cause the British economy to explode into a frenzy of consumption and production.
>> No. 52368 Anonymous
12th December 2013
Thursday 4:54 pm
52368 spacer
>>52367
People who do menial work would end up getting paid more than those that just sit on their arse all day long.

Why do you like to keep this system? Why do you feel like you need to force people to do menial work?
>> No. 52369 Anonymous
12th December 2013
Thursday 5:09 pm
52369 spacer
>>52367

While I disagree slightly with the start of your post (not sure where 1700 a month cmomes from, but maybe I am missing something) you are bang on when it comes to consumption and production.

This highlights what is so wrong with our current governments policies - less tax for the wealthy, paid for by removing cash from the poor. Poor people spend all their money. Because they are poor. Rich people don't because they already are spending a certain portion and don't need to spend more. If we upped benefit the economy would notice it immediately. Or minium wage. Or both.

Sage because I am sick and rambling.
>> No. 52370 Anonymous
12th December 2013
Thursday 5:17 pm
52370 spacer
"Give everyone money" is on par with "why don't they just make a trillion pound coin"
>> No. 52371 Anonymous
12th December 2013
Thursday 5:33 pm
52371 spacer
>>52367
>Except that if everyone in Britain were given £1700 a month tax free for the rest of their days, why the fuck would you bother doing menial work?
Exactly. Employers would then have difficulty filling those positions and consequently, as a Tory minister correctly pointed out this week, they'd have to pay more.
>> No. 52372 Anonymous
12th December 2013
Thursday 5:40 pm
52372 spacer
People are afraid of this idea mostly because of the constant demonising and brainwashing by the media in recent years. I can remember Brooker and others highlighting how ridiculous it has got. The suggestion mentioned by the OP is the best idea to move society forward and improve the lot of the vast majority.
>> No. 52373 Anonymous
12th December 2013
Thursday 5:43 pm
52373 spacer
Have they voted on this yet?
>> No. 52374 Anonymous
12th December 2013
Thursday 5:46 pm
52374 spacer
>>52370

Your brain is on a par with a peanut.
>> No. 52375 Anonymous
12th December 2013
Thursday 5:56 pm
52375 spacer
>>52370
What do you think is sitting in the vaults of Scottish banks?
>> No. 52376 Anonymous
12th December 2013
Thursday 6:00 pm
52376 spacer
>>52375
>What is inflation

(A good day to you Sir!)
>> No. 52377 Anonymous
12th December 2013
Thursday 6:28 pm
52377 spacer
>>52376
An inflatable trillion pound coin?
>> No. 52378 Anonymous
12th December 2013
Thursday 6:28 pm
52378 spacer
>>52368

Except for the fact that working doesnt really pay for a single man's life. Rent is too high, bills too expensive and so on for a man on a 40 hour minimum wage job to live solo. However, someone on the dole will have his bills paid, rent scuppered and all at the expense of the tax payer for no effort other than 1 visit to the job office once every 2 weeks.

Were you to make people WANT to work to get their government issued balancer, people would work. They would do those shitty menial jobs. It would promote the economy of the nation and increase industrial investment in the nation as the demand for jobs rises and businesses seek to capitalise on cheap wages set by the government booster.

The benefit lifers would still get their rent and such paid but instead of setting aside extra money, it would instead come from their government issued money and thus remove bureacracy.

>>52370

Not really. Promoting spending of wealth is how you break out of economic slumps and promote industrial growth especially if you get said 'free cash' from taxing international imports of otherwise domestically produced goods.

I personally see this not so much as free money but as properly allocated benefit funding. Removal of things like tax credits, charity tax breaks, housing credit etc etc and lumping it into a single lump sum of money per month for every person who earns under a certain amount of money (no point giving Wayne Rooney the cash after all) would either give better value for money as it isnt wasted on bureacracy and moving between multiple accounts or at least better allocation as people decide what to spend it on.

People who mindlessly spend money will always do so and people who horde it will also do so as well.
>> No. 52379 Anonymous
12th December 2013
Thursday 6:32 pm
52379 spacer
>>52378

You appear to be arguing at cross purposes again lad. Long lunch, was it?
>> No. 52387 Anonymous
12th December 2013
Thursday 7:56 pm
52387 spacer
>>52378
I don't know what you are trying to say any more. Is this IDS? Hi IDS.
>> No. 52395 Anonymous
12th December 2013
Thursday 8:30 pm
52395 spacer
>>52387
If it is indeed IDS, I'd tell him that it's a shame to see a rare example of someone in politics talking actual sense only to go and get it so monumentally wrong.
>> No. 52404 Anonymous
13th December 2013
Friday 8:01 am
52404 spacer
Wouldn't this cause the cost of housing to skyrocket? Greedy homeowners and landlords and all that.

In a few decades we've gone from the situation where married women could afford to stay at home and raise the kids to now having little option but to go out and work because the norm of dual household incomes has helped greatly push up the cost of living.
>> No. 52408 Anonymous
13th December 2013
Friday 5:02 pm
52408 spacer
>>52387
Basic income isn't the same as universal credit, far from it.
>> No. 52409 Anonymous
13th December 2013
Friday 5:40 pm
52409 spacer
>>52404

Lampposts.
>> No. 52410 Anonymous
13th December 2013
Friday 5:59 pm
52410 spacer
>>52404

Hells bells, no homelessness would make house prices rise? How will all the people in homes cope?
>> No. 52986 Anonymous
23rd January 2014
Thursday 8:45 pm
52986 spacer
>>51787

>How does a society in which nobody needs to work solve the problem of bog-cleaning and equally unpleasant work?

The problem solves itself.

Consider this- We have 7.1% unemployment in this country right now. If nobody actually NEEDED to work, do you think that figure would rise or lower?

It's worth thinking about. The way our economy currently works is that earning minimum wage, you have to work between 40 and 50 hours a week just to survive. That's 50 hours of labour you are providing at the absolute rock bottom, bargain rate. Due to the fact that a) there are a limited number of employment opportunities available at any one time, b) the number of people seeking employment is higher than the number of positions available, and c) you occupy this position full time, by economic necessity, we can conclude that by being employed full time at minimum wage, you are depriving others of a job.

Imagine you earned £1700 a month. Suddenly, you no longer need to do that menial, degrading, minimum wage job. Or at least, you no longer need to do it for 40 hours a week. You can just go in on Mondays and spend the rest of the week learning a musical instrument. You'll still be paid for the work you do, so it's pretty likely that you will; adjustments and counterbalances would mean that the citizen's wage essentially becomes a very generous pocket money, not enough to live luxuriantly. This would mean that overall, there are in fat more employment opportunities to go round. More people, as a result, would be in work, and less of them unemployed.

So let's go back to your hypothetical bog cleaner. You couldn't find anyone to do it full time, like you can now; some poor middle aged single mother forced to take up the apron and marigolds of shame to support her children. Instead she can come in and do it a couple of days a week to bring in a bit of money to treat the kids to a weekend out. Somebody else will do it the other days- Menial jobs are much, much less unappealing if you only have to do them on occasion.

TL;DR Why aren't we at this point already? Surely it would be healthier for the economy to have more people sharing what jobs there are? Why must people still work backbreaking full-time menial roles when there is clearly a large surplus of labour?
>> No. 52987 Anonymous
23rd January 2014
Thursday 9:04 pm
52987 spacer
>>52986
Would this unconditional income be taxed? Getting £1,700 per month from the government is the equivalent of a gross salary of just under £26k (not far off the average UK salary of £26,500). Also, for curiosity's sake, how much does someone on minimum wage presently get from the government in the form of tax credits and the like?
>> No. 52989 Anonymous
23rd January 2014
Thursday 11:11 pm
52989 spacer
>>52987

Well I'm on minimum wage and get fuck all.

You have to have a kid or meet other conditions; young single people are shit out of luck.
>> No. 52991 Anonymous
24th January 2014
Friday 1:35 am
52991 spacer
>>52986

It'd be as big a change as the industrial revolution or the introduction of agriculture. It'd have tremendously positive impact culturally and socially. I can see people blossoming under it. I think it would improve work ethic if people don't resent these jobs and feel it is their choice - something they desire to do for the desired results, rather than the modern day gulags and threats. Instead of middle and working classes paddling furiously to avoid drowing they'll have room to breathe and develop beyond the blinkered work-buy-die tunnel so many feel trapped in. The universal nature of it is key. Even systems like an OAP bus pass work better that way and are resented by the wealthiest far less if they know in their heart that at any moment they too can enjoy the benefits of the system and that it is by choice and not seemingly unfair or arbritrary rules and qualifiers that they do not. Oddly I've known one or two very wealthy and upper class that were avid bus pass users too.
>> No. 52992 Anonymous
24th January 2014
Friday 1:37 am
52992 spacer
>>52989

I feel sorry for you and anyone else stuck on that pittance. It is a woeful sum. The minimum wage has gone from an idea to improve people's lot by increasing wages and slightly balancing equality to leaving them behind with pennies and an excuse to do nothing more.
>> No. 52999 Anonymous
24th January 2014
Friday 1:00 pm
52999 spacer
>>52992
Except that's not true. The minimum wage has risen about 25% since it was introduced and that's inflation adjusted.
>> No. 53000 Anonymous
24th January 2014
Friday 1:04 pm
53000 spacer
>>52999

Oh how I laughed. 10/10
>> No. 53001 Anonymous
24th January 2014
Friday 1:05 pm
53001 spacer
>>53000
Ok.
>> No. 55181 Anonymous
18th May 2014
Sunday 10:01 am
55181 spacer
>Swiss to vote in referendum on world's highest minimum wage
>The proposal is for a 22 Swiss francs (£14.70) an hour and if voted through it would put a salary floor under the average 35-hour week of more than £27,000

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/16/swiss-vote-referendum-world-highest-minimum-wage-manufacturing
>> No. 55182 Anonymous
18th May 2014
Sunday 10:13 am
55182 spacer
>>55181
Fucking hell. Those crazy Swiss, you'll never guess what they'll think of next.
>> No. 55183 Anonymous
18th May 2014
Sunday 10:48 am
55183 spacer
>>55182
The vote is today, the BBC article on it (which says the minimum full time salary would be £32k) says it's likely to be rejected. This line sounds familiar, though:

>The BBC's Imogen Foulkes in Geneva says that a key element of the campaign in favour of a minimum wage is the argument that the Swiss welfare system is being forced to subsidise businesses which refuse to pay a living wage.
>> No. 55184 Anonymous
18th May 2014
Sunday 11:07 am
55184 spacer
>>55183
I hope it passes, and we take up all their business.
>> No. 59415 Anonymous
28th January 2015
Wednesday 6:58 am
59415 spacer
The Greens want to introduce a £72 a week universal Citizen's Income. Apparently to fund this they want to scrap the income tax personal allowance, JSA, child benefit, tax credits, etc. and they'll raise the basic rate of tax to 30% and make 12% National Insurance payable on all income, rather than having the first £153 of weekly income NI free as at present.

It doesn't seem very practical and thought through to me.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jan/27/green-party-citizens-income-policy-hits-poor
>> No. 59416 Anonymous
28th January 2015
Wednesday 7:03 am
59416 spacer
God I love the Greens.
>> No. 59417 Anonymous
28th January 2015
Wednesday 7:19 am
59417 spacer
>>59415 here again.

Doing a quick calculation to see the practicalities of it:

Someone on £20,000 a year would lose their income tax allowance of £10,500 (from April) so that's £3,150 at 30%, plus an extra £950 on the rest of their income that's now taxed 10% higher. The additional NI would work out at about £955, meaning they'd be paying an extra £5,055 to receive a £3,744 Citizen's Income. No idea if they'd also lose tax credits and the like, assume they would if they had kids.
>> No. 59418 Anonymous
28th January 2015
Wednesday 9:32 am
59418 spacer
>>59415
Funny how you bumped this as soon as the news broke that it might not work so that you can claim you didn't think it would work all along! The Greens are an evidence based party and they will incorporate this new evidence into their policy. The CIT has provided numerous costed analyses of the policy in the past, but I presume you didn't decide it 'wasn't well thought out' when reading one of those.
>> No. 59419 Anonymous
28th January 2015
Wednesday 10:18 am
59419 spacer
>>59418
Oh Greenlad.

>The Greens are an evidence based party

Fjordable mirth.
>> No. 59420 Anonymous
28th January 2015
Wednesday 11:01 am
59420 spacer
>>59418
I bumped it now because this is the first I've heard of it. It's not even remotely thought out - using my calculations in >>59417 - if they get rid of the income tax personal allowance, raise income tax to 30%, get rid of the NI threshold and replace it with a £72 per week Citizen's Income then anyone earning £9,300 and above is worse off (£9,300 @ 30% = £2,790 plus the £955 extra NI = £3,745, i.e. greater than the £3,744 of £72 x 52). If that's how they plan to fund it then there's great big fuck-off glaring holes that anyone with half a brain could have worked out.
>> No. 59421 Anonymous
28th January 2015
Wednesday 1:09 pm
59421 spacer
>>59419
I thought you wanted me to stop calling myself Greenlad? What's the point if you're going to do it anyway?

>>59420
Yeah but those figures aren't in Green Party policy, so you can't say 'they didn't think it through'. To be fair I don't know who thought it through and what figures they used, but you're using figures from a Guardian article.

>they'll raise the basic rate of tax to 30% and make 12% National Insurance payable on all income
Where does it say that in our policy, for instance? Official policy states National Insurance will be abolished and merged into income tax.
>> No. 59422 Anonymous
28th January 2015
Wednesday 4:44 pm
59422 spacer
>>59421
If it is the case that NI is abolished, income tax is at 30% and there's no personal allowance then that would see people better off:

Someone on £30k would pay income tax of £3,900 and NI of £2,645 = £6,545 under the current system. If it was 30% on everything then that's £9,000 in tax, but the Citizen's Income would reduce this by £3,744 to £5,256 net.
38 posts omitted. First 100 posts shown.

Return ] Entire Thread ] First 100 posts ] Last 50 posts ]
whiteline

Delete Post []
Password