4 ms·

I haven't read into it too much at the moment as it's still a bit of a pipe-dream just now although it's looking more likely to change but I sit on the fence at

I haven't read into it too much at the moment as it's still a bit of a pipe-dream just now although it's looking more likely to change but I sit on the fence at this time (with a lean towards "no"). I don't see that happening to be honest but I do see something worse... Won't the price of everything go up for those that don't currently need the welfare system? Is this a sort of stealth tax increase on the middle class? I live in the UK and pay a lot into the system but I am by no means rich. I don't claim anything except child benefit (dunno how I qualify but I do... for £80 a month or something). If you remove the need for someone currently on welfare to take a min-wage job then that means the job either doesn't get done or the salary for it must go up. So, if it goes up, then that company's price will go up or they face going out of business. If they manage to stay in business, I will need to pay more to use their service than I did before but if they go out of business because I am not willing to pay it, they end up claiming welfare and my tax goes up to pay for it. Honestly, I don't see an upside for anyone except those that can't/won't work!

empressplay 10y ago
Absolutely. And even those who can't / won't work _still_ won't be able to find a place to live or eat well because rents and food prices will go up to compensate for it.
pjc50 10y ago
Child benefit is almost-universal. It was completely universal until a conservative government started means-testing it on the parents.
- _Understated_ 10y ago
  It's crazy. I absolutely don't need it but for some reason I qualify.
  - toyg 10y ago
    In UK? You always qualify, but you'll have to pay it all back if your income goes over a threshold. In its current form, it's basically an interest-free loan for 12 months.
  - pjc50 10y ago
    It's not really for you - it is child benefit, after all. Think of it as basic income for kids, to keep them clothed and out of the factories. I'm in favour of bringing back the Education Maintenance Allowance, and making it very slightly performance-related.
    - _Understated_ 10y ago
      Haha, of course :) However, I am not in favour of Government handouts. How much money did it cost to give me £80 back? £100? £150? Would it not be better to reduce my tax so I pay £80 less each month?
      - takno 10y ago
        It costs maybe 81 pounds a month to give you your 80 pounds. If it was means tested it would cost massively more per person you gave it to. In addition plenty of needy people would go without because they didn't know about it, or couldn't fill out the forms, or got arbitrarily sanctioned because their meeting with the job centre was on a day when the "advisor" hadn't met his sanctioning target
      - pjc50 10y ago
        It might be cheaper to take the money and give it to everyone than build an elaborate means-testing system that requires taking far more information, a more complex computer system, more arguing over corner cases, and so on. Straight handouts appear to be by far the most effective way of reducing poverty and its negative effects. It's rather like the War On Drugs; you can choose a system that moralises at people or one that improves their outcomes, but if you want to improve outcomes you have to give up moralising control.
  - humanrebar 10y ago
    The government has interest in people investing in future growth (children), so it's subsidized. The alternative would be to tax childless people more heavily so they are always revenue-neutral with respect to retirement, health, and disability benefits.
yks 10y ago
I think that is the point, there will be too many people "that can't work" due to tech innovations. It all makes sense if you think about welfare not as "these slouches are rewarded for the laziness" but as a price you pay so that unemployed people are not forced into violent property expropriation from you. When large swaths of population don't have an access to money-making jobs, it significantly affects middle class well-being. Of course you can "get yours" and double down on police and live behind electric fences South Africa style, but that's not pretty.
- UVB-76 10y ago
  The "get yours" mentality is flawed because all you end up doing is imprisoning large sections of the population for poverty-driven crime, and you end up paying for their imprisonment. What do prisoners get while in prison? Basic necessities, like food, shelter, warmth. A kind of basic income, if you will.
  - Chronic51 10y ago
    Basic income except the rich and powerful cannot stop outside their home?
- _Understated_ 10y ago
  I don't think anyone wants a Sci-Fi dystopia: It doesn't benefit anyone. Government should provide every citizen with basics should they falter: Food, clothing, shelter, education etc. I absolutely believe that is a basic human right. What I don't want is to fund anything other than a safety net: Welfare should be a helping hand to get you back on your feet or to give you a start - Nothing more. It should also come with an expiry date!
  - pjc50 10y ago
    > Government should provide every citizen with basics should they falter: Food, clothing, shelter, education etc. I absolutely believe that is a basic human right. > What I don't want is to fund anything other than a safety net: Welfare should be a helping hand to get you back on your feet or to give you a start - Nothing more. It should also come with an expiry date! These two statements completely contradict one another. There are plenty of people who aren't going back on their feed any time soon due to disability or mental health issues.

empressplay 10y ago

Absolutely. And even those who can't / won't work _still_ won't be able to find a place to live or eat well because rents and food prices will go up to compensate for it.

pjc50 10y ago

Child benefit is almost-universal. It was completely universal until a conservative government started means-testing it on the parents.

_Understated_ 10y ago
It's crazy. I absolutely don't need it but for some reason I qualify.
- toyg 10y ago
  In UK? You always qualify, but you'll have to pay it all back if your income goes over a threshold. In its current form, it's basically an interest-free loan for 12 months.
- pjc50 10y ago
  It's not really for you - it is child benefit, after all. Think of it as basic income for kids, to keep them clothed and out of the factories. I'm in favour of bringing back the Education Maintenance Allowance, and making it very slightly performance-related.
  - _Understated_ 10y ago
    Haha, of course :) However, I am not in favour of Government handouts. How much money did it cost to give me £80 back? £100? £150? Would it not be better to reduce my tax so I pay £80 less each month?
    - takno 10y ago
      It costs maybe 81 pounds a month to give you your 80 pounds. If it was means tested it would cost massively more per person you gave it to. In addition plenty of needy people would go without because they didn't know about it, or couldn't fill out the forms, or got arbitrarily sanctioned because their meeting with the job centre was on a day when the "advisor" hadn't met his sanctioning target
    - pjc50 10y ago
      It might be cheaper to take the money and give it to everyone than build an elaborate means-testing system that requires taking far more information, a more complex computer system, more arguing over corner cases, and so on. Straight handouts appear to be by far the most effective way of reducing poverty and its negative effects. It's rather like the War On Drugs; you can choose a system that moralises at people or one that improves their outcomes, but if you want to improve outcomes you have to give up moralising control.
- humanrebar 10y ago
  The government has interest in people investing in future growth (children), so it's subsidized. The alternative would be to tax childless people more heavily so they are always revenue-neutral with respect to retirement, health, and disability benefits.

yks 10y ago

I think that is the point, there will be too many people "that can't work" due to tech innovations. It all makes sense if you think about welfare not as "these slouches are rewarded for the laziness" but as a price you pay so that unemployed people are not forced into violent property expropriation from you. When large swaths of population don't have an access to money-making jobs, it significantly affects middle class well-being. Of course you can "get yours" and double down on police and live behind electric fences South Africa style, but that's not pretty.

UVB-76 10y ago
The "get yours" mentality is flawed because all you end up doing is imprisoning large sections of the population for poverty-driven crime, and you end up paying for their imprisonment. What do prisoners get while in prison? Basic necessities, like food, shelter, warmth. A kind of basic income, if you will.
- Chronic51 10y ago
  Basic income except the rich and powerful cannot stop outside their home?
_Understated_ 10y ago
I don't think anyone wants a Sci-Fi dystopia: It doesn't benefit anyone. Government should provide every citizen with basics should they falter: Food, clothing, shelter, education etc. I absolutely believe that is a basic human right. What I don't want is to fund anything other than a safety net: Welfare should be a helping hand to get you back on your feet or to give you a start - Nothing more. It should also come with an expiry date!
- pjc50 10y ago
  > Government should provide every citizen with basics should they falter: Food, clothing, shelter, education etc. I absolutely believe that is a basic human right. > What I don't want is to fund anything other than a safety net: Welfare should be a helping hand to get you back on your feet or to give you a start - Nothing more. It should also come with an expiry date! These two statements completely contradict one another. There are plenty of people who aren't going back on their feed any time soon due to disability or mental health issues.