4 ms·

> I think that's a fallacy with all these calculations. All what calculations?! The whole point of me bothering to come up with these figures was that there we

by phaemon 12y ago

> I think that's a fallacy with all these calculations. All what calculations?! The whole point of me bothering to come up with these figures was that there were multiple comments that no-one had bothered to do even a simple sketch of what it would cost. I did. If you've got better figures, then show them. Better still, find out what the essentials are on Social Services/Protection and include them. I'd be happy to include your amendments for the next time this topic is discussed. Consider it an open source comment :)

jbuzbee 12y ago
Sorry - I wasn't targeting your specific sketch. I was just trying to refute the basic idea that lots of people make when they state that we'll pay for the Basic Income program by re-allocating all the funding that is currently used for social services and use it for basic income payments. My point is that you can't do this. You'll still need a large "safety net" and associated government organization for reasons stated above and more.
- phaemon 12y ago
  Fair enough. I suppose it doesn't take too much work to add another couple of paragraphs. What about: "Having increased the BI up to £80, I'm now going to cut it again, down to £60 a week. This is to cover pensioners, people claiming benefits which are currently in excess of £60 and support for vulnerable children (not child benefit: that's paid as BI for the child). I'm assuming that 20% of people fall into one of the above categories, so cutting £20 off the BI gives us £140 a week to help these people. This is more than the current basic state pension (£113.50/week) so that's a fairly big increase. I don't want to complicate the calculations any further, so the small number of people who require more than this will have to be paid out of the £50 billion we haven't borrowed." How's that?

4 ms·

> I think that's a fallacy with all these calculations. All what calculations?! The whole point of me bothering to come up with these figures was that there we

by phaemon 12y ago

jbuzbee 12y ago
Sorry - I wasn't targeting your specific sketch. I was just trying to refute the basic idea that lots of people make when they state that we'll pay for the Basic Income program by re-allocating all the funding that is currently used for social services and use it for basic income payments. My point is that you can't do this. You'll still need a large "safety net" and associated government organization for reasons stated above and more.
- phaemon 12y ago
  Fair enough. I suppose it doesn't take too much work to add another couple of paragraphs. What about: "Having increased the BI up to £80, I'm now going to cut it again, down to £60 a week. This is to cover pensioners, people claiming benefits which are currently in excess of £60 and support for vulnerable children (not child benefit: that's paid as BI for the child). I'm assuming that 20% of people fall into one of the above categories, so cutting £20 off the BI gives us £140 a week to help these people. This is more than the current basic state pension (£113.50/week) so that's a fairly big increase. I don't want to complicate the calculations any further, so the small number of people who require more than this will have to be paid out of the £50 billion we haven't borrowed." How's that?