3 ms·
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 Basi
by 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 agoFair 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?