My bold.Tubby Isaacs wrote:Thanks for the reply.WelshIan wrote:The websites I linked to earlier give a breakdown of how it could be affordable.Tubby Isaacs wrote: I think it's a disastrous policy for the Greens. Even if you keep the basic income at the poverty level of JSA, it's going to cost a fortune to give every working age adult in the country that money. I don't see how it can work with migrant workers either.
They could have done excellent work hitting Labour on social security, getting sickness benefit decisions back to GPs and raising benefits to a liveable level. They're now going to be laughed off the podium by Labour.
It's time might come, but it's nowhere near ready if Natalie Bennett can't give any indication of how it's paid for. Ephie is ahead of where Bennett seems to be.
The DWP's running costs were actually on course to come down quite substantially before the "reforms" kicked in.
They say the cost is £276bn, and the benefits, tax allowances, etc it would replace cost £272bn (this includes £10bn from scrapping higher rate pension tax relief).On Citizens Income, there is a model here:
http://www.citizensincome.org/MoneyforEveryone.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
(Appendix 16, it's a Word document.)
The Left Futures article linked to by Rebeccariots2, provides information on some schemes where it has been trialled, the results were very encouraging:
http://www.leftfutures.org/2015/01/why- ... ns-income/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The Namibia trial had to deal with an influx of migrants, and I wouldn't have an issue with placing some conditionality on migrants accessing CI (eg working for at least 6 months before accessing it).
Citizens Income and similar schemes have been discussed for a long time so it is disappointing to hear that the main political advocate of CI made such a hash of the interview yesterday morning because costings for CI schemes are readily available (I haven't seen it, so am going on what was reported here). I hope she presents the case better in the future.
My other hope is that it moves away from being a Green Party political gimmick and is given serious consideration across the political spectrum. Milton Friedman was in favour of a form of CI so there is room for the Tories and UKIP to get on board!
Ephie's post above gives loads of reasons for why it would be good for society to move to a CI, not least a transformation in the relationship between the state and the individual (even if the amount is the same as JSA). The state would recognise that everyone has a worth that is not related to work.
It's not transformative, I don't think. For most people, they'll be paying some in and getting some back. And they'll still think some people are getting something for nothing.
The Friedman origin is interesting. but I can't believe he wanted it to be very much. The Green version of it is pretty much a different thing.
If it's a liveable amount, then it'll cost a great deal. Can't see any way round that.
That's what worries me. In the current climate which is becoming so set in stone that I despair, I think the same old arguments and mud slinging about who deserves what will make it damn near impossible to carry out.
I'm far more desperate for Labour to get enough people back in work so they feel better about themselves, don't feel so threatened they need scapegoats, and that taxes and NI contributions make a more stress free life for the sick and disabled possible.
