We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Green Party and the Citizens' Income
Comments
-
Another policy detached from reality. The Western world cannot afford to live above it's means for ever. As always the question is who pays?0
-
chewmylegoff wrote: »DWP's admin costs were £5.8 billion in 2012 ....
I believe HMRC admin costs are of the same order; perhaps a little less. Even if you were to take the wildest most optomistic view of the potential cost savings, you'd be hard put to get to a figure that would even approach a penny on the basic rate.0 -
Thrugelmir wrote: »Another policy detached from reality. The Western world cannot afford to live above it's means for ever. As always the question is who pays?
It's not completely detached from reality. I can recall some Thatcherite MP or other putting it forward as an option back in the 1980s. But they did at least recognise the extra costs involved and put forward some suggestions for meeting them. No more foreign aid, cancelling all grants to the arts etc.
The problem with the Green Party policy is the problem with almost all Green Party policies. It's not actually a policy; it's a statement of intent.0 -
This site suggests a citizens' income of £2.7k for children, £3.4k for adults and £6.9k for pensioners:
http://www.citizensincome.org/FAQs.htm
They would retain housing benefit but scrap most other benefits. The tax structure would broadly remain the same, but the personal allowance would be scrapped. So a family of four would get £12.2k to live on, plus whatever they earned on top.
They estimate that the costs of administrating the system would be similar to the costs of administrating the current child benefit system.0 -
I quite like the idea when looked at in terms of ease. I.e one payment to everyone. Would save millions at a guess on all the calculations being made for everyone's circumstances at the moment.
The amount of time and money spent on running the tax credits system, for example, must be colossal.
On the other hand, it would seem to make little difference to everyone not actually claiming anything. What you get given as a citizens income is taken in tax the other end.
Quite like the idea of it though. Seems sensible. Would need a credible set of calculations to show the actual numbers add up though. Be nice to see the end of stupid systems such as winter fuel allowance, bus passes claimed by those who never use them, Christmas bonuses etc and one simple payment to all.0 -
housing benefit isn't included so how does that work?
how many people are on HB?
given pensioners, disabled and HB aren't included, one doesn't see such a massive reduction in admin0 -
Child benefit currently costs around £11 billion.
Replacing that with a citizens' income of £2.7k for each child would cost around £30 billion; that's an extra £19 billion, or another 4p on the basic rate.
Carry on like that, and pretty soon you end up with a basic rate of 50% or more.0 -
Graham_Devon wrote: »I quite like the idea when looked at in terms of ease. I.e one payment to everyone. .....
Oh, I quite like the idea. Used to be quite enthusiastic about it myself at one time. The trouble is that once you do the arithmetic, the enthusiasm wanes.
0 -
If that's their policy -- and is it really ? not just a wind up ? -- then at least they're honest about it.
The notion that work is an optional extra and that anyone who declines it has a God-given right to be kept afloat by everyone else is a view held by large swathes of the Labour Party (and LibDems). But they dare not be open about it because, unilike the Greens, they are trying to win elections.No-one would remember the Good Samaritan if he'd only had good intentions. He had money as well.
The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.
Margaret Thatcher0 -
Child benefit currently costs around £11 billion.
Replacing that with a citizens' income of £2.7k for each child would cost around £30 billion; that's an extra £19 billion, or another 4p on the basic rate.
Carry on like that, and pretty soon you end up with a basic rate of 50% or more.
Thing is though, a lot of those taking child benefit will also be taking tax credits, either working or none working. These tax credits would cease under the citizens payment.
It's therefore an unfair calculation.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards