An Experiment in Basic Income

tincans6

michaels wrote: »

What a good idea to test out a policy rather than blindly introduing ideology driven changes without any evidence that they work. It would never catch on here.

.

I think this is the most interesting idea. UK politicians introduce changes that run contrary to the evidence that it will work.

An example of this was Chris Grayling banning prisoners receiving books. What exactly was this meant to achieve when so many prisoners are illiterate ?
A remarkable feat to make his successor Michael Gove look like bleeding heart liberal.

I have always assumed this is because the vast majority are arts graduates (showing my bias there).

MFW_ASAP

Won't everything just rise in price to wipe out the initial gain, so that everyone is back at zero?

CLAPTON

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

Won't everything just rise in price to wipe out the initial gain, so that everyone is back at zero?

why would that be?

michaels

tincans6 wrote: »

I think this is the most interesting idea. UK politicians introduce changes that run contrary to the evidence that it will work.

An example of this was Chris Grayling banning prisoners receiving books. What exactly was this meant to achieve when so many prisoners are illiterate ?
A remarkable feat to make his successor Michael Gove look like bleeding heart liberal.

I have always assumed this is because the vast majority are arts graduates (showing my bias there).

tbh I think the book ban was about not having to resource trying to search the spine of every book for shanks and or drugs and removing combusitble material rather than preventing prisoners from reading....and legal highs are currently making prisons very hard to govern with violence and self harm sharply up.

tincans6

michaels wrote: »

tbh I think the book ban was about not having to resource trying to search the spine of every book for shanks and or drugs and removing combusitble material rather than preventing prisoners from reading....and legal highs are currently making prisons very hard to govern with violence and self harm sharply up.

It really wasn't.

For a while prisoners were not allowed to have books sent in directly by Waterstones or Smiths and a couple of other retailers where the chance of contraband was remote.

It was all about 'being tough on crime' and playing to a tabloid audience. While I can see it made sense to ban Sky TV - I doubt too many Sun readers were outraged by the fact that prisoners had too many books.

The fire risk argument is risible - and I don't thing even Chris Grayling used it.

woolythoughts

cells wrote: »

also with a CI the income tax system would be an almost flat 50-55% for everyone. Then there would be cries about the rich being taxed no more than the poor which could lead to something like a 45% lower tax and a 65% higher tax

And this I have never understood.

If you earn 100,000 and pay 45% tax you pay 45,000

If you earn 10,000 and pay 45% you pay 4,500

The rich still pay a lot more than the poor even on a flat rate. Yet whenever the left try to argue about the rick should be taxed more, it not fair they pay the same, no one ever points out that the same percentage of a bigger pie is a bigger slice.

:mad:

MacMickster

The great thing about a basic income system is that you would then have no benefits system to administer, but the very concept of income tax may prevent people from going out and earning more, meaning that the whole system would soon become unsustainable.

If the basic income is designed to cover the subsistence level essentials of life, then simply scrap income tax, zero rate VAT on all essential items, but raise the VAT level to 60% on all other items (plus a 70% tax on imports and money transfers out of the country). A tax would also be needed on deposits to any savings account, and a high rate of stamp duty on property purchase to prevent the better off from simply opting out of the system

cells

woolythoughts wrote: »

And this I have never understood.

If you earn 100,000 and pay 45% tax you pay 45,000

If you earn 10,000 and pay 45% you pay 4,500

The rich still pay a lot more than the poor even on a flat rate. Yet whenever the left try to argue about the rick should be taxed more, it not fair they pay the same, no one ever points out that the same percentage of a bigger pie is a bigger slice.

:mad:

Almost by definition. Left = rich pay too little. Centre = Its about right. Right = Rich pay too much tax. And of course rich for this discussion probably means anyone earning over >£50k a year....basically a lot of people who will never become truly rich (net assets >£2m)

cells

MacMickster wrote: »

The great thing about a basic income system is that you would then have no benefits system to administer, but the very concept of income tax may prevent people from going out and earning more, meaning that the whole system would soon become unsustainable.

If the basic income is designed to cover the subsistence level essentials of life, then simply scrap income tax, zero rate VAT on all essential items, but raise the VAT level to 60% on all other items (plus a 70% tax on imports and money transfers out of the country). A tax would also be needed on deposits to any savings account, and a high rate of stamp duty on property purchase to prevent the better off from simply opting out of the system

Apart from the fact a 40% higher VAT you need almost a 40% higher citizens income is an interesting idea. It is also a way to confiscate a huge amount of wealth from the savers/lenders in the economy as their pounds would buy a lot less

However it will have a big impact on the economy possibly very negatively. Just for one thing it would reduce the sales of new cars big time and old cars would be used for a good many more years to offset this.

I dont think its any coincidence that nations have income and sales taxes rather than just one or the other.

MacMickster

cells wrote: »

I dont think its any coincidence that nations have income and sales taxes rather than just one or the other.

Times are changing, and what used to work in the past doesn't always work so well in a global market place.

Increased sales taxes could also replace corporation taxes, removing the advantage that multinationals, who are able to transfer their profits to other low-taxation countries, have over home-based companies.