Support research into basic income

[Floppy]

No description provided.

[stephenreid321]

👍

[PaulJRobinson]

Would a Basic Income be instead of other benefits? So this would
essentially be introduced at the same time as removing Job Seeker's
Allowance, State Pension, Housing Benefit etc etc? And why would it not be
means-tested? Surely means-testing is a good thing as it ensures the state
doesn't waste money giving something to people who really don't need it
(like wealthy pensioners with their bus pass/tv licence etc).

with kind regards,
Paul Robinson

about.me/pauljrobinson

On 26 January 2014 23:46, Stephen Reid notifications@github.com wrote:

[image: 👍]

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//pull/82#issuecomment-33334777
.

[stephenreid321]

Decent look at the pros and cons at
http://anotherangryvoice.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/universal-basic-income.html

On 28 January 2014 15:35, Paul Robinson notifications@github.com wrote:

Would a Basic Income be instead of other benefits? So this would
essentially be introduced at the same time as removing Job Seeker's
Allowance, State Pension, Housing Benefit etc etc? And why would it not be
means-tested? Surely means-testing is a good thing as it ensures the state
doesn't waste money giving something to people who really don't need it
(like wealthy pensioners with their bus pass/tv licence etc).

with kind regards,
Paul Robinson

about.me/pauljrobinson

On 26 January 2014 23:46, Stephen Reid notifications@github.com wrote:

[image: 👍]

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub<
https://github.com/openpolitics/manifesto/pull/82#issuecomment-33334777>
.

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//pull/82#issuecomment-33489197
.

[Floppy]

It's an interesting one. I think that yes, it would be instead of other benefits, but the idea is that everyone gets it equally. I think that the theory is that admin costs are also vastly reduced.

[Floppy]

Oh, nice link. Thanks @wordsandwriting, will read more.

[PaulJRobinson]

It's interesting, and appealing. I can see how the inflationary argument
against is a strong one. Prices for everything would skyrocket (not just
rent as given in the example at that link) as there would be more money in
the system. Also I did a quick google of 60 million people x £20000 per
year and got 1.2e+ 12 and with my B in GCSE maths I have no idea what that
is, but I'm assuming it's a big number. Could anyone more numerate give me
an idea of the kind of sums we're talking about here and which government
departments would have to be abolished (I'm assuming DWP and BIS at the
very least) to pay for it?

with kind regards,
Paul Robinson

about.me/pauljrobinson

On 28 January 2014 15:38, Stephen Reid notifications@github.com wrote:

Decent look at the pros and cons at
http://anotherangryvoice.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/universal-basic-income.html

On 28 January 2014 15:35, Paul Robinson notifications@github.com wrote:

Would a Basic Income be instead of other benefits? So this would
essentially be introduced at the same time as removing Job Seeker's
Allowance, State Pension, Housing Benefit etc etc? And why would it not
be
means-tested? Surely means-testing is a good thing as it ensures the
state
doesn't waste money giving something to people who really don't need it
(like wealthy pensioners with their bus pass/tv licence etc).

with kind regards,
Paul Robinson

about.me/pauljrobinson

On 26 January 2014 23:46, Stephen Reid notifications@github.com wrote:

[image: 👍]

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub<
https://github.com/openpolitics/manifesto/pull/82#issuecomment-33334777>
.

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub<
https://github.com/openpolitics/manifesto/pull/82#issuecomment-33489197>
.

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//pull/82#issuecomment-33489574
.

[stephenreid321]

See http://www.citizensincome.org/filelibrary/booklet2013.pdf for a
cost-neutral example paying a partial citizen's (basic) income (£71/week
for 25-64 year olds - equivalent to a day's pay on the living wage)

On 28 January 2014 15:51, Paul Robinson notifications@github.com wrote:

It's interesting, and appealing. I can see how the inflationary argument
against is a strong one. Prices for everything would skyrocket (not just
rent as given in the example at that link) as there would be more money in
the system. Also I did a quick google of 60 million people x £20000 per
year and got 1.2e+ 12 and with my B in GCSE maths I have no idea what that
is, but I'm assuming it's a big number. Could anyone more numerate give me
an idea of the kind of sums we're talking about here and which government
departments would have to be abolished (I'm assuming DWP and BIS at the
very least) to pay for it?

with kind regards,
Paul Robinson

about.me/pauljrobinson

On 28 January 2014 15:38, Stephen Reid notifications@github.com wrote:

Decent look at the pros and cons at

http://anotherangryvoice.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/universal-basic-income.html

On 28 January 2014 15:35, Paul Robinson notifications@github.com
wrote:

Would a Basic Income be instead of other benefits? So this would
essentially be introduced at the same time as removing Job Seeker's
Allowance, State Pension, Housing Benefit etc etc? And why would it
not
be
means-tested? Surely means-testing is a good thing as it ensures the
state
doesn't waste money giving something to people who really don't need
it
(like wealthy pensioners with their bus pass/tv licence etc).

with kind regards,
Paul Robinson

about.me/pauljrobinson

On 26 January 2014 23:46, Stephen Reid notifications@github.com
wrote:

[image: 👍]

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub<

https://github.com/openpolitics/manifesto/pull/82#issuecomment-33334777>

.

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub<
https://github.com/openpolitics/manifesto/pull/82#issuecomment-33489197>

.

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub<
https://github.com/openpolitics/manifesto/pull/82#issuecomment-33489574>
.

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//pull/82#issuecomment-33490948
.

[philipjohn]

@PaulJRobinson I think it means 1.2 plus 12 zeros, which would be £12tn

[stephenreid321]

No, it's 1.2 x 10^12 = £1.2tn
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=60+million+*+20+thousand

In comparison UK GDP is around £1.5tn, UK gov't spending is around £720bn (
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/interactive/2013/mar/20/budget-spending-interactive
)

A £20k basic income for every person sounds rather high.

I think even a partial basic income of £3-4k, allowing people to choose to
work 4 days a week, would be a great start. See
http://wordsandwriting.me/blog/post/national-20-time

On 28 January 2014 16:13, philipjohn notifications@github.com wrote:

@PaulJRobinson https://github.com/PaulJRobinson I think it means 1.2
plus 12 zeros, which would be £12tn

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//pull/82#issuecomment-33493414
.

[philipjohn]

@wordsandwriting Thank you! #learning

Thinking out loud...

1. Wouldn't a basic income make more sense if based on the living wage?
2. To that end, while I like the idea of a basic income, I don't think it's necessarily workable. What's to stop everyone from just ceasing to work?
3. A partial basic income also doesn't fit well, IMO, alongside a living wage policy - if you're going to provide a basic income, why one that doesn't meet what you acknowledge to be a necessary wage to live on? It's similar to having an income tax threshold below the living wage level.
4. What is the "bread line" - is there an actual value that it represents? Could a basic income work if set at that level, ensuring everyone is above this? Then, that would probably complement the living wage income tax threshold policy we have. I.e., the Government ;
   • a) acknowledges the living wage
   • b) doesn't tax you on anything under that living wage
   • c) recognises a level of income needed to bring people out of poverty
   • d) ensures everyone has at least that poverty-escaping income
5. It occurs to me that the "bread line" may be relative and so paying everyone the same basic income will simply maintain the status quo because, relatively, the poor will still be just as poor. Probably. Right? @Floppy's suggestion of means-testing could alleviate this possibility by only providing the basic income to those who need it.

[PaulJRobinson]

I was in the middle of drafting a response that is remarkably similar to
@philipjohn above (but mine was less articulately argued). But I would also
like to add my thanks to everyone for doing my sums, and for the various
links to supporting evidence and documentation. I feel a lot more educated
on the subject and like it in principle. I would like to give some thought
to @philipjohn's concerns above.

with kind regards,
Paul Robinson

about.me/pauljrobinson

On 28 January 2014 17:45, philipjohn notifications@github.com wrote:

@wordsandwriting https://github.com/wordsandwriting Thank you!
#learning

Thinking out loud...

Wouldn't a basic income make more sense if based on the living wage?
2.

To that end, while I like the idea of a basic income, I don't think
it's necessarily workable. What's to stop everyone from just ceasing to
work?
3.

A partial basic income also doesn't fit well, IMO, alongside a living
wage policy - if you're going to provide a basic income, why one that
doesn't meet what you acknowledge to be a necessary wage to live on? It's
similar to having an income tax threshold below the living wage level.
4.

What is the "bread line" - is there an actual value that it
represents? Could a basic income work if set at that level, ensuring
everyone is above this? Then, that would probably complement the living
wage income tax threshold policy we have. I.e., the Government ;
5. a) acknowledges the living wage

1. b) doesn't tax you on anything under that living wage

2. c) recognises a level of income needed to bring people out of
   poverty
   8.

   d) ensures everyone has at least that poverty-escaping income
   9.

   It occurs to me that the "bread line" may be relative and so paying
   everyone the same basic income will simply maintain the status quo because,
   relatively, the poor will still be just as poor. Probably. Right?

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//pull/82#issuecomment-33503832
.

[timcowlishaw]

I really like the idea of a basic income, but am not educated enough on the specifics to be able to evaluate the proposal in it's current form. I think the problem of removing incentives to work can be handled by setting the level of the basic income appropriately, such that it doesn't crowd out incentives to earn for the majority of people. Will look into the literature around this and try and add some suggestions, and links to evidence.

[Floppy]

@timcowlishaw same here - I like the idea, and I'd like more research to go into it at a policy level. That's what this is meant to propose, not that UBI should be adopted, necessarily.

[PaulJRobinson]

I'm with Tim, but 👍 on the basis that the proposal is around more
research.

with kind regards,
Paul Robinson

about.me/pauljrobinson

On 29 January 2014 08:46, James Smith notifications@github.com wrote:

@timcowlishaw https://github.com/timcowlishaw same here - I like the
idea, and I'd like more research to go into it at a policy level. That's
what this is meant to propose, not that UBI should be adopted, necessarily.

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//pull/82#issuecomment-33565841
.

[philipjohn]

If you haven't seen it, you may be interested in this, from Twitter "More planning work for the next @RatParl today... need to find researchers on living wage, minimum wage and basic income - ideas welcome!"

[Floppy]

This proposal is open for discussion and voting. If you are a contributor to this repository (and not the proposer), you may vote on whether or not it is accepted.

How to vote

Vote by entering one of the following symbols in a comment on this pull request. Only your last vote will be counted, and you may change your vote at any time until the change is accepted or closed.

vote	symbol	type this	points
Agree	👍	:thumbsup:	1
Abstain	✋	:hand:	-1
Block	👎	:thumbsdown:	-1000

Proposals will be accepted and merged once they have a total of 2 points when all votes are counted. Votes will be open for a minimum of 7 days, but will be closed if the proposal is not accepted after 90.

Votes are counted automatically here, and results are set in the merge status checks below.

Changes

If the proposer makes a change to the proposal, no votes cast before that change will be counted.