Citizen's, or Basic Income

A bit cryptic Gracesgran could you elaborate?

Sorry ninathenana I was trying to get other people's ideas but basically citizen's income is quite an old idea that seems to have been resurrected recently.

Finland is currently considering it and the Dutch city of Utrect is carrying out an experiment with it and I understand there are thoughts of bringing something along these lines in in Canada. The idea is that everyone, as a right of citizenship, unconditionally receives a set amount throughout their lives

Sometimes called basic income each citizen receives a non-means-tested payment. There are two ways to implement this, either as a flat rate or as a rising sum but each person of the same age, who is a citizen, would receive the same amount.

As ever the question would be -how is it paid for?

Lower benefits, a proper national insurance system and higher taxes.

Although not many countries actually have a living wage, some have something like it in practice.

Governments in some countries recognise that everybody needs to live and have enough money to pay for a roof over their heads, heating and food, etc. even if they are unemployed, on maternity leave or just choose not to work and, therefore, pay much more generous benefits than the UK, although they don't have add-ons such as housing allowance and free school meals.

The idea is that people can keep the basic wage, but top it up with income or interest from savings without any penalty. Therefore, there's a much stronger incentive to work. It works something like the basic state pension and would work quite well with the rising pension age if it increased with age after, for example, 55. People could then be more flexible about their chosen retirement age.

Like many I suspect, I would struggle to be happy about working and paying more taxes to enable others to 'choose not to work'. The loss of incentive could be economic suicide?

The figure would have to be set pretty high to ensure the poorest families didn't lose out on the changeover from benefits. That's the problem the Green Party had to contend with when they proposed a citizen's income scheme before the last election. And when would children be able to access theirs?

Jane10 I know it is counter intuitive but in experiments so far people do not choose "not to work* - certainly no more than the small percentage that currently do. With the choices opened up by having a nonwithdrawable income many people who dare not work currently because benefits are so precarious would be able to do so which could well mean that those caught in benefit traps would be working. You immediately think, as most would, that there would be additional cost but those investigating this believe the system can be introduced cost neutral.

Ana the first citizens to receive the income would probably be children. Child benefits and credits would be stopped and each child with citizenship would receive the income. It would be paid to the parents until the child is at the age designated by parliament - my guess would be 16. The savings on not having means testing, etc., with the admin and people involved saves large amounts. In one of the schemes suggested the child citizen income would start lower and the amount would rise with age. These incomes would always be to the citizen and not to a household.

There are certainly a lot of questions to be asked. Not much research has been done so far, but if anyone is interested enough this is a thorough look at the state of research and experimentation so far, by Andrew Flowers.

Sounds good to me and I also agree that most people do not "choose not to work . I will read the article thatbags suggests to find out more .

Just another thought Jane10. At the moment people complain about paying taxes and often impute that the person receiving them does not make any effort (although, of course they may have paid taxes all their life). Say the adult amount initially started at around £70 a week (around the JSA amount with JSA being scrapped). This would mean that todays complainant would get the same amount as everyone else in or out of work, rather than as it is now - nothing at all - and again you have less administration, etc.

Those of pension age would get the citizens allowance rather than a pension too - everyone exactly the same. This is one reason why the model that increases the allowance rate with age works, in my opinion.

But most of the objections raised about the Green Party's proposal of £76 a week were that some families would be receiving less than they do now on benefits (whether in work or not). I'm also not sure what you mean by complainant - do you mean claimant? And a pension of £70 a week wouldn't go very far...

Surely increasing the allowance rate with age would involve some administration costs, as well.

Sorry - before someone jumps on me, the Green Party's citizens' income was suggested as £72, not £76!

www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2016/04/14/a-universal-basic-income-is-possible/

Lots more where this comes from.

www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/01/alternative-to-war-on-britains-poor

George Monbiot thought it a good idea, too. It just takes somebody brave to suggest it in parliament.

George Monbiot suggests that pensioners get more.
It is difficult for pensioners to increase their allowance by working, but everyone else could.

There would also be considerable savings from not having to work out work out means-tested benefits and the (so-called) work programme.

Admittedly I don't know the exact costings, but it might not be as high as people think, because there would certainly be administrative savings.

How about a sliding scale increase from (say) 60 to 66 (or the SPA)? That would do something to make us, who have had our state pension age increased, somewhat less grumpy and miffed.

Ana, A computer could work out the age increases.

Ana I don't think anyone is going to jump on you as we are just finding out about this. I have to admit I don't know anything about the system the Greens propose so if anyone does they might explain it to us.

I suggested £70 as a figure to work round because it is easy to see that you could loose JSA if you did that but the thoughts offered by some are that you work towards the level of the Minimum Income Standards published each year by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF). This may take time but it would mean work would pay and could be very flexible. It would also take account of the predicted drop in the number of jobs actually available as technology moves on.

In the Finish scheme they are working on an amount of 800 euros a month - but that may be their equivalent of their JSA for all I know.

Ana the Citizens Income as you get older would replace the state pension. As you just send it to every citizen who reaches that age it would actually reduce current costs and people would know exactly what they would get - it might be what they had been getting if the JRF levels had been achieved.

(complainant - people who complain about those getting benefits. As long as they are citizens they would all get the same)

Currently, JSA is £73.10pw (£57.90) for under 25s. Child tax credits for children with unemployed parents are about £60pw with £20.70pw child benfit for the first child and £13.70pw for subsequent children.

Therefore, on average, the amount each citizen currently receives is approximately £70pw.

Housing benefits are paid on top. That's all people receive with a couple of small benefits such as free school meals (which in themselves need somebody and cost to administer).

However, you really need to be unemployed for any length of time to understand how benefits can be affected by taking temporary, part-time work in an effort to earn something and maybe get on the work ladder. There is a huge amount of admin involved and mistakes are made, which is why it's the people without secure work who often fall through gaps and end up at food banks or borrowing money from Wonga.

Believe me, if you're only getting £73.70pw, you don't choose not to work, unless you've magically worked out how to survive on fresh air.

I think it's an idea worth investigating and costing.

PS, dj, the current school leaving age is effectively 18, so 16-18 year olds can't have a full-time job.

Gracesgran, I meant that former Green Party supporters might jump on me. It has been known!

Ana, How much do you think families 'on benefits' get? The bar wouldn't have to be set anywhere near as high as you think. A family with nobody working currently receives the most. As a rule of thumb, they receive approximately £70pw per person plus housing costs.

How do you think single, unemployed people survive? Maybe you can see why people who have had their SPA increased are annoyed, because there's very little work for unemployed people in their late 50s and 60s. They're very annoyed that they have to survive on £73.70 when people just a coupe of years older (if single) are guaranteed almost double from state pension and Pension Credit.

It's ironic that people say that it's not possible to survive on £70pw, when that's exactly what unemployed people have to do.

www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jan/27/green-party-citizens-income-policy-hits-poor

This is one article that spells it out, Daphnedill. I wasn't just speculating.