Basic Citizens' Income

[woodburner]

The problem is capitalism.

The alternative to capitalism is Communism. Nuff sed.

Define “communism�.
If it is referring to China or Russia or similar places, “communism� is a euphemism for state controlled capitalism, or even dictatorship.

There are many remote peoples that exist in a communal system.

[RenewableCandy]

The problem is capitalism.

The alternative to capitalism is Communism. Nuff sed.

That's not actually true.
A system where you could profit from what you own (a la capitalism) but this is taxed and redistributed as a citizens' income (a la communism) would be neither.

It would also imho work better than either.

[kenneal - lagger]

I agree with that Candy.

[Little John]

I don't have a problem with markets. I do have a problem with unregulated markets and a pretty good rule of thumb to use with regards to whether markets are sufficiently regulated or not is to simply look at the wealth distribution across a given society in which those markets operate.

[johnhemming2]

We already have a system that provides support for people who are not in work. It is, however, not "unconditional".

Hence, for example, people who have come to the UK to claim Asylum had had their asylum claim rejected don't get benefits.

Similarly if people are capable of contributing to wider society in some way they are expected to do so if they wish the full financial support.

Both of those make the current system not "unconditional". Otherwise we have been developing a basic income scheme.

The debate, therefore, is about the question of conditionality and who qualifies under what circumstances or whether the financial support should be unconditional.

[johnhemming2]

A system where you could profit from what you own (a la capitalism) but this is taxed and redistributed as a citizens' income (a la communism) would be neither.

Such a system is still capitalist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism

[vtsnowedin]

If income support is unconditional then no conditions will be met and the lazier they are the better off the recipient will be. The taxpayer that is working on the other hand will be taxed at a rate that amounts to him not only doing his own work but the additional work needed to support the recipients as well.

[Little John]

You've just explained why capitalism - even capitalism with progressive taxation to ameliorate its worst effects - doesn't work

[kenneal - lagger]

VT explain to me why someone who works hard, helps his company become more productive and profitable is then made redundant because that company can now produce the same amount of goods without his labours, is at fault. Should that person not be paid compensation for working himself out of a job? This is a far more common situation to find oneself in that the situation that you have described.

In the UK we are in the situation where the government is worried because productivity is dropping because many workers have forgone pay rises and taken shorter working hours so that their fellow workers do not have to be sacked. It is an equally valid way of keeping the company going and in some ways is better because it does not disperse highly trained, and expensively trained, workers who are ready to get going again should the economy and orders pick up. It seems a sensible approach to many employers in the UK but it worries the government and economists because of our supposed lack of productivity.

If a national wage was paid rather than unemployment benefit, which is increasingly difficult to access in the UK because blame for unemployment is unjustly put on the unemployed, maybe people would not wish to cling onto a job which is paying less for less hours and would make themselves available for another job or for training. It would also be good if companies and/or the government set up retraining centres at their cost not the employees for those between jobs.

The current attitude to unemployment, it being the lazy unemployed person's fault, is both stupid and unjust in most cases. Most people are made unemployed by a former employer and not through their own fault, unless working yourself out of a job is your own fault.

[RenewableCandy]

If income support is unconditional then no conditions will be met and the lazier they are the better off the recipient will be. The taxpayer that is working on the other hand will be taxed at a rate that amounts to him not only doing his own work but the additional work needed to support the recipients as well.

This sounds plausible but, bizarrely, has been disproved by watching what people actually do.
For example, I work although I'm not paid. I volunteer in a bookshop. I don't do long hours - nobody should be made to - but, nevertheless, I work. The surgeon who patched my heart up recently also works unpaid: not here in the UK but she also volunteers in poorer places and, yes, patches people's hearts up.

There are plenty of reasons to work that aren't actually money. And for those who want (more) money there's always the choice of working and having your basic income.

[vtsnowedin]

You've just explained why capitalism - even capitalism with progressive taxation to ameliorate its worst effects - doesn't work

No I have just explained why socialism doesn't work.

[vtsnowedin]

If income support is unconditional then no conditions will be met and the lazier they are the better off the recipient will be. The taxpayer that is working on the other hand will be taxed at a rate that amounts to him not only doing his own work but the additional work needed to support the recipients as well.

This sounds plausible but, bizarrely, has been disproved by watching what people actually do.
For example, I work although I'm not paid. I volunteer in a bookshop. I don't do long hours - nobody should be made to - but, nevertheless, I work. The surgeon who patched my heart up recently also works unpaid: not here in the UK but she also volunteers in poorer places and, yes, patches people's hearts up.

There are plenty of reasons to work that aren't actually money. And for those who want (more) money there's always the choice of working and having your basic income.

Some people will work rather then be bored. Many others will just sit around watching the TV or the computer while washing down beer after beer and smoking a pack a day plus a good bit of pot each week.

[vtsnowedin]

VT explain to me why someone who works hard, helps his company become more productive and profitable is then made redundant because that company can now produce the same amount of goods without his labours, is at fault. Should that person not be paid compensation for working himself out of a job? This is a far more common situation to find oneself in that the situation that you have described.

In the UK we are in the situation where the government is worried because productivity is dropping because many workers have forgone pay rises and taken shorter working hours so that their fellow workers do not have to be sacked. It is an equally valid way of keeping the company going and in some ways is better because it does not disperse highly trained, and expensively trained, workers who are ready to get going again should the economy and orders pick up. It seems a sensible approach to many employers in the UK but it worries the government and economists because of our supposed lack of productivity.

If a national wage was paid rather than unemployment benefit, which is increasingly difficult to access in the UK because blame for unemployment is unjustly put on the unemployed, maybe people would not wish to cling onto a job which is paying less for less hours and would make themselves available for another job or for training. It would also be good if companies and/or the government set up retraining centres at their cost not the employees for those between jobs.

The current attitude to unemployment, it being the lazy unemployed person's fault, is both stupid and unjust in most cases. Most people are made unemployed by a former employer and not through their own fault, unless working yourself out of a job is your own fault.

The rise of automation and machine intelligence is a separate problem that bites at both socialists and capitalist systems. I don't know as I have any pat answers to the problem as things often suggested such as retraining always have the problem of what to retrain into that will not also soon be taken over by the robots.
If a mines ore seam runs out or gets too deep to be profitable the mine shuts down and the workers laid off or made redundant as you call it. That is not the mine owner's fault and as there is no production left there is no income to pay the laid off workers going forward.
Remember the American Declaration of Independence enumerates the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
You have to pursue your happiness , not wait for the government to deliver it to your bank account.

[johnhemming2]

You have to pursue your happiness , not wait for the government to deliver it to your bank account.

[kenneal - lagger]

The rise of automation and machine intelligence is a separate problem .....

It 's at the heart of the problem nowadays. The drive for rising productivity is the driver for continued loss of employment and it usually comes at very little cost to the former employer. In the UK the employer can usually find someone to make redundant who has been working for less than a year so that the employer avoids any redundancy payments. This leads to a group of people who go from job to job being made serially redundant and they find it difficult to get a new job.

Who wants to employ a person who has had three or four jobs in as many years? I had a friend and a neighbour, both highly qualified engineers, who were in this situation and they both ended up taking menial jobs in the end because they couldn't get anything in their former field of employment.

In 2008 we had a global recession bought on by incompetent and corrupt bankers and financial industry operatives which devastated many industries and yet we saw them baled our and compensated for their corruption and incompetence while former manufacturing employees are berated by press lackeys of the corrupt *ankers for being unemployed. The money paid to the *ankers would keep our unemployed in benefit for nearly 100 years yet we are encouraged, probably as a distraction from this outrage, to attack the victims of the crisis rather than the perpetrators of it.