epiphany Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 Yes, I can see where you're coming from. I doubt it will ever happen though. Too simple. And I bet employers would start reducing wages. Workers would be in a stronger position to negotiate wages if: a) We had more robust codetermination laws ala Germany and incentivised businesses (especially med-large) to adopt more co-operative charters whereby workers have a more democratic stake in their company. Labour and capital become synthesised. b) If we introduced the CI. Employees would no longer take the raw end of the deal for fear of losing their entire income. Employers would soon get the message that they can't use fear of loss of income to effectively hold employees to ransom. Employees would also soon realise that trying to negotiate wages disproportionate to the capital growth of the firm would have a negative effect on everyone. This dynamic must be a significant part of the worker's training and education. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 That right in theory, in practice its way off. Beer, fags, takeaways, toys etc for the kids, electrical goods and petrol if they have a car, without even trying to think of much. Again, in theory they aren't essentials but in reality that's where the money goes. If you took the average family receipts, on benefits and low earners expect a big chunk of it to be vatable. If they can afford these things they can afford tom pay tax and can’t be poor by any stretch of the imagination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackLakeland Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 Somebody on £2k per week can afford food & shelter without us giving them an extra £200 !!!! They could but you need to look at it from a different approach. They also pay more tax... Current unemployed people will receive nearly 200 per week now. If they claim Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit as well as JSA... There is much more incentive for them to work, because they will be much better off. As we all will. If the rich get a little richer its irrelevant if everyone else is as little better off as well. Admin savings will be massive although it will result in a lot of job losses in the various agencies that deal with benefits... All in all a great idea... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anywebsite Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 Pensions aren't a benefit IMO, and I agree about DLA, CB I'm not so sure. Children don't pay tax, so they wouldn't get the negative income tax. Without increases in Child Benefit it'd hurt families, it'd replace child tax credits, housing benefit, free school meals, etc. State pensions are a benefit like any other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 State pensions are supposedly paid for by your NI contributions and the only qualification to receive them is getting old. I don't consider them to be a benefit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jag82 Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 State pensions are supposedly paid for by your NI contributions and the only qualification to receive them is getting old. I don't consider them to be a benefit. Incorrect. Today's pensioners are paid for by your NI contributions. Your pension will be paid for by the NI contibutions of those working when you draw your pension. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 Did you miss the word 'supposedly'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jag82 Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 Did you miss the word 'supposedly'? I did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anywebsite Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 State pensions are supposedly paid for by your NI contributions and the only qualification to receive them is getting old. I don't consider them to be a benefit. You might not consider them to be a benefit, but that's just the same as any other state benefit, they're all supposedly "paid for from NI" & have conditions you need to meet to qualify (out of work, have kids, get old, etc). I'm struggling to think of a good reason they couldn't be scrapped & replaced with negative income tax too, I might have changed my mind on pensions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 Most benefits aren't linked to NI at all, the exception being contribution based JSA. The state pension could be replaced with a negative income tax, or CI, which amount to the same thing. But I'd hope that there is a clear distinction drawn between <retirement and >retirement, before which you should be working and after which you shouldn't need to work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.