mikeye Posted October 6, 2013 Share Posted October 6, 2013 Very good idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Itrytoplease Posted October 6, 2013 Share Posted October 6, 2013 Sounds Good, except it would automatically place another 750,000 on the dole? (vague estimate) of those administering the so called rules. What about "Jobs for the Boys" the politicians couldn't bribe their way to power by offering jobs at the trough to those that stand in their way. Nepotism is rife in the benefits industry, and every other public service run by the politicians, and why do you think the Mansion Tax never got off the ground, yet £10/11 quid a week on the poor (Bedroom Tax) passed quicker than you can say Jack Flash. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happ Hazzard Posted October 6, 2013 Share Posted October 6, 2013 Sounds Good, except it would automatically place another 750,000 on the dole? (vague estimate) of those administering the so called rules. What about "Jobs for the Boys" the politicians couldn't bribe their way to power by offering jobs at the trough to those that stand in their way. Nepotism is rife in the benefits industry, and every other public service run by the politicians, and why do you think the Mansion Tax never got off the ground, yet £10/11 quid a week on the poor (Bedroom Tax) passed quicker than you can say Jack Flash. How exactly would a "mansion tax" be implemented? The "Bedroom tax" was simple, as it involved giving people less money. That's far easier than taking money from people, often against their will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted October 6, 2013 Author Share Posted October 6, 2013 How exactly would a "mansion tax" be implemented? The "Bedroom tax" was simple, as it involved giving people less money. That's far easier than taking money from people, often against their will. We could reduce 'mansion' benefits... For people with large stately homes type mansions, you could remove their benefits, and stop paying them to have big gardens via so called 'common agricultural policy' subsidies. (CAP should really be subject to the benefit CAP - Iain Duncan Smith's family claims £100 000 a year in land ownership dole top up). For people with expensive homes in London (so called - mansions), you could reduce public spending in the area that boosts house prices. HS1 was a big cash subsidy to people who owned properties nearby for example, public sector jobs (and high pay) in the banks, legal institutions etc. in London feed in to local house prices... We could top subsidising mansion values, by stopping the spending of public money to boost their value. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Itrytoplease Posted October 6, 2013 Share Posted October 6, 2013 How exactly would a "mansion tax" be implemented? The "Bedroom tax" was simple, as it involved giving people less money. That's far easier than taking money from people, often against their will. LOL - Yea, us Plebs willingly gave up what amounts to 12.5% of our income. (Playing Devils Advocate now, I'm retired) The same way they took the money off us TAX - be it a NEW tax or an increase in Council tax on properties over a certain value. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vague_Boy Posted October 6, 2013 Share Posted October 6, 2013 I'm with you. A basic income for everyone. Paid for by who? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted October 6, 2013 Share Posted October 6, 2013 Won't get the long term idle shirkers into work but I'm not sure anything will. Time to accept that and help those who want it? It may not, but that isn't the primary aim of it. Stop obsessing with a tiny proportion of the working population. ---------- Post added 06-10-2013 at 21:04 ---------- Paid for by who? Taxation. What else? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gillybear Posted October 6, 2013 Share Posted October 6, 2013 I assume that what would happen is everyone would recieve the citizens income (CI) say £800 per month and anyone working would pay back that amount from their wages upto their entire pay packet but would not pay any income tax or national insurance so if you earned £700/month it wouldn't be worth working as CI is more. If you earned £900/month you'd get £800 CI and £100 from your employer. As much as i think the idea is good, many people on incomes just above or even slightly below CI would soon realise that working in low payed jobs doesn't pay. The reason many people take low paid jobs is because they don't want to fight a benefits system for their money and then get hassled about finding work. Those who know how to work the benefits system will continue to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted October 6, 2013 Share Posted October 6, 2013 I assume that what would happen is everyone would recieve the citizens income (CI) say £800 per month and anyone working would pay back that amount from their wages upto their entire pay packet but would not pay any income tax or national insurance so if you earned £700/month it wouldn't be worth working as CI is more. If you earned £900/month you'd get £800 CI and £100 from your employer. As much as i think the idea is good, many people on incomes just above or even slightly below CI would soon realise that working in low payed jobs doesn't pay. The reason many people take low paid jobs is because they don't want to fight a benefits system for their money and then get hassled about finding work. Those who know how to work the benefits system will continue to do so. Another one obsessing about people who don't want to work. There will always be people like that whatever system we have. The thing about CI is people would pay tax. They would have to or the system wouldn't be funded. If there was a flat tax on any income earned above CI that would be fair. You know how much you get to keep of every pound you earn, a totally transparent system. And everybody would pay the same rate. Again, totally transparent with obvious incentives to earn more without being unduly penalised either at the bottom of the scale because of benefits clawbacks or at the top through punitive higher rates of tax. There's every chance it would lead to people working more, not less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna B Posted October 6, 2013 Share Posted October 6, 2013 Not sure I understand this so I was endeavouring to find out more about it. Googled it and was sent to a page (http://www.citizensincome.org) which said 'another name for it is Universal Credit' Is that what we're talking about? The same thing that IDS plans to bring in? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.