Time to do away with "benefits" altogether.

[Zamo]

We can discuss the actual rates paid once agreed on the principle, you shouldn't base your figures on my example numbers, they were only intended as a rough explanation of the formula. The CI amount would need to be adjusted each year. It'd need to be affordable & ideally it'd cover basic living expenses.

 

The DWP costs over £250m a year just in staffing costs... https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/dwp-staff-numbers-and-associated-costs-2011-to-2012

 

The savings would be reduced admin costs, the DWP could be almost shut down. That saved money could either be paid to people as CI or a saving for the exchequer.

 

If we take the Telegraph's figure of £208 million paid out under the current system this year, that's nearly £3500 for every person in the country, including children... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9775955/Britains-benefits-and-state-pensions-bill-to-hit-record-high.html Under my proposal we'd get rid of tax allowances & income tax rates lower than the highest, so there would be an increased tax take which would cover quite a bit too.

 

You'll not get agreement in principle because your proposal will not bring about fairness.

 

The fact is that equality isn't achieved by treating everyone the same and that includes giving them the same 'base' income. We should be striving to give people equality of opportunity... and that doesn't mean the opportunity to do nothing.

[Cyclone]

A citizens income wouldn't be a license to do nothing though, it should be barely enough to survive, and so it would incentivise work.

 

I'm confused by the figures though.

 

£208 million is not £3500 per person at all. There are 40 million adults in the country. It's £5 per person! Add in the running costs of the DWP and it takes it up to the grand total of £11 per person... A year!

 

Ah, it's £208 billion not million.

 

If the CI was barely enough to keep body and soul together, should it go up when you reach 65, or should people be expected (as now) to also make private arrangements.

 

Edit - most of that cost will not be JSA, a large portion will be pensions.

[Ms Macbeth]

how about stopping winter fuel payments for rich pensioners and those million or so living abroad, that would save about 1 billion straight away

 

 

Posted from Sheffieldforum.co.uk App for Android

 

At what level does a pensioner become rich? Would it include anyone who doesn't qualify for means tested pension credit, or a realistic level like being in a higher tax band?

 

A citizens' income sounds too good to be true but I like the idea in principle. If all adults were given the same basic amount, regardless of whether they were single or in a relationship, then I think there would be more social housing available as 'partners' living on benefits wouldn't feel they had to live separately for financial reasons. At the moment the majority of families who have two homes are either the very wealthy or people on long term benefits. Any ordinary working couple knows they are much better off pooling their resources; only one mortgage or rent payment; one gas/electric bill; one lot of council tax.

[anywebsite]

A citizens income wouldn't be a license to do nothing though, it should be barely enough to survive, and so it would incentivise work.

 

I'm confused by the figures though.

 

£208 million is not £3500 per person at all. There are 40 million adults in the country. It's £5 per person! Add in the running costs of the DWP and it takes it up to the grand total of £11 per person... A year!

 

Ah, it's £208 billion not million.

 

If the CI was barely enough to keep body and soul together, should it go up when you reach 65, or should people be expected (as now) to also make private arrangements.

 

Edit - most of that cost will not be JSA, a large portion will be pensions.

 

Sorry, yeah, typo, it's 208 billion not million. I was counting children, etc too. So around £5000 for each adult is already paid out on average. ~250 million is just the staffing costs of the DWP, they have other expenses too.

 

Most of the costs are housing benefits, pensions & working tax credits, they'd all be replaced by CI.

 

It's hard to get total figures because the costs are split up, the DWP budget for 2011-12 was £151.6 billion, according to Wikipedia, but add onto that tax credits which are administered by HMRC.

 

That's just the benefit side, on the tax side we'd get rid of NI, tax allowances & different income tax rates too, so everybody would be paying 40-50% tax on every £1 they earn.

 

I don't really see why it should go up at 65, there could be an argument for it that older people are less able to earn. As long as CI is enough to cover basic living expenses & there is still an extra payment for disability then I don't see the need.

 

There are other costs to the economy of the current benefits system. For example I couldn't hire an unemployed person to do a few hours or even a few days work as it'd make their benefit claim complicated & they'd probably lose money. I'm losing out on that as well as the unemployed person.

[Cyclone]

WTC are an idiocy of the highest order IMO. Pension could simply be renamed CI, it amounts to the same thing, apart from qualifying by age there is no requirement for it.

 

There would presumably be a number of people who would lose out though, those who currently claim the most benefits would (at a guess) end up with less than before, whilst many people would end up with more...

 

I'm not sure why introducing CI necessarily means that there should only be a single tax rate though...

 

It's not that it's 'harder' to earn at 65, but that society determines some age (65 - 70 now) as the point beyond which you are not required to work.

[Chris_Sleeps]

Pension could simply be renamed CI, it amounts to the same thing

And Child Benefit, to a certain point.

[truman]

WTC are an idiocy of the highest order IMO. Pension could simply be renamed CI, it amounts to the same thing, apart from qualifying by age there is no requirement for it.

 

.

 

Don't you have to have paid NI for so many years ..?

[Cyclone]

Don't you have to have paid NI for so many years ..?

 

Possibly, it won't exist by the time I reach that sort of age, so I've never investigated the details too far...

 

That said, that would imply that a woman who was a housewife would be entitled to no pension, which doesn't seem right.

[truman]

Possibly, it won't exist by the time I reach that sort of age, so I've never investigated the details too far...

 

That said, that would imply that a woman who was a housewife would be entitled to no pension, which doesn't seem right.

 

From the https://www.gov.uk/state-pension/eligibility

 

Your basic State Pension depends on the number of years you’ve paid National Insurance or got National Insurance credits, eg while unemployed or claiming certain benefits.

 

To qualify for a basic State Pension at least 1 of the following must apply:

you were working and paying National Insurance

you were getting certain benefits, eg for unemployment, sickness

you were a parent or carer and claiming certain benefits or credits

you have a spouse or civil partner whose National Insurance contributions cover you

you were paying voluntary National Insurance contributions

 

You need 30 years worth of contributions or credits to get the full basic State Pension. These are your ‘qualifying years’.

 

If you have fewer than 30 years, your State Pension will be less than £110.15 per week but you might be able to top up by paying voluntary National Insurance contributions.

[Ms Macbeth]

From the https://www.gov.uk/state-pension/eligibility

 

Your basic State Pension depends on the number of years you’ve paid National Insurance or got National Insurance credits, eg while unemployed or claiming certain benefits.

 

To qualify for a basic State Pension at least 1 of the following must apply:

you were working and paying National Insurance

you were getting certain benefits, eg for unemployment, sickness

you were a parent or carer and claiming certain benefits or credits

you have a spouse or civil partner whose National Insurance contributions cover you

you were paying voluntary National Insurance contributions

 

You need 30 years worth of contributions or credits to get the full basic State Pension. These are your ‘qualifying years’.

 

If you have fewer than 30 years, your State Pension will be less than £110.15 per week but you might be able to top up by paying voluntary National Insurance contributions.

 

The information above doesn't relate to most (if any) people of pension age. Many women like me who are already retired had years at home caring for children in the days when we weren't entitled to credits; lots of us worked in low waged part time jobs and paid the 'married woman's stamp' (reduced rate contribution which was eventually phased out) which didn't entitle us to benefits for those years; plus we needed 40 years worth of contributions for a full state pension. Anyone who only gets the basic or less and has no occupational or private pension gets their income made up through Pension Credits.

 

State pensions provide a better deal nowadays in terms of credits and years of contributions, but a worse deal in terms of the age people can get it.