Canada to trial basic income

[sutty27]

Check out chart 5

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34131911

 

Then scroll down a bit and tell me if you think refugee's are sleeping in tents in Sweden?

 

How can you suggest that countries with lower populations than ours are somehow capable of taking and integrating higher numbers of refugee's. The countries you name are poor or have financial difficulties. You're just trying to pass the buck.

You should read the post again, I said the EU should fund it.

 

Define poor.

 

Land is the most valuable asset on earth without it we can't survive, the more land a group of people have the better their life should be.

 

Those countries have significantly more land per head of population than we have, there is enough of it to sustain a larger population, the UK on the other hand has already exceeded its carrying capacity, therefore everything the refugees need will have to be imported from other more sizeable countries, might as well put the refugees in countries that have the resources to feed them, they will also consume less energy in warmer climates.

Edited March 9, 2016 by sutty27

[I1L2T3]

And his neighbour who's been working 60 hrs a week on minimum wage and paying tax and ni realises that thanks to the shiny new free miney he gets he can work a few hours cash in hand like Barry and be just as well off, and the next person and the next person.

 

Who is going to pay for everyone to sit on their backsides on £25k a year plus whatever top up cash in hand work they fancy?

 

Where has the 25k a year figure come from

 

Citizens Income would be about £4k a year. A couple with 2 kids would probably get about 10k.

 

Sure they could choose to try and live on that and they could scrape by with a difficult existence but in reality they'd have to earn. That is where tax reform comes in. A simple tax system where they get to keep a % of every pound they earn (without having to declare it to DWP) would be an incentive to work.

 

---------- Post added 09-03-2016 at 19:07 ----------

 

 

Define poor.

 

.

 

Why don't you have a try. What does it mean to be poor in the UK.

[GLASGOWOODS]

The Canadian Prime Minister has relaxed the controls to welcome thousands of Syrian refugees which is many more than the UK plan to take.

 

I think Canada is a few inch larger than the UK, so can squeeze a few more in.

[runningman1]

The majority of people don't want these migrants on our shores. They are hardly popular in the countries in which they were welcomed. Aren't both Germany and Sweden trying to kick large portions of them out?

[sutty27]

 

Why don't you have a try. What does it mean to be poor in the UK.

 

They don't live in the UK.

 

But I will have a go, not having adequate shelter and enough food and water to survive, if you have that you have more than a billion other people.

 

In monetary terms $2 a day.

Edited March 9, 2016 by sutty27

[Quik]

Where has the 25k a year figure come from

 

Citizens Income would be about £4k a year. A couple with 2 kids would probably get about 10k.

 

Sure they could choose to try and live on that and they could scrape by with a difficult existence but in reality they'd have to earn. That is where tax reform comes in. A simple tax system where they get to keep a % of every pound they earn (without having to declare it to DWP) would be an incentive to work.

 

---------- Post added 09-03-2016 at 19:07 ----------

 

 

Why don't you have a try. What does it mean to be poor in the UK.

 

Someone up thread mentioned 25k. Lets say its the figures you state then given the howls of anguish when benefits were cut to a max of 20k per household thats going to halve them for the doleys who are claiming the maximum (some of whom may be genuine) in order to fund us being given 4k a year we neither asked for or need. Most people work and contribute, why would we want our taxes to go up to be 'given' four grand a year of our own money?

[I1L2T3]

Someone up thread mentioned 25k. Lets say its the figures you state then given the howls of anguish when benefits were cut to a max of 20k per household thats going to halve them for the doleys who are claiming the maximum (some of whom may be genuine) in order to fund us being given 4k a year we neither asked for or need. Most people work and contribute, why would we want our taxes to go up to be 'given' four grand a year of our own money?

 

The 25k I think was based on roughly the max benefits per family now. It can't be correct. Citizens income could never be affordable at that level.

 

We've got 14 million kids in the UK, each is eligible for an average of about £70 a month child benefit. Times that by 12 and you get a total of £12billion for supporting children.

 

10 million pensioners on £140 a week is £72billion

 

Citizens income for the rest at £4k a year is £160bn

 

Add another £10billion for discretionary support for carers and the disabled.

 

Remove all other benefits. Completely. You then have a super simple system requiring minimal administration. If you are a citizen of the UK you get paid the citizens income. Simple.

 

Then get to work on the tax system. Impose a flat rate tax on all earners that combines NI and income tax paid flat on every pound earned at the same rate by everybody. Say 35%. No tax allowance to calculate. No tax bands. No massive government department to administer it all. Everybody pays the same rate from the richest to the poorest. Every pound everybody earns they get 65p in their pocket. Nothing to declare to the DWP. Nothing to hide. And every incentive to go out to work because no matter what your economic level you are treated the same, the higher earners getting to keep more of their income and the lowest earners automatically protected by the safety net of the citizens income.

 

You probably get to lose hundreds of thousands of civil service roles too.

 

In such a system more people would might voluntarily choose to work less hours. It supports the fact that more jobs will get automated and it supports flexible working arrangements. But few people would choose to work no hours because the citizens income is pitched at minimum survival level with no complex web of tax credits and extra benefits to top up income.

 

I'd rather have that system. It'd be a rude awakening for some but it would incentivise work. Keep in mind though that employment levels are already very high in this country - people are already working.

[sutty27]

The 25k I think was based on roughly the max benefits per family now. It can't be correct. Citizens income could never be affordable at that level.

 

We've got 14 million kids in the UK, each is eligible for an average of about £70 a month child benefit. Times that by 12 and you get a total of £12billion for supporting children.

 

10 million pensioners on £140 a week is £72billion

 

Citizens income for the rest at £4k a year is £160bn

 

Add another £10billion for discretionary support for carers and the disabled.

 

Remove all other benefits. Completely. You then have a super simple system requiring minimal administration. If you are a citizen of the UK you get paid the citizens income. Simple.

 

Then get to work on the tax system. Impose a flat rate tax on all earners that combines NI and income tax paid flat on every pound earned at the same rate by everybody. Say 35%. No tax allowance to calculate. No tax bands. No massive government department to administer it all. Everybody pays the same rate from the richest to the poorest. Every pound everybody earns they get 65p in their pocket. Nothing to declare to the DWP. Nothing to hide. And every incentive to go out to work because no matter what your economic level you are treated the same, the higher earners getting to keep more of their income and the lowest earners automatically protected by the safety net of the citizens income.

 

You probably get to lose hundreds of thousands of civil service roles too.

 

In such a system more people would might voluntarily choose to work less hours. It supports the fact that more jobs will get automated and it supports flexible working arrangements. But few people would choose to work no hours because the citizens income is pitched at minimum survival level with no complex web of tax credits and extra benefits to top up income.

 

I'd rather have that system. It'd be a rude awakening for some but it would incentivise work. Keep in mind though that employment levels are already very high in this country - people are already working.

 

So a single unemployed parent with two kids would get £5680 a year

 

and

 

A couple of working parents with two kids would get £9680 a year plus their salaries, lets say £20,000 each, that's £49680.

 

Question is could the single parent with two kids live on £110 a week.

[Cyclone]

You should read the post again, I said the EU should fund it.

 

Define poor.

 

Land is the most valuable asset on earth without it we can't survive, the more land a group of people have the better their life should be.

 

Those countries have significantly more land per head of population than we have, there is enough of it to sustain a larger population, the UK on the other hand has already exceeded its carrying capacity, therefore everything the refugees need will have to be imported from other more sizeable countries, might as well put the refugees in countries that have the resources to feed them, they will also consume less energy in warmer climates.

 

So now you want to redefine wealth to make Romania was it? Wealthier than the UK.

If you thought it helped justify your anti refugee stance you'd claim that the sky was yellow.

 

---------- Post added 09-03-2016 at 21:50 ----------

 

Someone up thread mentioned 25k. Lets say its the figures you state then given the howls of anguish when benefits were cut to a max of 20k per household thats going to halve them for the doleys who are claiming the maximum (some of whom may be genuine) in order to fund us being given 4k a year we neither asked for or need. Most people work and contribute, why would we want our taxes to go up to be 'given' four grand a year of our own money?

 

It would reduce tax, that's the entire point.

 

---------- Post added 09-03-2016 at 21:51 ----------

 

The 25k I think was based on roughly the max benefits per family now. It can't be correct. Citizens income could never be affordable at that level.

 

We've got 14 million kids in the UK, each is eligible for an average of about £70 a month child benefit. Times that by 12 and you get a total of £12billion for supporting children.

 

10 million pensioners on £140 a week is £72billion

 

Citizens income for the rest at £4k a year is £160bn

 

Add another £10billion for discretionary support for carers and the disabled.

 

Remove all other benefits. Completely. You then have a super simple system requiring minimal administration. If you are a citizen of the UK you get paid the citizens income. Simple.

 

Then get to work on the tax system. Impose a flat rate tax on all earners that combines NI and income tax paid flat on every pound earned at the same rate by everybody. Say 35%. No tax allowance to calculate. No tax bands. No massive government department to administer it all. Everybody pays the same rate from the richest to the poorest. Every pound everybody earns they get 65p in their pocket. Nothing to declare to the DWP. Nothing to hide. And every incentive to go out to work because no matter what your economic level you are treated the same, the higher earners getting to keep more of their income and the lowest earners automatically protected by the safety net of the citizens income.

 

You probably get to lose hundreds of thousands of civil service roles too.

 

In such a system more people would might voluntarily choose to work less hours. It supports the fact that more jobs will get automated and it supports flexible working arrangements. But few people would choose to work no hours because the citizens income is pitched at minimum survival level with no complex web of tax credits and extra benefits to top up income.

 

I'd rather have that system. It'd be a rude awakening for some but it would incentivise work. Keep in mind though that employment levels are already very high in this country - people are already working.

 

Flat rate tax is by definition regressive, ie unfair on low earners.

[sutty27]

So now you want to redefine wealth to make Romania was it? Wealthier than the UK.

If you thought it helped justify your anti refugee stance you'd claim that the sky was yellow.

 

They have what the refugees need and we don't, your desire to help is very likely driven by the guilt you feel at having wealth when other don't have it.

 

If you really wanted to help them you would use your wealth to support as many as can be supported. That means spending your money wisely and it isn't wise to bring people half way round the world to a country in which the cost of living is many times higher than it is were they are. What it will cost to care for one person here can care for 100 people were they are.