Replacing social welfare with a basic income

Dricmeister

There is a disconnect between people's expectations of what social welfare should be and what it has actually become.

It should mean absolutely basic subsistence - Food and lodging. It should not support smoking, drinking, holidays or fast food, but it seems to.

Far better to finance accommodation and to give individuals vouchers which can only be spent on food and clothes in stores that provide value for money.

The point of the above is to make welfare a less attractive choice because unfortunately there are people who choose to be on social welfare.

Simon2015

Bongalongherb wrote: »

That idea would just put more people on the poverty list. What would be the point in implementing the Basic Income if that was the case. It's to keep people out of poverty not put more folk into poverty.

I agree but I don't think the country could afford it.

Also to have a decent standard of living the basic income would need to be atleast 300 Euro a week.

Bongalongherb

Dricmeister wrote: »

There is a disconnect between people's expectations of what social welfare should be and what it has actually become.

It should mean absolutely basic subsistence - Food and lodging. It should not support smoking, drinking, holidays or fast food, but it seems to.

Far better to finance accommodation and to give individuals vouchers which can only be spent on food and clothes in stores that provide value for money.

The point of the above is to make welfare a less attractive choice because unfortunately there are people who choose to be on social welfare.

Well what you are saying is it would be better to live in a fascist dictatorship forcing full control on how folk spend their money of which they are entitled. This Basic Income would remove the stigma of being unfortunately unemployed and that is a good thing if implemented.

dr.fuzzenstein

Bongalongherb wrote: »

Well what you are saying is it would be better to live in a fascist dictatorship forcing full control on how folk spend their money of which they are entitled. This Basic Income would remove the stigma of being unfortunately unemployed and that is a good thing if implemented.

But he has some great ideas! Maybe we could also parade the unemployed on the streets in chains and spit on them and throw rotten fruit at them for being slothenly slobs. After all, its nothing to do with the fact that there is 500k unemployed and there is not 500k jobs, no, the unemployed are simply slothenly, subnormal, stupid, lazy bums that want a free ride and therefore deserve to be publicly flogged. Jesus fcuking Christ, some people want to cop the fcuk on.

K-9

Mod:

Can we up the standard a bit please, no need to go so OTT. Thanks.

Jim2007

Bongalongherb wrote: »

This Basic Income would remove the stigma of being unfortunately unemployed and that is a good thing if implemented.

Why should anyone be entitled to free money? If someone requires social assistance after unemployment benefits runs out then of course they should be supported, but they should be expected to work for it and/or repay it when their situation improves. Then sense of entitlement in this country has gone way over the top.

Dricmeister

Jim2007 wrote: »

Why should anyone be entitled to free money? If someone requires social assistance after unemployment benefits runs out then of course they should be supported, but they should be expected to work for it and/or repay it when their situation improves. Then sense of entitlement in this country has gone way over the top.

It should also be at the most basic subsistence level and should certainly not provide for luxuries (e.g. holidays, alcohol, cigarettes, chocolate, a Christmas tree, a car, etc).

dr.fuzzenstein

:rolleyes:
Yes, because all social welfare recipients are nothing but scroungers and low life's and must be punished for it. Maybe we should lock them up with bread and water.

Dricmeister

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

:rolleyes:
Yes, because all social welfare recipients are nothing but scroungers and low life's and must be punished for it. Maybe we should lock them up with bread and water.

Nobody mentioned punishment. But these are people who cannot fund their own lifestyles. If they want society's help, it shouldn't be for luxuries. It should be to feed, clothe and accommodate at a basic level.

Water John

I think the 'moral hazard' lights are being flashed here.

We did not apply it to the banks, but we sure as hell applied it to their unfortunate customers.

When we had the 'celtic tiger' we effectively achieved full employment.
People choose to work at that time over unemployment.
There is always a residual 3/4%.

Perhaps one should look at positive aspects of what BI might trigger.
A lot of artistic and creative people might use the opportunity of having a BI, to develop their talents.
A lot of people may become more involved in voluntary activity.

Bob24

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

:rolleyes:
Yes, because all social welfare recipients are nothing but scroungers and low life's and must be punished for it. Maybe we should lock them up with bread and water.

As usual with this type of discussion things are ending with hyperbole.

Of course social welfare recipients should not be stigmatised and all painted out as wasters. But on the other end some people are very quick at calling heartless and selfish anyone suggesting that some benefits may not justified or could be counter productive for society (not to mention putting words in other people's mouth which were actually never pronounced). Regardless of whether it is right or not, saying social welfare benefits should not cover for cigarette or alcohol, or be expected to be repaid in some sort of fashion is absolutely not the same as saying all social welfare recipients are scroungers and should be locked-up with just bread and water (I don't agree with the poster saying there should always be an expectation of full repayment btw, but I don't think they suggested locking-up anyone?).

This type of misrepresentation of other people's opinion to prevent any discussion doesn't help any debate.

Bob24

Jim2007 wrote: »

Why should anyone be entitled to free money? If someone requires social assistance after unemployment benefits runs out then of course they should be supported, but they should be expected to work for it and/or repay it when their situation improves. Then sense of entitlement in this country has gone way over the top.

Agreed some people have an unjustified sense of entitlement, but I would be more cautious about having an expectation for repayment of social welfare benefits (I would personally favor more controls upstream for the State to try and spend the money in a more wise and fair manner).
1) Some people simply will never be in a position to repay and I think society should still support them (for example someone sacrificing their career to take care a of a heavily disabled family member full time rather that giving up on them and/or letting the state do this at a higher cost)
2) On a more pragmatic note, if someone on social welfare know they are accruing some type of financial debt to society they will have to repay as soon as they leave the welfare system, I think it would be a strong disincentive for them to do so even though they are in good health and in a position to find decent employment (of course that is not to say they should be exempt from PRSI and tax contributions, but that in my opinion there shouldn't be any additional debt on top of this).

Water John

This is partly a debate on whether those at the bottom should be in relative or absolute poverty.
I am not very left leaning but I thought the notion of absolute poverty as being humanely acceptable was long gone.

On the other hand we need to look at how unemployment welfare is managed in other countries, if that is the model we stay with.

Oddly, I'd say Ireland is nearer a BI model than most countries.
I generally don't buy into the moral hazard argument.

A graduated move to BI across 5/7 years might be a better managed move.
The changes each year set out on day 1. If unforeseen consequences begin to arise or there are major economic factors, the plan can be altered.
The 5/7 year move would be a blueprint.
It can be financially modelled.

dr.fuzzenstein

Bob24 wrote: »

As usual with this type of discussion things are ending with hyperbole.

Of course social welfare recipients should not be stigmatised and all painted out as wasters. But on the other end some people are very quick at calling heartless and selfish anyone suggesting that some benefits may not justified or could be counter productive for society (not to mention putting words in other people's mouth which were actually never pronounced). Regardless of whether it is right or not, saying social welfare benefits should not cover for cigarette or alcohol, or be expected to be repaid in some sort of fashion is absolutely not the same as saying all social welfare recipients are scroungers and should be locked-up with just bread and water (I don't agree with the poster saying there should always be an expectation of full repayment btw, but I don't think they suggested locking-up anyone?).

This type of misrepresentation of other people's opinion to prevent any discussion doesn't help any debate.

If someone on social welfare can manage well enough to have some money left over for a drink and a smoke, I don't mind. If the state now went ahead and put systems in place to control how this money was spent, it would mean extra work and extra expense, just to make sure someone is unable to buy a can of beer. WOMBAT. Waste of money, brains and time. The energy could be better spent on training and work placement programs, rather than the state standing over the dinner table to make sure there's only bread and water there. Idiotic.
As for paying it back, I don't think you know how these things work in modern society. You see, we all pay these things called taxes, these taxes are then used to provide services to the citizens, such as healthcare, education and, yes you guessed it, social welfare. Social welfare exists in case the banks fcuk up and put a half a million people on the dole. Also punishing them is the single most idiotic idea ever to see the light if day. Do you remember the unemployment rate at the height if the boom? It was negligible. So its not like half a million people suddenly decided to be too lazy to work and go scrounging of the state instead. I was out of work for a bit and people I know have been affected. At some stage employers simply don't want to know anymore, once you're out of work for a certain period of time, no employer will touch you with a bargepole. So maybe instead of punishing the out if work, maybe the state should force employers to take long term unemployed who have a genuine desire to get back to work, but can't find work due to idiotic prejudice against the unemployed.
I was lucky to find a great job, but there is a cut off after which no one will touch you.
Yes, there is that hardcore 3-4% that will never work, but this silly Irish idea of "just punish everyone to get a handful" is never helpful or productive.

Bob24

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

If someone on social welfare can manage well enough to have some money left over for a drink and a smoke, I don't mind. If the state now went ahead and put systems in place to control how this money was spent, it would mean extra work and extra expense, just to make sure someone is unable to buy a can of beer. WOMBAT. Waste of money, brains and time. The energy could be better spent on training and work placement programs, rather than the state standing over the dinner table to make sure there's only bread and water there. Idiotic.

In my opinion, the important point with using welfare payment for non-essential items and services is to know to which scale it is happening. Indeed it if is one drink or one smoke once in a while there is no issue with me either. Now if it is lets say 100 euros per month on these things, I don't really fancy my tax money being used to pay for someone else's bad habit ... like every taxpayer I am already paying for the hospital which is going to treat their lung or liver cancer (and I support publicly funded healthcare 100%), but I'm certainly not going to pay to cause the condition as well).

I think noone on this thread has hard data to tell the degree at which it is happening, but I do think these are not stupid questions to ask and it is something the State could definitely spend moderate resources to have data about (I don't imagine it would be that difficult to do).

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

As for paying it back, I don't think you know how these things work in modern society. You see, we all pay these things called taxes, these taxes are then used to provide services to the citizens, such as healthcare, education and, yes you guessed it, social welfare. Social welfare exists in case the banks fcuk up and put a half a million people on the dole. Also punishing them is the single most idiotic idea ever to see the light if day.

Not sure I am getting that point. Could you quote which post/sentence is leading you to believe that I don't understand how "these things work in modern society" (I assume you are talking about taxes and how the welfare state is funded)? And where was it suggested that "pushing" half a million of people who are are on the dole would be a good idea?

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Yes, there is that hardcore 3-4% that will never work, but this silly Irish idea of "just punish everyone to get a handful" is never helpful or productive.

Agreed that saying "just punish everyone to get a handful" would be silly. But saying that because the cheaters/wasters are a minority the welfare system shouldn't be monitored to have a precise idea of the scale at which it is happening and identify these people would be as silly to me. And I don't think we currently have a clear picture.

And to come back to the original topic, I don't know if a basic income with no other payments is the right one (maybe yes, maybe not), but ways of altering the system to make abuse a non issue are certainly interesting to explore as well and might be better than implementing strong supervision of the payments and how they are being used.

Water John

Moving back to the core discussion of BI, it already is actually practised to a significant degree with farmers.
The payments they get range from a few hundred to 80/100K and a few getting more.
This money is characterised as a living payment. Farmers actually produce mostly at or below cost.
You may see on farming threads that dissatisfaction with this not being more evenly spread is the cause of much discontent, including partly, IFA problems.

I think, but do not have details that the payment averages out at 10/13K per farmer. So this is actually a form of BI not attached to work or output from the farm.

BI may not be as far removed as we may initially think.

hmmm

Water John wrote: »

Perhaps one should look at positive aspects of what BI might trigger.
A lot of artistic and creative people might use the opportunity of having a BI, to develop their talents.
A lot of people may become more involved in voluntary activity.

Sounds great, we should set the BI at 100k a year to encourage even more people to give up work. Lob another 10 or 20% tax on income to pay for it, sure why should people who work get to have a better standard of living than people who don't?

Water John

HMMM, don't be misrepresenting my position. This is a discussion thread. Disparaging a point doesn't count as a contribution.

BI is generally talking of a payment of €200 per week.

So the unemployed already get that nearly.
Farmers, on average probably get that.

BI has the advantage of catching those who fall through the holes in the system. Also far less administration.

The low level of unemployment when the economy was going well, can be taken as proof that people don't stay on unemployment when they have the choice. Thus a BI is not a hazard.

We need to ask, would BI create a better and more even society?

Would the tax take needed to fund it be feasible?
In simple terms would the benefits be worth it?

Iwasfrozen

Water John wrote: »

HMMM, don't be misrepresenting my position. This is a discussion thread. Disparaging a point doesn't count as a contribution.

BI is generally talking of a payment of €200 per week.

So the unemployed already get that nearly.
Farmers, on average probably get that.

BI has the advantage of catching those who fall through the holes in the system. Also far less administration.

The low level of unemployment when the economy was going well, can be taken as proof that people don't stay on unemployment when they have the choice. Thus a BI is not a hazard.

We need to ask, would BI create a better and more even society?

Would the tax take needed to fund it be feasible?
In simple terms would the benefits be worth it?

Does it? How so? You'd still need to be a citizen and still need an address. Try setting up a bank account or collecting cash from the post office without an address.

Water John

I an sorry, I have never been homeless. I appreciate the point.
Any system will need to have some fail safe provision for extreme situations.

I suppose I was thinking more in terms of anyone wishing or being self employed. Many actually don't earn a lot. BI would be a safety net and would encourage many more to try. As it stands, the self employed whose business goes south are not looked after, at all.
That is very wrong. BI would sort that out.

There's a lot of misinformation going on in this thread. I would recommend people do their own research on http://www.basicincomeireland.com

Main thing is it won't touch your wages. Employers will pay less,but the BI will make up for it.

The example the above site gives is:
Gross weekly income: 700
Tax at 45%: 315
BI: 188
Net Income 573
Net Tax rate: 18%

To clarify, BI means a flat rate of tax at 45%, with your BI not taxed.

Benefits would be (all in my opinion, more available from the site above):
More job sharing - people willing to work less hours.
More opportunities for start ups. Self employed people in Ireland take huge risks in setting up business's in Ireland with the removal of the social welfare blanket once they go into business.
Carers/stay at home parents will be more valued in society.

I am obviously in huge favour of such a system, and think it's just a matter of time with the rise of automation that we will have to adopt such a strategy, eventually (not in any of our lifetimes) spreading worldwide (assuming we don't blow up the world in the meantime!)

Bob24

Water John wrote: »

I an sorry, I have never been homeless. I appreciate the point.
Any system will need to have some fail safe provision for extreme situations.

I suppose I was thinking more in terms of anyone wishing or being self employed. Many actually don't earn a lot. BI would be a safety net and would encourage many more to try. As it stands, the self employed whose business goes south are not looked after, at all.
That is very wrong. BI would sort that out.

Yes, overall I am not sure how I feel about BI, but to me the fact that it is more of a catch-all system than the one we currently have which based on complex rules definitely is one aspect which sounds attractive to me.

I feel like with our current welfare system there is a significant part of the population which is left aside because people are not as vocal as others can be or don't know how to use (or abuse) the rules to get what other in the same situation are receiving. I personally know of at least one example of someone who struggled for years working long and anti-social hours on low paid jobs to have a very simple life because she is just not the type to complain and look for help, and do feel society is not treating people like her fairly. And on the other hand you have another minority which is completely abusing the system and not contributing to society whatsoever. Essentially in my opinion our system sometimes tends to work backwards and reward the wrong people: the louder you shout and the more problems you create, the more help you will get to keep you quiet - whereas if you are suffering in silence you might be ignored because you aren't causing anyone problems they want to get rid of.

If everyone else is getting the same basic income and there are less specific rules and discretionary payments, that aspect might be partly dealt with.

Dricmeister

But shouldn't "basic income" be at a subsistence level?

I have no issue with society helping to house, feed, and clothe the less fortunate.

My issue is with people in those circumstances being given excess monies to enable them to smoke, drink, or take foreign holidays.

I would be more in favour of a special voucher system where they can only be spent on certain things and cannot be used by anyone else (or traded etc).

Dricmeister

Dricmeister wrote: »

But shouldn't "basic income" be at a subsistence level?

I have no issue with society helping to house, feed, and clothe the less fortunate.

My issue is with people in those circumstances being given excess monies to enable them to smoke, drink, or take foreign holidays.

I would be more in favour of a special voucher system where they can only be spent on certain things and cannot be used by anyone else (or traded etc).

And if you fell on hard times, you're be cool with that?

Society shouldn't be about keeping people down, but helping those that want a hand up instead.

I mean, look at the little tax corporations pay, yet we turn our noses up on some unfortunate because they want the odd can.

hmmm

Deleted User wrote: »

Main thing is it won't touch your wages.

Someone has to pay for this - it will touch your wages as taxes will have to increase. This is of course not a problem for those who think "taxing the rich" is the key to the fabled money tree.

One of the supposed main benefits is that we can reduce the cost of social welfare administration/means test etc. Have you ever seen a public servant being made redundant because of improved work practices? I never have, and these people will be given make-work jobs somewhere else, which will save us nothing.

As for the AI/Robotics argument - when we get to that point, let's think about it. In the meantime humans are still doing most of the work, it's way too early to put our feet up and get the robot butler to take care of us.

Dricmeister

[Deleted User] wrote: »

And if you fell on hard times, you're be cool with that?

Society shouldn't be about keeping people down, but helping those that want a hand up instead.

I mean, look at the little tax corporations pay, yet we turn our noses up on some unfortunate because they want the odd can.

Yes, I would actually.

I'd be grateful to the rest of you for helping me.

OleRodrigo

Globalisation and accelerating changes in technology will mean a lot more people will be self-employed, or freelancing ( often referred to as ' the gig economy ' ) in the near future.

I work as a freelancer, and during the recession found myself with long gaps between contracts. I found the system was woefully inadequate for people like myself, despite having 17 years of unbroken contributions and having never made any SW claims. I wasn't the only one in such circumstances. Also, in spite of being well trained, I'm only a few years away from software automation doing much of my job.

There are also people in jobs who would rather do something else if they could cover their bills.

To be honest, if it were just a case of making life easier for unemployed people I doubt the BI would see the light of day (sadly ), but it is now being viewed as a strategic part of economic planning.

Some excellent books on the subject

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_in_the_Twenty-First_Century ( if you can get through it )

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/oct/01/the-rise-of-robots-humans-need-not-apply-review

http://www.thezeromarginalcostsociety.com/

You could dismiss any of these as fringe points of view if it weren't for the fact that many economists are taking it seriously with Finland, Holland and Switzerland initiating pilot projects.

Bob24

hmmm wrote: »

Someone has to pay for this - it will touch your wages as taxes will have to increase. This is of course not a problem for those who think "taxing the rich" is the key to the fabled money tree.

One of the supposed main benefits is that we can reduce the cost of social welfare administration/means test etc. Have you ever seen a public servant being made redundant because of improved work practices? I never have, and these people will be given make-work jobs somewhere else, which will save us nothing.

The saving would not only be on administration tasks but also on the fact that most other social welfare payments would have to be removed.

But yes, for sure it would have to be a complete overhaul of the welfare state as it has been built in most European countries in the pas century. And inertia in the way public administration works would make it very difficult to introduce.

Dricmeister

I see in today's Independent that a guy on social welfare who has applied for legal aid was seen in Las Vegas at the Conor McGregor fight...incredible

nice_guy80

Dricmeister wrote: »

I see in today's Independent that a guy on social welfare who has applied for legal aid was seen in Las Vegas at the Conor McGregor fight...incredible

Everyone applies for legal aid though