Axe personal allowance and pay everyone £48 a week, says thinktank

[FoxEye]

If you are talking at the genetic IQ level then yes, not everyone can be a neurosurgeon or barrister. You also need a certain personality or talent if you want to pursue entertainment or the arts.

However I wouldn't call this an environmental factor. A support network, ready access to cash and good parenting can help, but generally speaking without the prerequisite intelligence, natural skill and ambition it's impossible for anyone to become top of their game.

What I think is more applicable is that there are barriers which can prevent success, bad parenting, restricted access to education, negative personality traits etc.

I think it's also true to say that opportunities are not constant or consistent over time.

In one decade a hard-working grad may land a great job straight out of college and end up making millions in a short period of time.

In another decade that same quality of grad may end up having to wash dishes in a diner somewhere.

OK that is probably an exaggerated extreme, but it puts the point across.

You need a certain amount of, for want of a better word, luck. Or as I said environmental factors.

Also opportunities are not consistent geographically also.

 

[Thecaferacer]

No one is going to argue that a British born person does not have a significant advantage over somebody born in Lagos. But again it comes down to what you class as self made.

My definition is somebody who hasn't received a large amount of money, a very expensive targetted education or inherited a business.

 

[Irish_Tom]

I wasn't being even slightly pedantic.

Today it takes a crap-ton of power to make fairly basic AI that can just about (maybe) drive a car safely for a while until it flips out and kills someone.

We know that right now we are hitting the limits of silicon.

It doesn't have to be exponential growth (I didn't mention exponential at all!); faster hardware is not a given any more.

As you said, it’s a relatively young field. I doubt we’re going to reach the limits of it any time soon.

In the meantime, it’s not just blue-collar jobs that are going to be replaced but jobs that previously required high levels of education like paralegal work and identifying certain cancers etc.

We need to be creating new jobs that can replace these and that can’t be done by the same automation processes. It’s certsinly possible, who knows what breakthroughs the new technology will bring.

 

[FoxEye]

No one is going to argue that a British born person does not have a significant advantage over somebody born in Lagos. But again it comes down to what you class as self made.

My definition is somebody who hasn't received a large amount of money, a very expensive targetted education or inherited a business.

But you already acknowledged that genetics plays a crucial role.

A "Self-made" person simply refuses to acknowledge the part that others have played in their success. It's something you only hear from people who deny that there is any other factor at play other than "hard work".

Which is then in turn used to justify exploitation of the poor. "They're poor because they don't work hard, like I did," is normally how that goes...

 

[dowie]

You need a certain amount of, for want of a better word, luck. Or as I said environmental factors.

Also opportunities are not consistent geographically also.

True, though people can of course move and indeed while luck can be a factor, you can do things to make things more likely and/or expose yourself to luck more often.

There are lots of things that can impact success, some can seem rather odd at times - for example the month you are born in can have an impact on your potential for becoming a premier league footballer - get born too young for your age group and you'll have diminished chances of success.... which does of course suggest a rather large blind spot for a multi billion pound industry. Perhaps they ought to be addressing this by narrowing the age groupings kids play in and/or basing them on birthday rather than school year to even things out etc..

 

[Bear]

But you already acknowledged that genetics plays a crucial role.

A "Self-made" person simply refuses to acknowledge the part that others have played in their success. It's something you only hear from people who deny that there is any other factor at play other than "hard work".

Which is then in turn used to justify exploitation of the poor. "They're poor because they don't work hard, like I did," is normally how that goes...

And yet the poor person often refuses to acknowledge the part they had in their own failure and blames everyone else. Which in turn used to justify exploitation of the wealthy of wanting better and better services despite not contributing to those services themselves.

 

[Thecaferacer]

But you already acknowledged that genetics plays a crucial role.

A "Self-made" person simply refuses to acknowledge the part that others have played in their success. It's something you only hear from people who deny that there is any other factor at play other than "hard work".

Which is then in turn used to justify exploitation of the poor. "They're poor because they don't work hard, like I did," is normally how that goes...

Again I don't understand how you equate that notion with the term self made. That's a person who refuses to accept that the failure of others can be caused to external factors out of their control.

As bear has stated, that's the same as a poor person claiming no amount of work will make them successful as they are structurally oppressed.

 

[chrcoluk]

foxeye losing battle I am afraid, some people are stuck with the belief that everything is of your own doing, judging people they dont know so have no idea what led to people to be in whatever situation they in, and yet judgement is cast.

This leads to a prejudice that they put above what would be sound economical decisions, a prejudice that causes them to hate any policy that may give these people a better life. They cutting off their own finger to support this as they fail to realise that these people will spend this money, and so it is fed back into the economy, its as if they think all the turnover for the company they work for (or own) only comes from rich people, and poor people dont buy things.

As I said before if the DWP suspended all payments tomorrow the country would be in immediate recession and probably the worst one its had for decades. The tories realise this as well with their economical knowledge hence UC significantly increasing payments to the poorest in society.

 

[h4rm0ny]

I suppose if you look at it from losers and winners point of view (what thatcher encouraged in people) then yeah you could see it that way.

Are people really looking at it in a way that if it means you personally worse off or someone else gains more than you then its a bad thing? Its a very backward way of thinking and to be frank selfish way of thinking.

[...]

Instead we have people getting their calculators out, decided maybe they above the 37k bracket so this idea must suck, or maybe they just hate anyone unemployed getting money so its a bad idea etc.

They forget that one day they may have to take a low paid job themselves or be unemployed themselves, they may fall ill and be reliant on incapacity benefits and so forth. They forget the world is more than just themselves and the overall benefit to the economy has importance.

If you think i am wrong then why we getting comments like "oh its just the unemployed", "typical labour".

People really need to get over their selfishness and "jealousy" of others so the county can progress, because until we do we will stagnate.

If someone is earning 40k vs someone having a 10k income its entirely reasonable they pay more tax, simply because you have a better ability to pay. But even someone earning 40k a week benefits from the civilian income, as I said before you dont pay 100% tax rate above the threshold, so you still getting a boost to your weekly income, its just a smaller boost, but thats absolutely fine as you have a higher income in the first place.

It feels like people would be fine with strangling GDP, having recessions and so forth as long as it ensured those below them are miserable and they were individually financially better off, its a sorry state of affairs.

All of this seems to me to tie very neatly in the survey results I posted near the start, showing a majority of Labour voters actually want the better off to have less even if it produces no gain for them personally. The politics of envy you describe but I'm curious why you attribute it to better off people wanting poor people to be poor (not something I'm sure I've ever actually encountered in real life), rather than lower-income people wanting wealthier people to have less. This latter being something I routinely encounter and which the survey shows is endemic amongst Labour and Liberal Democrat voters.

I think in part this attitude comes from a flawed assumption that wealth is found rather than primarily something we create. Communist friends I had seemed to have this belief underlying their entire arguments. It's a flawed belief. It hasn't been true since our days as hunter-gatherers and even then, I'd argue the labour in acquiring the pre-existing resources still counted as wealth creation.

Its a bit like the budget calculator the bbc publish every year so people can see if they better of after budget, horrible way of thinking.

It's only a horrible way of thinking to your mindset because you presume the reader is financially secure and putting money above things you consider more important in life. You imagine them to have a mindset of greed. But I think most people are just trying to get by. Most people even above the £37K income level have mortgages hanging over their heads, they have children that they are trying to pay to give everything child needs or wants, they're working 40-45 hours per week and wondering if they'll need to work more or if they can afford to take their family on a holiday somewhere or not. Poorer people who read the budget report certainly aren't doing so out of avarice - it can make a real difference to you if the cost of petrol goes up and makes your commute even more expensive. I think plenty of middle income people read it the same way. I think most people who care about changes to their income not because you're Scrooge, but because it meaningfully affects their life and their family. Or at least that they believe so.

 

[Bear]

As h4rm0ny points out there is a ridiculous level of cognitive dissonance present in many of these so called socialists. They happily harp on prejudice yet do exactly the same about people that are wealthier than them and then try to pretend they are more virtuous or socially enlightened because of it, despite living off the services these wealthier people pay for.

 

[postbox]

=" inherited a business.

What if you worked / dedicated your life to said business making it grow alongside your parent / parents for most of your adult life? (a large portion of independent SMEs are like this) No normal person is handed a business like Donald Trump.

 

[elmarko]

One thing people seem to be missing is that it's paid to people who still work.

This isn't a payout for those who refuse to work, it's something which isn't lost when they do - it essentially helps to alleviate an element of the benefit trap. In that for some they are better off not working.

The change would have a big positive impact on the lowest earners.

I'm a high rate tax payer & if I could see the figures/it was done in a control experimental fashion to see the impact I'd be game to try it out. While I'd love extra cash in my pocket (I'm the only earner of the house-hold) I do understand that many workers are significantly worse off than me.

I'm not really convinced this is the best vehicle for those changes, but I'm not opposed to considering changes to help out low earners.

 

[Thecaferacer]

What if you worked / dedicated your life to said business making it grow alongside your parent / parents for most of your adult life? (a large portion of independent SMEs are like this) No normal person is handed a business like Donald Trump.

AFAIK Trump was gifted around $140m in today's money rather a business.

The question is primarily what constitutes self-made and what you consider making it to 'the top'. Taking over a small family business and transforming into a national chain is very different to being made a director of your dads already very successful business and just steering the ship. The latter I have seen more examples of.

On the flip side I know of least 2 examples personally known to me of people, who I consider self made, with extremely wealthy companies who wanted to hand the business over the the children but couldn't through lack of competence or will.

 

[chrcoluk]

All of this seems to me to tie very neatly in the survey results I posted near the start, showing a majority of Labour voters actually want the better off to have less even if it produces no gain for them personally. The politics of envy you describe but I'm curious why you attribute it to better off people wanting poor people to be poor (not something I'm sure I've ever actually encountered in real life), rather than lower-income people wanting wealthier people to have less. This latter being something I routinely encounter and which the survey shows is endemic amongst Labour and Liberal Democrat voters.
<snip to keep post size down>

I thought earlier on you understood the merits of the cash injection into society, that it boosts local economy.

This to me is not a rich vs poor thing, however I have picked up in other posts, that other people see it as a rich vs poor thing, I really cannot make it any clearer then that.

My point still remains valid, many people will only like policies that makes themselves better off, as they cannot think past their own well being.

I notice you didnt comment on my 3 party example. Everyone would just vote for the party that maximises their own wealth. So many people do not understand basic economics its scary.

I mean I dont know how I can explain it anymore, if you give everyone money especially poorer people, then the economy benefits, which means "everyone" is better off. I think you might be assuming I am poor, maybe even unemployed because of my posts. Certain people may not benefit directly but they will indirectly.

It is no coincidence once a country adopts social security their economies explode vs before adopting it.

This thread is kind of like brexiteers in the brexit thread, they have their own stubborn arguments but the arguments have no logic, the arguments against the idea are basically something like this.

1 - its a left wing party idea so it sucks by default.
2 - we cant give money to the unemployed, its so unfair, they should work blah blah, even tho the only unemployed who would gain from this is those who dont claim a IR benefit, so basically the rich unemployed or those with a work history.
3 - we cant do this because it means I am a loser in this policy

All petty illogical childish reasons.

If labour introduced universal credit we would never hear the end of it as it would be deemed as pandering to the scroungers given how generous it is.

 

[chrcoluk]

One thing people seem to be missing is that it's paid to people who still work.

This isn't a payout for those who refuse to work, it's something which isn't lost when they do - it essentially helps to alleviate an element of the benefit trap. In that for some they are better off not working.

The change would have a big positive impact on the lowest earners.

I'm a high rate tax payer & if I could see the figures/it was done in a control experimental fashion to see the impact I'd be game to try it out. While I'd love extra cash in my pocket (I'm the only earner of the house-hold) I do understand that many workers are significantly worse off than me.

I'm not really convinced this is the best vehicle for those changes, but I'm not opposed to considering changes to help out low earners.

thats pretty much it yeah.

It essentially tapers off if you go over a tax income bracket but is never completely lost given no one pays 100% income tax rate.

The only people who I think would get none of it is those unemployed on income related benefits where by it would be 100% tapered off.

 

[Rroff]

My point still remains valid, many people will only like policies that makes themselves better off, as they cannot think past their own well being.

See this a lot with people in this country who advocate social models like Norway - they want the bits that benefit them but gloss over the bits that are intended to try and make for an overall better balanced society that comes as much from the outlook and culture of the people as it does the types of social policies used.

 

[chrcoluk]

It applies to the rich and poor, I am in no way claiming only rich people are selfish. I have seen rich and poor people both selfish minded. It just so happens in this thread tho most of the people hating on the idea seem to be high earners.

 

[krooton]

snip

In this instance, yes, I am being selfish.

We have an affordability buffer in case of interest rate rises on our new house.

My wife just had an unexpected pay cut of 16%, which has hit the buffer quite a bit, throw in me losing more money to this tax will basically null and void our buffer, and any interest rate rise would probably mean us losing the house we haven't even moved in to yet.

I am fine being selfish in relation to this.

 

[Hagar]

thats pretty much it yeah.

It essentially tapers off if you go over a tax income bracket but is never completely lost given no one pays 100% income tax rate.

The only people who I think would get none of it is those unemployed on income related benefits where by it would be 100% tapered off.

I think the main point is it is stated as applying to all adults. Anybody who has a national insurance number is entitled to a tax allowance. Therefore any person deemed an adult will be eligable for this payment, whether they currently work or not. The non-working spouse of a person earning 100k per annum assessed as an adult will be eligable as will all children over 18 at school or college. Thats the way I read it. Unless they say you must be in a job earning £X to qualify which kind of destroys the idea. It could be a bureaucratic nightmare to administer.

 

[h4rm0ny]

See this a lot with people in this country who advocate social models like Norway - they want the bits that benefit them but gloss over the bits that are intended to try and make for an overall better balanced society that comes as much from the outlook and culture of the people as it does the types of social policies used.

I can also say the same of people who love to trot out Keynesian economics and say how in a deficit one must spend as a counter-argument to austerity, whilst ignoring that it's one half of a philosophy that also says one must save during a boom.

I thought earlier on you understood the merits of the cash injection into society, that it boosts local economy.

I do and I'm not sure that you fully understood my post as I don't see what in it pertains to this. You were talking about people being selfish and the politics of envy. But you focused heavily on this idea that better off people want the poor to be poorer. Something I don't think I've ever come across personally in real life. Whilst you did not at all focus on a demographic that is rife with that sort of attitude (Labour voters). It seems poor choice of argument for what seems to be a partisan position on your part.

This to me is not a rich vs poor thing, however I have picked up in other posts, that other people see it as a rich vs poor thing, I really cannot make it any clearer then that.

I notice you didnt comment on my 3 party example. Everyone would just vote for the party that maximises their own wealth. So many people do not understand basic economics its scary.

I didn't have anything particular to say about it. What should I say? Of course some will vote for what benefits their income bracket the most immediately. However, I reject the extrapolation from the fact that this does happen, to being a dismissal of any given poster's arguments here. And I don't "hate on" this proposal (your words). But I do have reservations that it reduces people's incentive to work. That said, the stick is no good substitute for the carrot. There may be other approaches to solving the issues of long-term unemployed that can be explored. UBI is one avenue worth exploring. But experimentally, not as some sudden brainwave. I also feel that any implementation of UBI must necessarily include a strong policy towards exclusion for it to work. An open society accompanied by UBI is an immediate outpouring of national wealth. Where do we see UBI actually used? De facto in counties like Kuwait and Saudi Arabia where the wealthy elite uses a (for practical purposes) UBI as a sop to the populace and also as a means to create an almost-slave subclass of non-citizen workers who don't get the UBI and have to compete with the UBI-receivers. That is not a societal model I wish to emulate. I'm economically very right wing and a strong believer in trade and meritocracy. A UBI applied to citizens runs counter to that unless you also close off the labour pool. Which has very significant effects on both those included and those excluded. Leftists who want UBI but don't want a closed society have not thought things through. To reiterate: I don't want a Saudi-style underclass which is what an ill-thought through UBI leads to.

I mean I dont know how I can explain it anymore [...] This thread is kind of like brexiteers in the brexit thread, they have their own stubborn arguments but the arguments have no logic,

I hope you no longer see disagreement by myself as due to not having sufficient explanation but that I may simply not consider the idea of extra local spending a conclusive argument.

If labour introduced universal credit we would never hear the end of it as it would be deemed as pandering to the scroungers given how generous it is.

And that would not necessarily be an incorrect assessment. There's a long and ignoble history of political parties using welfare as a means to secure votes. I refer you to an earlier poster who made an argument about three parties which illustrated the same reasoning as would underlie such a position as this, for example.