Discussion in 'Speaker's Corner' started by Rilot, Dec 2, 2019.
And people wonder why Dolph doesnt vote Labour?
I don't see discrimination to drive equality of outcome as a desirable thing, so I'm afraid it absolutely is just discrimination. You are effectively arguing for unequal treatment to drive equal (or closer to equal) outcomes, whereas I'm arguing for equal treatment within a structure that ensures everyone's basic needs are met.
It should not be the states role, through benefits and taxation, to close gaps as an aim, but to ensure needs are met. That may, or will, have the effect of closing gaps, but that is not the same thing.
A Labour collapse would be nice too.. I see they pulled another golden carrot out the garden this morning.
A Tory and Labour collapse is the only good thing this country could look forward to, but that simply isn't happening.
Interested to understand what policies you would suggest to achieve this objective?
Universal basic income implemented via negative income tax.
Would you class housing as a basic need? Would a UBI be sufficient to pay housing costs? Who would define what quality/size of housing you get within the scope of UBI? Where would those houses come from?
Lib dems have no chance in my area.. looks like ill have to vote conservative.
Radical but interesting, I'm not sure I get the negative tax thing?
I've been coming round to the opinion that a universal income is an answer to quite a lot actually.
The future was supposed to be where machines did all the work so we didn't have to, Eutopia of free time etc.
Not that automation centralised wealth so a couple of robber barons had more money than many countries and everyone else starves. Correcting that balance is absolutely where to go in my opinion.
The counter is that people wouldn't strive if they couldn't keep all the benefits which is clearly total BS.. you're telling me Steve Jobs etc only set out to be multi multi multi billionaires? Rubbish.
Allowing MORE people the space to explore their interests rather than working 2 jobs to live will create far more entrepreneurs and creators IMO
Yes, I would, but I would rather reform social housing significantly than pay everyone's housing costs, by linking social housing rents to a percentage of income and creating a standard social housing provision package.
UBI will only be achievable once the UK work force meets a certian % of autonomy replacing low skilled work, we are still 15-20 years off.
Uh no, it's been possible forever. What we already pay in benefits and the cost savings from the wasteful bureaucratic structure will happily pay for a lump sum to people while we focus on actual problems.
It reduces the ineffable political levers we currently have to two - how much UBI should be in real terms and how the gradient for negative tax functions. Both of which should be self-evident from other economic data.
Ok so as well as implementing UBI we now also need a root and branch housing transformation.
I dont disagree with the principle but I think the knock on effects are too broad to implement it. Eg housing.
A UBI for London could be twice as high as a UBI for the midlands. Would it be regional?
There will be a threshold where someone is worse off ie tax to pay for a UBI for every person. Where do you see that threshold being?
In my preferred implementation, you give every person a payment (can be fully fixed, could flex based on criteria, eg children or disability, but not means tested in any way) and apply a flat tax rate on all income. The interaction of the two creates an effective tax free threshold, and a progressive marginal tax rate that tends towards the flat rate as income increases.
It's simple, easy to administer and hard to avoid or defraud.
You spelt Labour wrong.
UBI shouldn't vary by area, because location of living is a choice, indeed its a choice most people have to make (I would love to live in mayfair, but the value of my house wouldn't even buy a parking space, for example).
With regards to the discussion about funding, there would need to be a wider discussion about how the country wants to be, but the advantage is that, under this system, you cant punish or benefit selective groups. Changes to tax rates or payments have an impact on everyone, so everyone is invested. No more separation of payments and tax rates.
You have grossly misquoted me. I did not say what you have quoted me as saying. What I actually said was
At least I repaired your spelling version of the word thread though.
All areas, rich or poor, need nurses, bin men, social care workers etc. How do you expect some areas to support these roles if the UBI is not regional?
We will end up exactly as now, where some are on the poverty line in the more expensive regions, despite being given a UBI. Those people may lose other welfare benefits (because UBI is intended to replace these) and be far worse off than currently.
The poll now shows Labour in the lead, it's unbelievable that so many of you have swallowed Corbyn's wild 'fully funded' manifesto. Fully funded ? Hmm
The manifesto is unbelievable, how many of you have actually read it ?? total fantasy for a lot of it, guaranteed not to happen. Have non of you noticed that certain questions remain unanswered, he will not commit himself, why? because quite simply he only wants to say what he knows everyone wants to hear.
Take into public ownership all our utilities? at what cost? it's a bit late for that much of which is owned by French & German companies, I'm sure they will gladly hand it over, added to that all their staff join the government payroll. Note: Two of the UK’s largest power companies, National Grid and SSE,have quietly transferred the ownership of their British operations to offshore companies to protect themselves against Labour’s plan for renationalisation.
How do they intend to abolish private schools for example? do little Arabella & Rupert still continue to go there but now under state ownership ? if so then super rich daddy will not have to pay any fees because in effect the taxpayers will. Who will own the school building, many of which are also part of a residence? maybe compulsory purchase?
This is a good one that will leave many of you up in arms and spitting feathers We will adopt an ambitious Vision Zero approach to UK road safety, striving for zero deaths and serious injuries. So what do you think this will mean? how can you make sure there is zero deaths?? only one thing, a big slow down resulting in 30mph becoming 20mph or even 15 in some areas, 40 becoming 30 and maximum on all roads of 60 so all national speed limits lowered with higher penalties and bans for speeding.
Build a million houses? where ? concreting all over the green belt and flood plains so more areas downstream get flooded as is already happening.
A million 'climate jobs' that's Labour for you every time , bloat the town hall staff with usually pointless jobs. The Tories are committed to banning
The animal welfare manifesto mentions Fox hunting but what about vile ritual Slaughter for Halal & Kosher meat? that above all else should be banned but they wouldn't dare would they.
Separate names with a comma.