No smilies, no avatars, no flashing gifs. Just discuss the issues of the day, from last night's telly via football to science or philosophy.
Started by breakfast on 11-Oct-2017 21:00:20
“universal basic services”
Previous
|
Next
|
Top
|
Bottom
col2001 - 11 Oct 2017 21:04:48 (#1 of 194)

I do like the idea of services rather than income.

breakfast - 11 Oct 2017 21:15:50 (#2 of 194)

I haven't read the full report. Just going on the link above

Shelter would be needs based

doubling the existing social housing stock by funding the building of 1.5 million new social housing units using 30-year Treasuries at current market rates. The new units would be offered on a needs basis at zero rent. All social housing would be exempted from Council Tax, and include a utilities allowance.



Food service - also needs based

Free bus travel for everyone.

And I think the Information part

To promote digital inclusion, this covers the cost of basic phone, Internet and the BBC TV licence fee.



is universal as well.

grenadiglia - 11 Oct 2017 21:28:40 (#3 of 194)

I'll read the full report tomorrow, but if the Graun has this right:

Voters may balk at the higher taxes required, with the report earmarking a massive reduction in the personal tax allowance from the current rate of £11,500 to as little as £4,300 to pay for the changes.

then (depending, obviously, on the lowest rate of tax) they may need to rethink that part, unless they want shedloads of state pensioners qualifying for the food service.

Not a bad idea in principle, though.

bossab2 - 11 Oct 2017 21:29:50 (#4 of 194)

Fuck this was all being suggested by the Hippy Contingent of the Green Party, decades ago...

barkis - 11 Oct 2017 22:28:55 (#5 of 194)

I don't understand what they mean by rent-free shelter being needs based. Obviously we all need shelter. Most of us already have it but most renters would prefer zero rent. Does this involve some sort of "voluntarily homeless" criterion?

GreenFuture - 11 Oct 2017 23:02:35 (#6 of 194)

I'd start with housing and food.

Any modern society that can't guarantee that has admitted total and calamitous failure from the off and is decarling itself fucked.

Obviously quite a lot of tories and their kind don't just want people having shelter and nutrition willy nilly. These are the social darwinist enemies of basic human decency and progress who need constant naming and shaming as such.

Remember this cunt? his ilk are running the fucking world. Their psychopathy is very open.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/george-mcgraw/nestle-chairman-peter-brabeck-water_b_3150150.html

Ginmonkey - 12 Oct 2017 07:49:55 (#7 of 194)

On a practical point how is your free house allocated? How is the upkeep and maintenance funded? What are grounds for eviction?

Sounds complicated in the application.

rearranged - 12 Oct 2017 08:07:11 (#8 of 194)

Cutting the personal allowance to pay for it would mean taxing the middle rather than the rich, because the richest don't have a personal allowance to cut.

I have long argued that the middle need to pay more, but I rather assumed this would be in addition to extra tax paid by the rich.

Ginmonkey - 12 Oct 2017 08:13:31 (#9 of 194)

Yeah i was thinking that. So I would have to pay a few thousand more in income tax a year - I assume the extra £7000 or so that becomes taxable would be at 20%? I suppose a free house might offset that a bit.

But how would the free house but work? Will the government pay my mortgage?

rearranged - 12 Oct 2017 08:32:33 (#10 of 194)

Assuming other bands were unchanged, someone on £11,000 a year would pay an extra £1440 a year in tax.

The most anyone would pay would be someone on £100k who would pay £2880 more.

Ginmonkey - 12 Oct 2017 08:35:47 (#11 of 194)

I can't imagine that it will raise the kind of money needed for this.

I am no rugged individualist but I do see rather a big moral hazard in creating such a large scale dependency on the state.

TRaney - 12 Oct 2017 08:36:28 (#12 of 194)

Never mind the numbers rear, just ‘feel’

Ginmonkey - 12 Oct 2017 08:36:48 (#13 of 194)

Especially when funded by some of the lowest paid as you have demonstrated there rearranged.

Agaliarept - 12 Oct 2017 08:37:40 (#14 of 194)

but I do see rather a big moral hazard in creating such a large scale dependency on the state.

Only if that support is at risk. This is a complete change in how things are done and that 'support' would be viewed as a right.

We have free education and health but we don't worry that we are 'dependant' on the government to provide it. It's just a right.

I think this could come to be viewed that way.

If it ever got accepted which I doubt it will. Sadly.

TRaney - 12 Oct 2017 08:38:28 (#15 of 194)

Presumably you’d need means testing as everybody would like free stuff. So on the margin that would be an incentive to be poorer. Or the free stuff would have to be not as nice.

browserbutton - 12 Oct 2017 08:38:44 (#16 of 194)

Is access to internet a basic human need? Why not read a good book!

Ginmonkey - 12 Oct 2017 08:39:38 (#17 of 194)

We don't have free education and health Agalia, we have some education and health services that are free at the point of use.

TRaney - 12 Oct 2017 08:39:49 (#18 of 194)

A book bought on the internet and downloaded from the internet. Probably cheaper way to provide them than physical books. But then we’d all need devices too.

grenadiglia - 12 Oct 2017 08:40:41 (#19 of 194)

You currently need the internet to access all sorts of things, browser, including (but not limited to) Universal Credit.

Agaliarept - 12 Oct 2017 08:49:41 (#20 of 194)

Is access to internet a basic human need? Why not read a good book!

Job and education opportunities I believe was the justification for free internet.

We don't have free education and health Agalia, we have some education and health services that are free at the point of use.

Yep, that's a fair clarification. My point is no one who uses those services worries that they are 'dependant on the state'.

In the automated future the one entity that is in the best position to really make a lot of money is the government. Through taxation of companies who have very few employees and lots of automation. Why shouldn't it become the provider if it is the primary earner?

Previous
|
Next
|
Top
|
Bottom
Check Subscriptions
|
Home » UK News