h a l f b a k e r yCogito, ergo sumthin'
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
Heres an idea that seemed good at the time.
Rather than divide the population of a country (such as the UK) into people who go out to work, therefore, financially supporting themselves, and blaggers. ie. people who don't work, but still expect to receive a hand-out every couple of weeks. eg. artists,
musicians and the Royal Family. Wouldn't it be better to give everyone exactly the same amount of cash. It wouldn't matter if you were at work or not, every week, a sum of money, say 75 quid would be deposited in your account. Now 75 pounds is not a huge amount of money, but even without lifting a finger, you could survive. You get a flat rate of 75 (or whatever the amount is) pounds, no extras like housing benefit, child support, replacement bedding allowance (really!) etc. you get this payment if you choose to sit and fiddle with your P.Station all day, or you are the the highest paid company director in the country.
The benefits of this system are manifold, and would include,
If you are a someone who wants to pursue your art/music/sport, you can. You don't have to feel guilty about not pursuing a "conventional" job to pay your way, everyone is getting the same. eg. four people need a space for their art. they pool their money, rent a studio, sorted. I think that a person making music for the enjoyment of others, or even just for themselves, is at least as useful in society, as a traffic warden, doctor or nuclear scientist.
If you like the benefits of a regular wage, but want more time to spend with your family, then with the extra 75 quid you can afford to work 3 days rather than 5. This would lead to more part time work for more people. I don't think we are designed to work 5 or 6 days a week, its too tiring.
If you are in a job you hate, or just feel like a change, then because you have a 75 pounds a wek "safety net", its gonna be a lot less daunting to tell the boss to stick his job, than if it wasn't there.
If you want to work your butt off, 60 hours a week, buy a new car every year, live in a flash pad in the city, fine, carry on working, like you probably already are. You get the 75 pounds, its a welcome extra, and 'cos everyone gets it, you wont be sitting around whinging about all the blaggers you are having to support.
There are of course the sick and the old, but I think a mark of a civilisation, is how they take care of the members of society who cannot take care of themselves. They need to be looked after no matter what system of welfare is adopted.
Anyway, it was just a thought.....
Basic income
http://www.halfbake...idea/Basic_20income
Same idea. [phoenix, Jun 22 2002, last modified Oct 04 2004]
Real Globalisation
http://www.halfbake...eal_20Globalisation
Similar idea, different income source. [phoenix, Jun 22 2002, last modified Oct 04 2004]
[link]
|
| |
Already HalfBaked. Please search before posting. |
|
| |
Welcome to the HalfBakery. |
|
| |
75 pounds a day is low-paying? UB, is your former boss still hiring? |
|
| |
£75 a day isn't quite £20k a year - just about subsistence
level in London. |
|
| |
£20k p.a. is more than me and most of my mates and work colleagues get and we're in the so-called prosperous South East. |
|
| |
In keeping with his other socialist leanings, I think dijit is prompting you to strike for better benefits, DrBob...Seems like 1917, all over again. |
|
| |
Explain why anyone should be paid the same as me for sitting on his backside doing nothing. Then explain why anyone should be paid anything for sitting on his backside doing nothing. |
|
| |
jurist, I did! These are the better benefits.
angel, those of us who work in treasury management know that the easiest way to earn a living is by lending your millions on the money market then sitting back and collecting the interest. Fair enough for you? |
|
| |
Well, yes, but I intended 'paid' to mean 'paid dole out of other people's taxes', as the poster suggests. |
|
| |
Ah! Right. So you mean like the Royal Family, MP's(though not all), non-executive directors, landlords (mostly), privatised rail companies, judges, the board of directors in most quasi-governmental organisations and TV pundits then? |
|
| |
I think you'll find that most of the Royal Family do far more work than most of their critics, and non-executive directors, landlords, and (most) TV pundits are not paid from the Exchequer. Quite apart from that, those people are in those posts, receiving that remuneration, because of some (perceived) ability, not because they're too bone idle to do a decent day's work. |
|
| |
This idea, and all similar ideas (minimum wage, etc.) have a huge, gaping hole in their logic. You assume that the cost of goods and services is independent of the average income of a population. If you increase everyone's income by X amount, then the cost of living will also increase by very nearly X amount, and you have accomplished only the devaluation of your currency. Meanwhile all the working folks are stuck on the trailing edge of the wave as they beg for salary increases just to keep up with the inflation. No thanks. |
|
| |
[BigBrother] Would be correct if this idea were implimented by just printing up a bunch of new currency to hand out, but if it were implimented by taxing the wealthy more, then the same amount of money would be "out there" so no inflation would result. That is, unless you think that having a large percentage of the population living in poverty is necessary to keep inflation in check. If so, capitalism should be recognized as having failed just as badly as socalism. |
|
| |
UnaBubba: Why wait six months ? Call George W., they can do it for you wholesale .... |
|
| |