The personal income tax allowance will be set at the level of a full time living wage (currently £14,458.50 based on 252 working days of 7.5 hours per day at £7.65) and will rise inline with the living wage.
We will support research into a universal basic income and its effects on society and the economy, with the aim of eradicating poverty and providing a basic standard of living for all.
Stamp Duty Land Tax (paid on house purchases) should be reformed, with tax band thresholds linked to the regional average house price. Purchases up to the regional average house price should be zero-rated. In addition, the 'slab' approach of current taxation will be changed to an incremental approach, where only the amount above a threshold is taxed at that rate.
@PaulJRobinson - about 10 years ago
Would a Basic Income be instead of other benefits? So this would essentially be introduced at the same time as removing Job Seeker's Allowance, State Pension, Housing Benefit etc etc? And why would it not be means-tested? Surely means-testing is a good thing as it ensures the state doesn't waste money giving something to people who really don't need it (like wealthy pensioners with their bus pass/tv licence etc).
with kind regards, Paul Robinson
about.me/pauljrobinson
On 26 January 2014 23:46, Stephen Reid [email protected] wrote:
[image: 👍]
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/openpolitics/manifesto/pull/82#issuecomment-33334777 .
@stephenreid321 - about 10 years ago
Decent look at the pros and cons at http://anotherangryvoice.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/universal-basic-income.html
On 28 January 2014 15:35, Paul Robinson [email protected] wrote:
Would a Basic Income be instead of other benefits? So this would essentially be introduced at the same time as removing Job Seeker's Allowance, State Pension, Housing Benefit etc etc? And why would it not be means-tested? Surely means-testing is a good thing as it ensures the state doesn't waste money giving something to people who really don't need it (like wealthy pensioners with their bus pass/tv licence etc).
with kind regards, Paul Robinson
about.me/pauljrobinson
On 26 January 2014 23:46, Stephen Reid [email protected] wrote:
[image: 👍]
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub< https://github.com/openpolitics/manifesto/pull/82#issuecomment-33334777> .
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/openpolitics/manifesto/pull/82#issuecomment-33489197 .
It's an interesting one. I think that yes, it would be instead of other benefits, but the idea is that everyone gets it equally. I think that the theory is that admin costs are also vastly reduced.
@PaulJRobinson - about 10 years ago
It's interesting, and appealing. I can see how the inflationary argument against is a strong one. Prices for everything would skyrocket (not just rent as given in the example at that link) as there would be more money in the system. Also I did a quick google of 60 million people x £20000 per year and got 1.2e+ 12 and with my B in GCSE maths I have no idea what that is, but I'm assuming it's a big number. Could anyone more numerate give me an idea of the kind of sums we're talking about here and which government departments would have to be abolished (I'm assuming DWP and BIS at the very least) to pay for it?
with kind regards, Paul Robinson
about.me/pauljrobinson
On 28 January 2014 15:38, Stephen Reid [email protected] wrote:
Decent look at the pros and cons at http://anotherangryvoice.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/universal-basic-income.html
On 28 January 2014 15:35, Paul Robinson [email protected] wrote:
Would a Basic Income be instead of other benefits? So this would essentially be introduced at the same time as removing Job Seeker's Allowance, State Pension, Housing Benefit etc etc? And why would it not be means-tested? Surely means-testing is a good thing as it ensures the state doesn't waste money giving something to people who really don't need it (like wealthy pensioners with their bus pass/tv licence etc).
with kind regards, Paul Robinson
about.me/pauljrobinson
On 26 January 2014 23:46, Stephen Reid [email protected] wrote:
[image: 👍]
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub< https://github.com/openpolitics/manifesto/pull/82#issuecomment-33334777> .
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub< https://github.com/openpolitics/manifesto/pull/82#issuecomment-33489197> .
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/openpolitics/manifesto/pull/82#issuecomment-33489574 .
@stephenreid321 - about 10 years ago
See http://www.citizensincome.org/filelibrary/booklet2013.pdf for a cost-neutral example paying a partial citizen's (basic) income (£71/week for 25-64 year olds - equivalent to a day's pay on the living wage)
On 28 January 2014 15:51, Paul Robinson [email protected] wrote:
It's interesting, and appealing. I can see how the inflationary argument against is a strong one. Prices for everything would skyrocket (not just rent as given in the example at that link) as there would be more money in the system. Also I did a quick google of 60 million people x £20000 per year and got 1.2e+ 12 and with my B in GCSE maths I have no idea what that is, but I'm assuming it's a big number. Could anyone more numerate give me an idea of the kind of sums we're talking about here and which government departments would have to be abolished (I'm assuming DWP and BIS at the very least) to pay for it?
with kind regards, Paul Robinson
about.me/pauljrobinson
On 28 January 2014 15:38, Stephen Reid [email protected] wrote:
Decent look at the pros and cons at
http://anotherangryvoice.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/universal-basic-income.html
On 28 January 2014 15:35, Paul Robinson [email protected] wrote:
Would a Basic Income be instead of other benefits? So this would essentially be introduced at the same time as removing Job Seeker's Allowance, State Pension, Housing Benefit etc etc? And why would it not be means-tested? Surely means-testing is a good thing as it ensures the state doesn't waste money giving something to people who really don't need it (like wealthy pensioners with their bus pass/tv licence etc).
with kind regards, Paul Robinson
about.me/pauljrobinson
On 26 January 2014 23:46, Stephen Reid [email protected] wrote:
[image: 👍]
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub<
https://github.com/openpolitics/manifesto/pull/82#issuecomment-33334777>
.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub< https://github.com/openpolitics/manifesto/pull/82#issuecomment-33489197>
.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub< https://github.com/openpolitics/manifesto/pull/82#issuecomment-33489574> .
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/openpolitics/manifesto/pull/82#issuecomment-33490948 .
@philipjohn - about 10 years ago
@PaulJRobinson I think it means 1.2 plus 12 zeros, which would be £12tn
@stephenreid321 - about 10 years ago
No, it's 1.2 x 10^12 = £1.2tn https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=60+million+*+20+thousand
In comparison UK GDP is around £1.5tn, UK gov't spending is around £720bn ( http://www.theguardian.com/uk/interactive/2013/mar/20/budget-spending-interactive )
A £20k basic income for every person sounds rather high.
I think even a partial basic income of £3-4k, allowing people to choose to work 4 days a week, would be a great start. See http://wordsandwriting.me/blog/post/national-20-time
On 28 January 2014 16:13, philipjohn [email protected] wrote:
@PaulJRobinson https://github.com/PaulJRobinson I think it means 1.2 plus 12 zeros, which would be £12tn
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/openpolitics/manifesto/pull/82#issuecomment-33493414 .
@philipjohn - about 10 years ago
@wordsandwriting Thank you! #learning
Thinking out loud... 1. Wouldn't a basic income make more sense if based on the living wage? 2. To that end, while I like the idea of a basic income, I don't think it's necessarily workable. What's to stop everyone from just ceasing to work? 3. A partial basic income also doesn't fit well, IMO, alongside a living wage policy - if you're going to provide a basic income, why one that doesn't meet what you acknowledge to be a necessary wage to live on? It's similar to having an income tax threshold below the living wage level. 4. What is the "bread line" - is there an actual value that it represents? Could a basic income work if set at that level, ensuring everyone is above this? Then, that would probably complement the living wage income tax threshold policy we have. I.e., the Government ; - a) acknowledges the living wage - b) doesn't tax you on anything under that living wage - c) recognises a level of income needed to bring people out of poverty - d) ensures everyone has at least that poverty-escaping income 5. It occurs to me that the "bread line" may be relative and so paying everyone the same basic income will simply maintain the status quo because, relatively, the poor will still be just as poor. Probably. Right? @Floppy's suggestion of means-testing could alleviate this possibility by only providing the basic income to those who need it.
@PaulJRobinson - about 10 years ago
I was in the middle of drafting a response that is remarkably similar to @philipjohn above (but mine was less articulately argued). But I would also like to add my thanks to everyone for doing my sums, and for the various links to supporting evidence and documentation. I feel a lot more educated on the subject and like it in principle. I would like to give some thought to @philipjohn's concerns above.
with kind regards, Paul Robinson
about.me/pauljrobinson
On 28 January 2014 17:45, philipjohn [email protected] wrote:
@wordsandwriting https://github.com/wordsandwriting Thank you!
learning
Thinking out loud...
1.
Wouldn't a basic income make more sense if based on the living wage? 2.
To that end, while I like the idea of a basic income, I don't think it's necessarily workable. What's to stop everyone from just ceasing to work? 3.
A partial basic income also doesn't fit well, IMO, alongside a living wage policy - if you're going to provide a basic income, why one that doesn't meet what you acknowledge to be a necessary wage to live on? It's similar to having an income tax threshold below the living wage level. 4.
What is the "bread line" - is there an actual value that it represents? Could a basic income work if set at that level, ensuring everyone is above this? Then, that would probably complement the living wage income tax threshold policy we have. I.e., the Government ; 5. a) acknowledges the living wage 1. b) doesn't tax you on anything under that living wage 2. c) recognises a level of income needed to bring people out of poverty 8.
d) ensures everyone has at least that poverty-escaping income 9.
It occurs to me that the "bread line" may be relative and so paying everyone the same basic income will simply maintain the status quo because, relatively, the poor will still be just as poor. Probably. Right?
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/openpolitics/manifesto/pull/82#issuecomment-33503832 .
@timcowlishaw - about 10 years ago
I really like the idea of a basic income, but am not educated enough on the specifics to be able to evaluate the proposal in it's current form. I think the problem of removing incentives to work can be handled by setting the level of the basic income appropriately, such that it doesn't crowd out incentives to earn for the majority of people. Will look into the literature around this and try and add some suggestions, and links to evidence.
@timcowlishaw same here - I like the idea, and I'd like more research to go into it at a policy level. That's what this is meant to propose, not that UBI should be adopted, necessarily.
@PaulJRobinson - about 10 years ago
I'm with Tim, but 👍 on the basis that the proposal is around more research.
with kind regards, Paul Robinson
about.me/pauljrobinson
On 29 January 2014 08:46, James Smith [email protected] wrote:
@timcowlishaw https://github.com/timcowlishaw same here - I like the idea, and I'd like more research to go into it at a policy level. That's what this is meant to propose, not that UBI should be adopted, necessarily.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/openpolitics/manifesto/pull/82#issuecomment-33565841 .
Investigate possible reforms to the way VAT is applied to goods and services with a view to making it less regressive and, ultimately, to remove the poorest from having to pay entirely - even if this requires renegotiating our obligations to the EU.
We will support research into a universal basic income and its effects on society and the economy, with the aim of eradicating poverty and providing a basic standard of living for all.
Stamp Duty Land Tax (paid on house purchases) should be reformed, with tax band thresholds linked to the regional average house price. Purchases up to the regional average house price should be zero-rated. In addition, the 'slab' approach of current taxation will be changed to an incremental approach, where only the amount above a threshold is taxed at that rate.
Enshrine net neutrality in law, protecting the fundamental principle of the free and open web.
Any data or research that is government funded will be required to be released under the Open Government License, ensuring that public funding equals public ownership. There will be an exception for government loans and innovation investment.
Any data or research that is government funded will be required to be released under the Open Government License, ensuring that public funding equals public ownership. There will be an exception for government loans and innovation investment.
@philipjohn - about 10 years ago
If you haven't seen it, you may be interested in this, from Twitter "More planning work for the next @RatParl today... need to find researchers on living wage, minimum wage and basic income - ideas welcome!"
The OpenPolitics Manifesto
@Floppy - over 10 years ago