• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Politics, politics, politics (so long and thanks for all the fish)

As usual, you jump to the "yeah....well... The Tories!" in response, but I wasnt even thinking about them.

Its just traditional Labour isnt it? Keep a benefits class bought and paid for to maintain a healthy vote.

I grew up through Blairs version of this and honestly think many of our societal ills stem directly from it.
 
nayimfromthehalfwayline said:
Sounds like a very Labour thing to do, offer everyone free money. Should get a few more votes their way...
Click to expand...

Getting a share of the national assets (which are otherwise kept by the 1% instead). You own 1/60,000,000th of the country and its natural resources, so it's simply a weekly dividend from that.
 
nayimfromthehalfwayline said:
As usual, you jump to the "yeah....well... The Tories!" in response, but I wasnt even thinking about them.

Its just traditional Labour isnt it? Keep a benefits class bought and paid for to maintain a healthy vote.

I grew up through Blairs version of this and honestly think many of our societal ills stem directly from it.
Click to expand...

It's actually not traditional Labour. It comes from a Green/left libertarian background. Usually Labour don't like it because it replaces most of the state bureaucracy, which is their source of power.

Also there is no benefits class because everyone gets paid it - even Jim Ratcliffe and the Duke of Westminster will get their £200 a week
 
nayimfromthehalfwayline said:
There is a benefits class now.

Give them £200 a week - and Ill wager reduce/remove their traditional benefits and its the same thing. Just a PR exercise.
Click to expand...

That's the idea - it replaces all benefits and the state pension.

But, if you are working you get it too. So you have the security of knowing your accommodation and food would be covered, even if you lost your job, needed a career break, or wanted to pursue something more rewarding that doesn't pay (the arts, volunteering, child care/parental care etc.)
 
So the benefits class remain as was. Like I said. Probably better off from what you say, so they'll be laughing.

Though I didnt consider them trying to buy more people above that as well.

Id certainly welcome an extra £200 per week for my wife and I, that would pay the rent.

I wonder what magic money tree they will pull this out of...
 
nayimfromthehalfwayline said:
So the benefits class remain as was. Like I said. Probably better off from what you say, so they'll be laughing.

Though I didnt consider them trying to buy more people above that as well.

Id certainly welcome an extra £200 per week for my wife and I, that would pay the rent.

I wonder what magic money tree they will pull this out of...
Click to expand...

Removing all benefits, pensions, pre-school childcare, and the bureaucracy that supports all that, will pay for a big chunk of it

It's also fairer distribution of national resources. Currently 5% of the population own 40% of the wealth.
 
It's a bit like the introduction of the welfare state in the 1940s - you just need that one radical government, and then people won't ever give it up. Once the concept of citizens' income gains a foothold, the idea of dependency on corporations will never come back.

Automation and the gig economy make it inevitable. If not, the alternative is really really bleak
 
Gutter Boy said:
Also there is no benefits class because everyone gets paid it - even Jim Ratcliffe and the Duke of Westminster will get their £200 a week
Click to expand...

I'd take a (fairly confident) guess that there will be people today receiving more in benefits than the UBI will be set at. How will that work?

My next guess is that UBI, if introduced, would very quickly become absolutely taken for granted, and looked upon as an absolute floor to be further topped up. In effect continuing the current system, just far more expensively.
 
Parklaner81 said:
I'd take a (fairly confident) guess that there will be people today receiving more in benefits than the UBI will be set at. How will that work?

My next guess is that UBI, if introduced, would very quickly become absolutely taken for granted, and looked upon as an absolute floor to be further topped up. In effect continuing the current system, just far more expensively.
Click to expand...
It needs to very scientifically be set at a level that covers basics, but no luxuries. In my head it's £18k per adult and £9k per child, but that's me thinking with tax; without it it's probably 2/3rds of that

All money is invented. We just need to get to a state where we think about sharing resources, rather than how the rich can exploit the masses
 
Gutter Boy said:
It needs to very scientifically be set at a level that covers basics, but no luxuries. In my head it's £18k per adult and £9k per child, but that's me thinking with tax; without it it's probably 2/3rds of that

All money is invented. We just need to get to a state where we think about sharing resources, rather than how the rich can exploit the masses
Click to expand...

But “basic” depends on situation, where you live, what allergies or illnesses you have, there is no UBI because the disparity is too great to reach one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back