General / Off-Topic The persecutions of the British

The entire economy is fuelled by one thing only at this point. As soon as (or: if ever) this element collapses, there will be blood.

And that thing is the collective delusion that a human's dignity and the very right to exist has to be earned.

It doesn't matter what you do, whether that is in any way useful or enriches anyone's life one iota. All that matters is that you spend a specific amount of time perpetually in order to prove that you are worth existing.

Systems like what the OP describes exist to hammer this notion into the skulls of even those few left who have managed to escape this delusion, or never were afflicted by it to begin with. The victims of such grotesque schemes are not even the actual targets - it exists as a deterrent and a reminder to those who are still employed (under however bad conditions or pitiful remuneration), saying "at least you are not one of them".

And the delusion must be maintained at all cost. At all cost. Nothing is too disgusting, no beaurocracy too kafkaesque, if it serves to maintain this status quo.
 
Last edited:
How many roads and pavements in Finland need ground or resurfaced? How many train tracks need re-ballasted and junk cleared from them? How many miles of them are there? It wouldn't be a difficult job, easy within the reach of able-bodied unemployed people.
Work them for 6 hours a day, pay them at a rate greater than minimum wage or unemployment benefits, it'll achieve something useful for the country and give them 10 hours a week to find a job they like better.

Inconceivable. This is the forced labor. And you can not believe that with this kind of work you still have the strength to look for another job. Your reasoning is dangerous regarding the freedom of choice and the career guidance in the life of a person
 
Last edited:
Sure....

https://tabloidcorrections.wordpres...ail-and-express-lied-nearly-50-times-in-2016/

...just the same.

I particularly enjoy The Mails level of cognitive dissonance. This is a wonderful example:


So, in the front page they manage to celebrate an ideological attack on poverty reduction whilst cheering the birthright of inherited wealth. Genius!

What about their other articles? A celebrity has had a heart attack? She might die? Ohh... well do we have any bikini shots and do you think she'd mind a bit of character assassination?


But celebrities are fair game aren't they? They ask for it when they are in the public eye...

...what's that? A woman got lonely and hung herself? Got any bikini pics? (original was not censored by Mail)


No. The Guardian and The Daily Mail are not the same. They're not even close. In fact they're completely different types of information outlets. The fact that you appear to be conflating the two speaks volumes.

By all means prove me wrong. Show me anything from the Guardian that sinks that low. And show me how many times the IPSO has told The Guardian off compared to the Daily Mail.



I must be. Those two things correlate perfectly. One has to absolutely be 15 years old to believe that the universal citizens income is a viable solution to the dual problems of poverty and the looming spectre of mass unemployment due to automation.


Oh dear. The Guardian is as accurate in its portrayal of the "noble working class poor people" as "helpless victims of the bourgeois rich" as the Mail is in its portrayal of the "sluttish lazy layabouts" when then "feed like vampires at the necks of the dedicated victimized middle classes". Both simply represent a viewpoint and use that viewpoint to colour the way they report stuff. Try going out to some sort of newsworthy event or take part in some thing being reported then read how it is reported in a variety of newspapers - say the Mail the Guardian, the Sun, the Telegraph, the Independent and Mirror and compare what each one writes to what you actually experienced - a couple will make you spit, a couple will make your ego swell like a balloon and one might, if you are lucky, leave you nodding and thinking yeah that was about it. None will agree.

Back to the universal citizens income - I sneered because it is the type of immature answer to lifes problems that 15 year olds come up with and then get grumpy when you laugh at them. Again please explain how this universal citizens income is going to be funded - where is the money going to come from. As for poverty - its been around my entire life and I have to say is a hell of a lot more comfortable now than it was when I was a child (I am still technically living in poverty). Seeing as it is defined as a percentage of an average it will always be around because when you increase the figure at the bottom the average goes up moving that line up. Looming spectre of mass unemployment due to automation -thats been around a long time too and is one of the reasons we have Starbucks.

If you are actually genuinely interested in steps that could reduce the income gap and you want something to think about try these two ideas (I did ask earlier for people to give suggestions for solutions so I will do so myself).
1. Get rid of minimum wage and introduce linked wage so that the lowest paid in a company must be paid at least one twentieth the amount of the highest paid. If boss wants to earn £1000 an hour the cleaner gets £50 an hour.
2. Get rid of the entire concept of unemployment replace it with guaranteed employment. Have each council responsible for providing unskilled work on a daily basis to anyone who wants/needs it. The councils may pay these jobs at 10% below the minimum wage in their area. No private profit making company may utilize this. Anyone without employment needing money turns up at their local council and is given 7 hours work.
 

verminstar

Banned
Hell I wish disability benefits had been this bad growing up - mum might not have had to try catching ducks off the local lake, gone around raiding allotments, and my step dad would not have been dumpster diving before it became fashionable.

Yes benefits are bottom of the food chain - but they are a hell of a lot closer to the next step than they used to be lol.

I count meself lucky that I live within 50 miles of some very exclusively private estates with well stocked lakes with trout...the tourists do love to fish here after all, and certain local restaurants pay top whack fer fresh stock with no questions asked. We also have the benefit of having a border with the south, so we get cheap diesel from there...most of it comes from diesel farms along the border who refine agricultural red diesel and green diesel from the south...saves about 100 quid on a full tank.

We used to have a local joke here on the estate whereby ye can literally get anything ye want so long as ye dont care where it came from and ye have the coin...theres also no reciepts or guarantees. Touts and whistleblowers are dealt with very harshly. This is the underbelly of modern paramilitary organisations in northern ireland who are estimated to be making tens of millions every month which will horrify some...but those super noodle sandwiches fer dinner are the alternative, so one does what one needs to do.

The harshest critics of those like me who take no issue about breaking the law will be those who never have to live like this. Let them live like this fer 6 months, then see their attitudes change somewhat or they end up in the funny farm after mentally breaking down. Living in the gutter hardens a man like an old leather bootstrap...or it destroys ye utterly.

In saying that, I would give my right hand to be able to work again...fer me, there is literally no choice as in I live in constant chronic pain 24 hours a day. But Ill leave ye with a nice story about how the establishment treats us. Last year, they threatened to stop my DLA unless I turned up fer an assessment in craigavon...bout 40 miles away from where I normally go in belfast. Got there on time...3 flights of stairs, with no disabled access, no disabled parking and the lift out of order. I was 10 minutes late because Ihad to park a quarter mile away, then hobble up the stairs with a pensioner helping me...irony that. They stopped my payments fer 3 months until a local MP caused a huge stink over it.

Ill be thankful to the establishment when I have something to be thankful for. I worked my whole life...been self employed twice and was fully legit, paid my taxes the whole deal. Up until 2 years ago, I had never claimed a penny from them...now, Im the lowest of the low in their eyes.
 
Oh dear. The Guardian is as accurate in its portrayal of the "noble working class poor people" as "helpless victims of the bourgeois rich" as the Mail is in its portrayal of the "sluttish lazy layabouts" when then "feed like vampires at the necks of the dedicated victimized middle classes". Both simply represent a viewpoint and use that viewpoint to colour the way they report stuff. Try going out to some sort of newsworthy event or take part in some thing being reported then read how it is reported in a variety of newspapers - say the Mail the Guardian, the Sun, the Telegraph, the Independent and Mirror and compare what each one writes to what you actually experienced - a couple will make you spit, a couple will make your ego swell like a balloon and one might, if you are lucky, leave you nodding and thinking yeah that was about it. None will agree.

I have experienced the UK benefits system and I know first hand how much utter crap the Mail talks and how accurate the Guardians reporting is on that topic. You can ask the people here who have tried to claim benefits whether it really is a massive gravy train to get thousands of pounds for sitting around doing nothing, you'll get the same answer.

In any case, you completely failed to address the central point of my Daily Mail/Guardian assertion which was that the Guardian, whilst it might have bias, is at least a news outlet with journalistic integrity, but the Daily Mail is not such an outlet and consists of nothing more than extreme right-wing dogma and hate rhetoric.

When confronted with actual proof of this (the Mail has been told to correct itself by IPOS several times over the past year, the Guardian never) you simply ignore it (very Daily Mailesque of you) and say something along the lines of "you weren't there!"

Allow me to make this extremely simple. Explain to me why this is appropriate from any publication which pretends to be about news...

C0t9WnVXgAAdZNx.jpg

...and then find an equivalent in The Guardian. I'm waiting.

Back to the universal citizens income - I sneered because it is the type of immature answer to lifes problems that 15 year olds come up with and then get grumpy when you laugh at them.

As I said, I am 15. I must be mustn't I? To even suggest it is immature, along with all of these immature publications...

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/06/20/why-dont-we-have-universal-basic-income
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/universal-basic-income/
http://www.wsj.com/articles/a-guaranteed-income-for-every-american-1464969586
https://www.ft.com/content/7c7ba87e-229f-11e6-9d4d-c11776a5124d

But whatever, let's ask Raphael Nonsenso, who was presumably 15 at the time...

I once happened to be dining with the Cardinal when a certain English lawyer was there. I forgot how the subject came up, but he was speaking with great enthusiasm about the stern measures that were then being taken against thieves. ‘We’re hanging them all over the place’, he said. ‘I’ve seen as many as twenty on a single gallows. And that’s what I find so odd. Considering how few of them get away with it, how come we are still plagued with so many robbers?’ ‘What’s odd about it?’, I asked – for I never hesitated to speak freely in front of the Cardinal. ‘This method of dealing with thieves is both unjust and undesirable. As a punishment, it’s too severe, and as a deterrent, it’s quite ineffective. Petty larceny isn’t bad enough to deserve the death penalty. And no penalty on earth will stop people from stealing, if it’s their only way of getting food. In this respect, you English, like most other nations, remind me of these incompetent schoolmasters, who prefer caning their pupils to teaching them. Instead of inflicting these horrible punishments, it would be far more to the point to provide everyone with some means of livelihood, so that nobody’s under the frightful necessity of becoming, first a thief, and then a corpse.

- - - Updated - - -

The entire economy is fuelled by one thing only at this point. As soon as (or: if ever) this element collapses, there will be blood.

And that thing is the collective delusion that a human's dignity and the very right to exist has to be earned.

It doesn't matter what you do, whether that is in any way useful or enriches anyone's life one iota. All that matters is that you spend a specific amount of time perpetually in order to prove that you are worth existing.

Systems like what the OP describes exist to hammer this notion into the skulls of even those few left who have managed to escape this delusion, or never were afflicted by it to begin with. The victims of such grotesque schemes are not even the actual targets - it exists as a deterrent and a reminder to those who are still employed (under however bad conditions or pitiful remuneration), saying "at least you are not one of them".

And the delusion must be maintained at all cost. At all cost. Nothing is too disgusting, no beaurocracy too kafkaesque, if it serves to maintain this status quo.

Exactly.

You aren't a human being, you're a unit of production. And if, as a unit, you don't consume and produce for the system then you're considered worthless. It's a very special type of hell we've constructed for those who don't fit into the modern world all that well.
 
I have experienced the UK benefits system and I know first hand how much utter crap the Mail talks and how accurate the Guardians reporting is on that topic. You can ask the people here who have tried to claim benefits whether it really is a massive gravy train to get thousands of pounds for sitting around doing nothing, you'll get the same answer.

In any case, you completely failed to address the central point of my Daily Mail/Guardian assertion which was that the Guardian, whilst it might have bias, is at least a news outlet with journalistic integrity, but the Daily Mail is not such an outlet and consists of nothing more than extreme right-wing dogma and hate rhetoric.

When confronted with actual proof of this (the Mail has been told to correct itself by IPOS several times over the past year, the Guardian never) you simply ignore it (very Daily Mailesque of you) and say something along the lines of "you weren't there!"

Allow me to make this extremely simple. Explain to me why this is appropriate from any publication which pretends to be about news...


...and then find an equivalent in The Guardian. I'm waiting.



As I said, I am 15. I must be mustn't I? To even suggest it is immature, along with all of these immature publications...

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/06/20/why-dont-we-have-universal-basic-income
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/universal-basic-income/
http://www.wsj.com/articles/a-guaranteed-income-for-every-american-1464969586
https://www.ft.com/content/7c7ba87e-229f-11e6-9d4d-c11776a5124d

But whatever, let's ask Raphael Nonsenso, who was presumably 15 at the time...



- - - Updated - - -



Exactly.

You aren't a human being, you're a unit of production. And if, as a unit, you don't consume and produce for the system then you're considered worthless. It's a very special type of hell we've constructed for those who don't fit into the modern world all that well.


Do you actually read anything I put? I. AM. ON. BENEFITS.

I have been dependent on benefits for over 10 years since my health decided life was too boring and decided to inject some variety into it. I know the system full well from the inside - I have had the benefits stopped, the found fit for work, the appeal process etc (that was all under the Labour government I might add). I have had the work fare courses and meetings and assessments. I have lived it and I do live it.

Having been through all that and seen it from the inside I still say that while far from perfect it is far from the horrors that people claim.

This is not my only experience of the benefits system - growing up I had what was then a rarity in divorced parents. I lived with a single mother. A single mother who had serious mental health issues. In a time before ESA or even IB. Before income support. Before DLA. A time when sick people claimed something called I believe supplementary benefit. I could bore everyone with the descriptions of life but I wont - suffice to say that it was a hell of a lot worse than now.

Back to the universal payment - I again ask the simple question where does the money come from. It is no good throwing examples of experiments at me which beside taking place in totally different societies from our own were by definition limited - the money paid to those receiving came from those not receiving it (by the way do you understand the irony of linking to articles that I have to pay for if I want to read them - The Times and The FT are not poor peoples friends).

If universal payment was so brilliant trust me it would be done (the intelligence of people who think something is a good idea is not linked to its actually quality - see the south sea bubble, and communism) It is not done because the figures cannot be made to work - if you can make the figures work please for god sake post them here and to every bloody website going. Where does the money come from - a complete circle please as a complete circle is needed for it to work. I have explored the idea myself - it sounds wonderful and for small communities where it is tried it is indeed wonderful. The problem is it does not work full scale because full scale does not come with a nice chunk of money from outside the system.

If you want to argue that the current method of organizing the amount of money spent on benefits is bad or wrong I will accept that - there are some glaring issues like the fact that the introduction of tax credits to ensure a minimum income for the lowest pay just resulted in large companies passing significant chunks of the payroll to the tax payer - leading to the ever decreasing circle that the more that is paid out the smaller the number paying in. Then there is the issue with moving into employment where doing so makes no appreciable difference to income because as fast as it is earned it is stopped from benefits. The original UC proposals did deal with that - first £50 odd ignored then money goes down at the rate of 70p for every pound earned. There is the issue of the amount of money it takes investigating those breaking the rules compared to the amount of money recovered - how much does it cost to prove A. Somebody was living with an earning partner while claiming to be unemployed and single meaning they got £10,000 more than they were entitled to and how and when will that £10,000 be returned if it is returned.

The system is a long way from perfect however it is not a case that nasty rich people are deliberately screwing helpless poor people. It is a case that imperfect humans are trying to find a solution to an issue that has more elements than they can grasp. Nor is it a case that benefits as a whole are pure purgatory - the majority of people in receipt of benefits have a better quality of life than say a middle earner in Cuba or Venezuela. As someone dependent on benefits I am fully aware how it works - and yeah it would be great to have twice as much money as I do now but at the same time it would be awful to have half the amount I have now. Life is hard - but then it has always been hard for those who are less able than others and it is less hard now than it has been for people in similar situations in previous generations. Every penny anyone receives in benefits has, ultimately, been provided by someone who earned it working. Whether it comes from a coin thrown in a begging bowl by direct choice or a cheque from a government that forcibly took it from some ones wages it came from some ones work. When I feel hard done by because I cant afford to go on holiday or I cant get a newer car I try to remember this and that it puts food on my table and keeps me warm. I also remember that with different societal beliefs just being too sick to work might not be a reason for both food and warmth to be paid for yet alone a car kept on the road.
 
I have been living on this so called gravy train for about 8 years now. I was made redundant from a very well paid job, but the company was failing fast and was gone within a year of my redundancy. Over the course of my time working there, I paid well over 150k in taxes etc. I was lucky to get the job in the first place; as I had be looked after by the queen in one of her big houses, for close to a decade. I came out in 91 and did voluntary work for over 10 years, pushing wheelchairs and all sorts of other stuff. All unpaid and loved every minute of it, as it put things into perspective and showed me, how lucky I was to have my health and freedom. Having jumped off of a sinking ship, in early 2008, I thought I could just walk into another job, I was very good at what I did and had references coming out of my ears. However, I had not seen the Bankers crash coming, or considered that my past life, would still haunt me.

The Job center Plus, needs renaming: It is NOT a job center, as the number of job vacancies are limited to a hand full and often out of date. The staff are not there to find you work, as I have been told many times, it is a place to monitor and sanction; at any opportunity. They (DWP) publicly claim, that there are no sanction targets for the staff and yet they have dry wipe boards that show how coaches (Member of staff that have a number of unemployed as clients) are doing. The object of the DWP is to bring the figures down, so they can claim success, to the hard working tax payers. They bring those figures down, by any means. A sanction, means that person, is off of the 'unemployed total' for that period. When an appeal reverses that sanction, (between 60 to 80% of the time) the person, become a new claimant and thus, the long term figures are, reduced.

I am more than actively looking for work, I need to be able to work, to earn because right now, my choices are simple; pay the bills, or eat properly. I really wish I lived alone, as I would be better off in a number of ways. As a single guy, I could tolerate not having electric for a couple of days etc.. But with family dependent on me, the debt just increases. A couple, who has no choice but to sign on as a couple, gets £57 per week each to cover everything, including council tax at close to 20% of the whole bill and deductions for 'an extra room' in my home, off of the rent benefit. Not the £78 per week, as stated by the Tory press. I am reaching the stage of having to consider earning on the side; which being illegal, would be a violation of my life time parole. At the same time, there is no constructive support from the probation services, apart from the usual pep talks, of not loosing hope. In short, there is a growing number of people in my position that will never be able to work, due to their history. We can lie, about our pasts, or go our own way, out side of the system' both of which, can put us back into the the big house. There is the nothing in place to deal with these people, apart from humiliation and deprivation, which creates anger and resentment.

Yes: I see the same faces at JC+ and I know they are earning and milking the system. Yes they exist, but not as common as a few years ago, at the same time, the JC staff are blind to them and are told what they need to hear; by the experienced scroungers. I have demanded to be put on work trial at the job center, a number of times and have told them I can do the job and make a difference. However, the government would never consider employing me, even to clean the toilets and so we have come to an understanding. They know I am looking for work, my 'proof of evidence' is beyond any coaches expectations. I am constantly apply for funding for courses etc, all of which have been turned down; they are very happy to offer me loans, for basic courses etc., but nothing constructive, nothing that would make a difference.

35 hours a week is the target. You can be called to the JC 5 days a week, up to 6 hours per day, to be 'supervised' looking for work etc. (been there done that) which in theory does not meet their own demands, as they want job searching done 7 days a week. I have to ask, to leave my home town, in case they have something for me to do. I had to fill in forms and wait for a reply to visit my brother in a London hospital after he had a stroke. You have to be registered on the Universal Credit web-site; this is where the 'proof of evidence' has to be logged daily. The web-site has trojon cookies and long with key-stole cookies and they CAN monitor all of your activities on your PC through this. You HAVE to agree to said cookies, or you don't 'qualify' for a claim. The sad thing is: if the devoted as much funds and man hours to actually finding people work; as they spend on 'investigations, sanctions and lost appeals'. A lot more people would be in genuine employment.

11
 
Last edited:
The UK welfare system is beyond borked and inhuman, and it's being copied in Finland. It's disgusting and wrong, and the politicians pushing for it are using all sorts of euphemisms to mislead the voting public and to make it seem just.

As for basic income, let's see how I could explain it to the doubters.

It's not a good idea for anybody, even the wealthy, to let people fall into desperate poverty. We humans don't go gently to the night. We'll work in the gray economy, commit crimes, anything to stay afloat. The more unjust the system, the angrier and more dangerous the poorest people will get.

And that's not good for the rich either as I said. Prisons for one are expensive. It's much more costly to catch the desperate person, put them through the justice system, and keep them imprisoned than it is to pay for their apartment, food, a sofa and an gaming console. (just to give an example of the "welfare scrounger").

When nobody falls to the absolute bottom, they are willing to put up with the wealthy having quite a lot. Finland at least used to be a very good country to be rich. Sure the taxes on your salary are quite high, but there was a sense that the rich are paying their share. Jorma Ollila (used to be head of Nokia when it still meant something) could drive his extremely fancy car to the local shop and go pick up his milk and sausages himself. No bodyguards, not having to worry that somebody would mess with his car. People might recognise him and say hi, casting some admiring looks at his Audi. Being able to live as a normal person is a valuable thing for the rich, believe it or not.

Ok, so it's a good idea to have a good social safety net, and one where people aren't humiliated and punished for being unemployed. How much does it cost?

At least here in the Nordics we already have systems in place that are supposed to mean that nobody has to sleep in the streets. You're supposed to get money for rent and food, at the very least. The problem is that the safety net is a huge and complicated mess, with a lot of expensive bureaucracy and quite a lot of that humiliating busy work (which they are now ramping up to eleven).

At a basic level citizen income needs to do the same. Get you enough money, guaranteed, so that you know you won't go hungry and homeless. Dismantling the bureaucracy goes some ways towards the savings, and the rest is taxation.

The idea could be explained as a "negative income tax bracket". If your income is below a certain level, rather than paying tax you get some from the government every month. The money you earn reduces this, but so that it's always worth your while to earn more (basic progressive taxation). There's a break-even point where you aren't effectively getting a citizen pay anymore, as you don't need it. At that point it's just tax.

It doesn't really need to cost much, and it can be used to get rid of the perverse incentives where accepting work (temporary or long term) actually reduces the amount of cash you have week by week.

How's that for a 15 year old's idea?
 
Inconceivable. This is the forced labor. And you can not believe that with this kind of work you still have the strength to look for another job. Your reasoning is dangerous regarding the freedom of choice and the career guidance in the life of a person

My dear Patrick - I was not suggesting "forced labour" - just suggesting that those currently unemployed might choose to work doing such things for a bit more money than unemployment benefit itself. They could obviously choose to not do it and collect less money as a result.

Society needs to have a safety net for those unable to work for whatever reason, and for those who can work but have, for whatever reason, found themselves unemployed - tide them over for a reasonable time until they can get back on their feet and earn cash, but for those who choose not to work for whatever reason - why should taxpayers be compelled by law to provide for them?

The US / UK / European taxes and national insurance, social security, medicaid etc I have paid over the years are a very considerable sum - I'm glad that it has helped out the unfortunate, but every scrounger who has only taken from the system and never put anything into it - I hope they choke on their giro :D
 
I saw a report on the television news. It seems that the British unemployed are being persecuted by the job center. They have to spend 35 hours by week on an official website to look for the work. All the connections and mouse clicks are saved. The unemployed have the fear in the stomach when they are summoned in the job center. The British director Ken Loach denounced the excesses of this system in his film "Moi, Daniel Blake", rewarded with the Palme d'or at the last Cannes festival. The British government defends this severity, designed to discourage the unemployed from to remain unemployed. That is the British civil society ? I wonder why so many people want to live in the UK ? I knew the zero hour contracts, but not the persecutions. And we are in 2017 ...

That is really awful.
If that is true I'm very disappointed in the British government.
I expected a more humane and wise approach. Stupid me.
Too many idiots think they know how to govern these days and too many people vote for these idiots.
Slowly a sickness of open rudeness and boorishness is permeating our civilization.
Currently the US are in the lead with the billionaire idiot.
 
My dear Patrick - I was not suggesting "forced labour" - just suggesting that those currently unemployed might choose to work doing such things for a bit more money than unemployment benefit itself. They could obviously choose to not do it and collect less money as a result.

Society needs to have a safety net for those unable to work for whatever reason, and for those who can work but have, for whatever reason, found themselves unemployed - tide them over for a reasonable time until they can get back on their feet and earn cash, but for those who choose not to work for whatever reason - why should taxpayers be compelled by law to provide for them?

The US / UK / European taxes and national insurance, social security, medicaid etc I have paid over the years are a very considerable sum - I'm glad that it has helped out the unfortunate, but every scrounger who has only taken from the system and never put anything into it - I hope they choke on their giro :D

Your reasoning is good if there is full employment. With 25 million unemployed in the European Union, the situation is not the same. I believe that there is also a lot of unemployment in the UK and many poorly paid, precarious jobs, which primarily benefit to the employers ... and for the Finland, perhaps it is the same thing ? :)
 
Last edited:
How many roads and pavements in Finland need ground or resurfaced? How many train tracks need re-ballasted and junk cleared from them? How many miles of them are there?

I do not believe that the British (or Finland) infrastructure (road, railway ...) is in bad condition because there is a lack of worker for the work. When I look the workers on the roads in France, on the railway ... it is clearly obvious that they are in excess in the workplace (2 men who work, 3 men watching the others to work) ... I believe that it's mostly a funding problem ... because this type of work requires colossal sums of money
 
Last edited:
First off I totally agree that unemployment systems where you loose money when/if you start earning some yourself are totally stupid - my ex husband and myself ended up nearly a thousand pounds in debt in just 9 months years ago because he could only get part time work and declare the hours. By the time the job centre had worked out how much they "over paid" the previous fortnight to take out of the next fortnights money and passed it on to the council who took money off rent benefit as well it worked out for every pound he earned and declared he had £1.05 stopped from benefits.

That is one of the main theories behind the Universal Credit which under its original terms would see the person keep the first £50 and then see 70p stopped for every pound earned over £50. This would provide a graduated change to earning not the either/of the JSA system and mean that for every pound someone earned they were better off meaning that taking that 3 hour job for a couple of weeks was worth doing which under JSA it wasnt/isnt.

However that is a long long way from universal basic income. First off I dont like the use of an example using one country to suggest it for another country because different countries have totally different social systems that all play into UBI. For example in the UK the unemployed never have to worry about health care at all, some other countries, (Finland may be one I am not sure) have systems that cover health care for the unemployed but at a certain income payment of some sort is required, all the way through to the USA where any health care that is not paid for is provided charitably and coverage is spotty.

What it all comes down to is how would it be paid for - if you give every one £100 per week where is that coming from? You talk about savings from getting rid of the bureaucracy well in the UK that does not come closed to covering the increase in costs. I did once run the figures years ago of how much it would cost to pay every adult between 18 and 65 in the UK a basic income (cause yeah I came up with the idea myself too) thinking the difference between the current system and basic income would be negligable and to say it wasnt is an understatement. In the UK we are already running around the point where only 50% of earners are actually net contributors tax wise (again our tax system stinks) and a universal income would tip it so far over that there would be mass protests. A situation where one earner is providing financially for 2 others does not last long.

I will try and run the figures again (population has grown amount considered minimum has grown). I mean dont misunderstand me a world in which I get money without having to prove I am sick sounds wonderful but so did John Lennons Imagine and I dont believe in that world either.
 
A universal income scheme is going to be tried in a couple of council regions in Scotland. Be interesting to see how that goes.
 
Try reading what I wrote starsphinx. All of it, not just the first parts. Your idea of "paying everybody x / month" isn't how it works.
 
Try reading what I wrote starsphinx. All of it, not just the first parts. Your idea of "paying everybody x / month" isn't how it works.

If one of the reasons for having it is to reduce the bureaucracy costs of administering then it is necessary to pay everyone. Example in point in the UK is the cold weather payments for pensioners - paid to all pensioners regardless of income. Every now and then someone starts shouting that this is unfair and the government should not be paying £250 to a pensioner who has millions. Then the civil service quietly show the person objecting the figures which show that if the cold weather payments were means tested it would cost the government MORE to pay money to less people. If you are not going to pay everyone then you might as well just remove the obligation to look for work or be sick from current benefits - we already have a guaranteed minimum income its just people are expected to do something to receive it.

A universal income scheme is going to be tried in a couple of council regions in Scotland. Be interesting to see how that goes.

It will appear to work beyond all hope - because it is going to be a couple of regions located in a larger whole. What works on a small scale does not necessarily in a full size. So these areas will be guaranteed income - significant numbers within those areas will take advantage to increase their skills and qualifications and will then find better paid employment but that much of that better paid employment will be outside the areas with the guaranteed income. Basically the people in those areas will have advantages over people outside those areas - their health will improve, their crime drop, their education increase because a stressor has been removed. They will then be competing with people who have not had that advantage and when they succeed over them it will be held up as "proof" it works. However this will not take into consideration what would happen if everyone had the same advantage and it was once again a level playing field like it is now (the field might be horrible but it is the same for everyone). Would people from those areas get the better jobs if the people from outside those areas had the same extra education they had taken? So on and so forth.
 
Society needs to have a safety net for those unable to work for whatever reason, and for those who can work but have, for whatever reason, found themselves unemployed - tide them over for a reasonable time until they can get back on their feet and earn cash, but for those who choose not to work for whatever reason - why should taxpayers be compelled by law to provide for them?

There are several flaws with this way of thinking. Let me list them.

1. Simple mathematics.

X = number of people available for work.

Y = number of jobs available.

If X>Y then...? What do you do at this point? Blame people for being alive? That appears to be the current thinking.

2. In a modern economy cyclical and seasonal unemployment are vital. Let's say I own a farm. I need to have 10 workers to help me plant the seed in all of my fields in March, and then I will need only one or two right through to September when it is time to harvest, then I'll need 20 workers to help me get the crops in and prepare them for market. If I don't have a reservoir of unemployed workers to hire from then I can't get the work done. I can't hire them all year around twiddling their thumbs either unless I pass that cost onto the customer, which brings me to the next flaw...

3. Inflation. So we have full employment, but I need 50 workers for my factory which produces my world famous cat-proof surround sound hats. How do I get them? I can't put an ad in the jobcentre, I can't go to the cyclically unemployed, so I have to tempt people who are already in work. How do I do that? I bump up the wages.

Easy peasy lemon squeazy.

But now my competitors are doing the same thing, they're bumping up wages too. So wages sneak higher and higher, cutting deeply into profits. Now I'm left with one choice - pass the cost onto the customer. Suddenly my prices are higher. Multiply this effect across the entire lower-end of the labour market and you will see how it ripples up, prices of goods and services going up as prices to employ people rises, and this will fuel further rises in the cost of living, utterly demolishing the advantages of full employment.
 
OK I have done a very fast very rough calculation of a universal basic income for the UK. I have included my workings and sources however this is very very rough, none of the figures are precise (sources no doubt rounded up and down as well) but it gives an idea of the economics. This is the sort of thing I mean when I ask people how such a thing would be paid for - when applied to a whole society the figures get quite scary.

I will calculate population figures as below
Take UK population as 65,110,000 https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates
Percentage of which are working age (16 to 64) as 63.5 https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopula...ticles/overviewoftheukpopulation/february2016
Gives population to receive Universal Basic Income (UBI) of 41,344, 850.
As a figure for a basic income I will take a round figure of £130 a week. This is rounding up current JSA to £80 for living costs and adding £50 for rent of a single room.
130 x 52 = 6,760 a year.
6,760 x 41, 344,850 = 279,491,186,000 (279.5 billion)

Spending for working age benefits 2014/15 - including child benefit and spending by councils on personal care, disability adaptations etc is £149 billion http://visual.ons.gov.uk/welfare-spending/. Note that is a year before the population estimates used above so allowing an increase we will call it £150 billion.

Points to note - administration costs not included in UBI calculations - not sure if they are included in the current figures.
This is the simplist administration model - a payment made to every person regardless of anything else. Changes to this model to say payment only made to every person earning under £200 a week result in much higher administration costs. See cold weather payments for example (it will cost the government more money to pay less people due to cost of working out who should be paid)

Under UBI you would still have to add costs of pensions and personal care and disability adaptation payments.
 

verminstar

Banned
It's not a good idea for anybody, even the wealthy, to let people fall into desperate poverty. We humans don't go gently to the night. We'll work in the gray economy, commit crimes, anything to stay afloat. The more unjust the system, the angrier and more dangerous the poorest people will get.

While we dont agree on anything political, tis good to know ye at least understand where my own perspective comes from. I have much reason to be a lot angrier than what I am...I have to live with friends right now because as far as the government is concerned, I already have property ergo I dont qualify. They dont take into account the property is basically a shell that humans cant live in right now due to it needing a lotta work done. Their reply to that was to sell it and go rent a property until the money runs out, then get back to them.

To give this some perspective...my wife died when my daughter was 6 and within 3 months, they evicted me from the house we were living in, and cut almost all my benefits back to zero...because my wife had savings which she didnt declare. They punished me and my daughter in her absence...left us both homeless a month before xmas. I couldnt get a job because childminding would cost more than I earned and because of her autism, she needed specialist care...expensive.

Right now, I dont claim even half what I could claim...because it means them knowing more about me that I want them to know. Last time I was honest and open with them, I was punished hard so there is literally no incentive to stay honest. Prison time is easy time...3 hots a day and an xbox fer good behaviour...free dental and even courses to get an education...like I said, easy time and not scary enough to stop me breaking the laws that mean we can live normal lives and eat better than super noodle sandwiches. Helps if ye get certain prisons where the screws are more bent than a non EU banana...they turn a blind eye when relatives are being searched because they are paid or threatened.

This is the society the establishment has created...thats why I said once upon a time that I am merely a by product of said establishment. They backed me into a corner and made me dangerous because I fought back. Simply refused to play by their rules because every time I do, it ends very badly fer me and I lose everything.

Oh I could go on and give more examples...fairly sure judging from other replies here that Im not the only source, but thats just one of many examples. And dont even get me started on how many immigrant families have been given priority over local families...it does indeed happen regardless what others claim doesnt happen.

Ye looking fer reasons why the lowest common denominator rebelled so badly in recent elections? Shouldnt have to search too hard fer reasons...they were hammered into us by the very establishment who claimed we were all in this together. They literally shot their own foot...scored an own goal whatever euphimism ye wanna give it ^^
 
Back
Top Bottom