Does anybody here take the Greens seriously?

[AuroraSaab]

In most models universal income is paid for by ending all other benefits. Zack plans to give us all £12 - 16k a year each. Great for me as I claim no benefits. It sounds like a way of making people like me much better off whilst making those who lose their tax credits/universal credit, housing benefit, disability benefit, child benefit, a little better off.

 

[the snail]

Whilst they may have some decent aims, they are economically illiterate and therefore cannot possibly be taken seriously by anyone with half an ounce of political or economic sense.

So are Reform and the tories though...without the decent aims.

 

[CXRAndy]

Any party who has a leader and followers who say men in dresses are women is not worth bothering with.

They are so detached from reality

 

[bobzmyunkle]

So are Reform and the tories though...without the decent aims.

Labour? Or were you including them under Tories?
Lib dems? See fairly recent coalition with Tories.

 

[BoldonLad]

In most models universal income is paid for by ending all other benefits. Zack plans to give us all £12 - 16k a year each. Great for me as I claim no benefits. It sounds like a way of making people like me much better off whilst making those who lose their tax credits/universal credit, housing benefit, disability benefit, child benefit, a little better off.

universal income sounds attractive but, it would require a degree of financial control and planning which is simply not present in the UK population (IMHO). Plus, what about all of the exceptions to the standard model?

 

[Ian H]

universal income sounds attractive but, it would require a degree of financial control and planning which is simply not present in the UK population (IMHO). Plus, what about all of the exceptions to the standard model?

I assume your comment is directed at the 'feckless poor' - we shouldn't give them any money in case they misspend it.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Plus, what about all of the exceptions to the standard model?

Well if the plan to give us all a universal income isn't the standard one that's usual mooted, ie. other benefits disappear altogether, then it would have to be funded out of taxation. £12k a year for 45 million of us is a lot to generate year after year. If you get rid of benefits to fund it you at least save on benefits and their admin.

Perhaps Zack hopes those given £12k a year will be using it to fund mortgages on the properties he's taking off landlords.

When I get mine I definitely plan to waste it.

 

[BoldonLad]

I assume your comment is directed at the 'feckless poor' - we shouldn't give them any money in case they misspend it.

I never used the term "feckless poor", that is your term, just for the purposes of discussion, I will run with it, for now.

However, in my personal experience, plus, past experience as a volunteer for a couple of charities, the "feckless poor" as you call them, are, very often (but not always) "poor" because they do "misspent" it. But, I am sure you know better.

 

[BoldonLad]

Well if the plan to give us all a universal income isn't the standard one that's usual mooted, ie. other benefits disappear altogether, then it would have to be funded out of taxation. £12k a year for 45 million of us is a lot to generate year after year. If you get rid of benefits to fund it you at least save on benefits and their admin.

Perhaps Zack hopes those given £12k a year will be using it to fund mortgages on the properties he's taking off landlords.

When I get mine I definitely plan to waste it.

I made no comment on the funding of it. I have no idea offhand if 45million * £12k per annum would or would not exceed the current benefits bill. For starters, does the "disappearing benefits", include State Pension?

A "universal income" of (say) £12k per year would make some people on benefits an increased income, but, not all, what about the regularly highlighted disabled?, for example. They would not be "better off" if all other benefits were scrapped.

 

[AuroraSaab]

A "universal income" of (say) £12k per year would make some people on benefits an increased income, but, not all, what about the regularly highlighted disabled?, for example. They would not be "better off" if all other benefits were scrapped.

I think the Greens have said that nobody will be worse off under their universal income scheme but you are quite right, those with say a severely disabled child would ordinarily lose out. If nobody is to lose out, which seems like a costly admin process to calculate, then there are fewer benefit savings to fund it. I think trial schemes have often targeted specific small groups and shown it can be beneficial. If given to everybody it probably would be a net positive in countries where they don't have an extensive benefits system already in place as you're not losing anything.

£12k is around the full state pension so it probably wouldn't make much difference income wise if they abolished it - overall women would benefit as they are more likely to have fewer years in the scheme but would get all the universal income, and some people might be a bit miffed that they aren't still getting a pension they paid into for 40 years.

 

[BoldonLad]

I think the Greens have said that nobody will be worse off under their universal income scheme but you are quite right, those with say a severely disabled child would ordinarily lose out. If nobody is to lose out, which seems like a costly admin process to calculate, then there are fewer benefit savings to fund it. I think trial schemes have often targeted specific groups and shown it can be beneficial. If given to everybody it probably would be a net positive in countries where they don't have an extensive benefits system already in place.

Well, they would say that wouldn't they?, particularly since the possibility of them having to deliver are not exactly high.

In a situation where nobody was to be worse off, the Universal income would need to be a lt more than £12k per annum, or, it would be necessary to have 'exceptions", so, we could begin building a byzantine benefits system again 😊

There was, or perhaps still is a trial of this (universal Income, at £1600 per month, or £19,200 per annum), in a Town near me https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65806599 it has all gone very quiet, so, I have no idea what the outcome was. I was in Jarrow today, I did not notice any visible affluence (although, the lady infant of me in the Morrisons Cafe Queue did spend £25 (after vouchers deducted) on three breakfasts 😊 Off topic, but, I also noticed that the "free refills" of hot drinks had been restricted to exclude Hot Chocolate, apparently due to some Government edict (I would guess the restrictions on "special offers" of unhealthy products).

 

[First Aspect]

All simple solutions need complications to make them work.

Struggling to distinguish free money everything will be fair promises of the Greens from populism.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Yes, exactly. Family with a disabled child - taxis to and from school, respite care costs, carers allowance, tax credits/universal credit, possibly housing benefit, Motorbility scheme. All necessary to make life easier for such families. I can't see how a universal income is feasible in a country with our population size and without becoming a costly nightmare to administer.

 

[Ian H]

I never used the term "feckless poor", that is your term, just for the purposes of discussion, I will run with it, for now.

However, in my personal experience, plus, past experience as a volunteer for a couple of charities, the "feckless poor" as you call them, are, very often (but not always) "poor" because they do "misspent" it. But, I am sure you know better.

The second part of my comment was really the pertinent one.

 

[monkers]

Any party who has a leader and followers who say men in dresses are women is not worth bothering with. It

They are so detached from reality

Change the record eh. Why do these one track opinions of yours need to infect every thread?

No party has a manifesto that says men can not wear dresses, skirts, or kilts, or that woman can not wear trousers, shirts or ties.

It was the Labour Party that introduced the GRA. It was Theresa May who wanted to change it to fast-track. The Lib Dems and Greens have a similar policy, so a bit weird of you to think that you think the Greens are the party that need to be punished.