Meanwhile, Tory Treasury spokesman Philip Hammond blasted ‘superficially attractive thinking about means testing benefits that go to people who apparently don’t need them, but once you start introducing means testing you get perverse incentives’. Anybody fancy a game of ’spot the progressive’?
Less than a year later, coalition thinking is drifting in the opposite direction, with winter fuel allowance and child benefit seen as possible victims of the October spending review.
Labour’s work and pensions spokeswoman Yvette Cooper has been quick to condemn the government’s ‘shocking attack’ on OAPs, and rightly so. But it is a shocking attack that Labour itself was prepared to contemplate less than 12 months ago.
The fact of the matter is this: there is a huge welfare dependency in this country. Means testing is simply a way in which the welfare dependency is increased. I would far rather everyone had a basic citizen's income and a simple tax relief taper, something that could so easily be implemented today.
But of course, that wouldn't keep the fucking DWP in fucking jobs, would it?
Cunts.
25 comments:
Nail on the head their Clown. £60-£80 a week paid straight into your bank account for everyone with an N.I number.
Dead simple, no perverse incentives or disincentives to work. It’s enough to keep you fed but not a lot more. Of course you won’t be able to get a 7 bedroom house in Kensington under this scheme and £30k a year to sit on your arse all day doing nothing just after you step foot off the boat from Somila: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1295601/Somali-refugee-given-2-1million-taxpayer-funded-house-owed-7-000-rent-previous-home.html
But what I find interesting here is that the clown is proposing a government scheme which is a redistribution of wealth. If I were him and he me, I’d be accusing him of being no different from Gordon Brown and Joe Stalin, he might want to think on that for a second. Or perhaps he is making a return to the reality based libertarian community. This is the kind of stuff he used to post 8 months ago before he started toking on the anarchist bong.
Of course, if I had my druthers, the government wouldn't be dipping its hand in pocket at all.
But if they're going to, I'd rather it was like this than in some insanely complex arsebuggery.
I am a Tory cunt and I support this proposal.
Obnoxio The Clown is a genius.
I am a genius. I am also a complete cunt.
“But if they're going to”
Which is the backbone of my entire argument to you for literally months now. We have the system we have let’s just try and do what we can to make it better. And win the arguments one at a time.
The whole debate about in the perfect society the arbiters are private warlords or a small state is escapism. For the last six months you have been comparing me to Jo Stalin over some hypothetical situation. You have suggested that there is literally no difference between a Tory libertarian and a Marxist. You have to put it mildly gone a bit fucking mad for a few months with this anarchist shit.
Let me remind you what a very clever man said not such a long time ago....
“I want a more libertarian society. I want the government to butt out of my diet, my boozing, my smoking, my drug-taking; I want the government to stop spending my money on pointless bullshit and jobs for the boys (and gals); I want the public service to understand that they are supposed to serve the public, not be served by the public. I don't really care whether 17 angels can dance on the head of a pin or only 16. I just want less government. If you want less government, swallow your pride, shake my hand, and work with me to get less government, we can argue over the rest when we have less government.
But if you persist in arguing about the number of angels on the head of that pin, I can only offer two words of advice: fuck off. I'm not interested in your crap any more.”
Quoted for the truth!
There is always more than one strand of argument, though.
There is the situation we have now, and the situation I'd like to be in. And in the situation we have now, any reduction in the government is a good thing.
But your end game of a libertarian minarchist government is not sustainable for reasons *you* made clear: once something is subject to a government edict, government involvement *never* shrinks, it only grows.
The difference between a classical liberal, minarchist government and a fascist, nanny-knows-best dictatorship is only a matter of time. You have already conceded this.
The only way to have government remain permanently out of your face is not to have one.
“The difference between a classical liberal, minarchist government and a fascist, nanny-knows-best dictatorship is only a matter of time. You have already conceded this.”
WHEN subject to the current structure, and by that I mean I permanent bureaucracy. Because that bureaucracy because of its permanence and vested interest subsumes the power.
Which is exactly WHY I always advocate term appointments/elections of ALL public servants and their budgets subject to a threshold voting attendance.
It would be impossible to have 18million people working for the state if the constitution required you to individually elect every one of them separately. Rather you would only elect one to manage their budget (which they put forward at time of election) and they would procure all services needed on the free market. If they spend their budget early they need to put themselves to the electorate early with a new budget.
So for example the South east region is going to elect a new healthcare Marshall. The candidates are Mr X who presents a budget of £2bn and pay for himself within that of £120k. Mr Y presents a budget of £11bn and pay for himself of £50k. You have to pick one. Whoever gets the most votes win, and if there is not a 50% turnout then the job does not get assigned to anyone and people provide for themselves on the free market.
If your electing all public officials and their budget in full every term, and there is zero permanent bureaucracy and all services are just contracted from the free market, and if people don’t agree the job needs doing at all and they don’t turn up to vote it never happens.... what’s not to like as a libertarian?
The problem is moving people off benefits and into jobs. But as I have said elsewhere, there are not five million jobs available.
This country seems doomed.
Do you really think if 50% of our income wasn't feeding the bottomless pit of the government, people wouldn't spend more and give more to charity, enabling millions more jobs?
“there are not five million jobs available.”
But there is. I would happily pay a few guys for a couple of months to do a whole load of manual labour I need doing on my house and garden, no skills required, just muscle. But I can’t afford to pay minimum wage, or to research let alone comply with employment law or do payroll. But I do have work I am willing to pay for.
Because of government interference in the free market these jobs are not advertised. Without government interference they would be, on a sign at the end of my garden facing the road.
Immigrants have no problem getting the jobs that are already advertised. Why? Because they are not paid to sit and grow fat while watching Jeremy Vile.
The statist Keynesian Economist s will tell you that full employment is an impossible pipedream. A libertarian Austrian Economist will simply point to any country around the world that does not have a welfare state and say “Look, full employment is possible and it happens today”
@Kingbingo - If you pay less than the minimum wage, how are they going to survive? I'm no socialist, but people need enough to live on.
Ta much for link. It's not rocket science is it? For sure, we can have heated debates over how HIGH the CBI should be; or what the least-bad tax/withdrawal rate is, but that's just political stuff.
@ MF, you miss the point. Give everybody a CBI that's just enough to live on and scrap the NMW. If people are happy to work for Kingbingo for £2 an hour (without losing benefits), then they'll do it. Else not. It's called market forces.
@MW - I know those arguments, and I'm not saying the world owes people a living. I just think if you're earning £2 an hour, you're either going to die of starvation at some point or turn to a life of crime.
A libertarian Austrian Economist will simply point to any country around the world that does not have a welfare state and say “Look, full employment is possible and it happens today”
Quite possibly true, but only because the unemployed have died of starvation.
Squawk!
Obnoxio thinks that "There is always more than one strand of argument". Whilst he's correct, he omits to mention that it is MY strand of argument, and only MY strand of argument that is correct. Myself, and my fellatio friend Boatang are the true keepers of libertarianism. Unlike Obo, we're not fake libertarians or whatever he is this week.
If anyone reading this disagrees with my analysis, I say this in response. You are a cunt.
Squawk!
Really? My wife is from Turkey and I have visited the place often. They have no welfare and people starving to death is unheard of. It just doesn’t happen. I tell you what else they don’t have apart from a welfare state. Obese people sitting around all day watching Sky TV. Feral kids making whole estates and streets no go areas. Entrenched sense of unjustified entitlement.
Instead everyone has productive work and that is an economy the fraction of the size of our own.
Can you find me a country of even a quarter of our GDP per head with no welfare state (think most of developed Asia as a starting point) where people do actually starve to death? You won’t be able to find one Bayard.
“@MW - I know those arguments, and I'm not saying the world owes people a living. I just think if you're earning £2 an hour, you're either going to die of starvation at some point or turn to a life of crime.”
Bayard. I think you have missed the point of a citizens income. I have explained above that even in countries with ZERO welfare people do not starve to death. But that is not actually what this thread is about. It’s about welfare-lite. i.e. a Citizens income.
With a CI everyone gets enough money to sustain themselves in the most basic way. Everyone gets £x a month paid into their bank account. So even if someone does nothing at all, they still live.
The benefit of a CI is there is no disincentive to work, because by taking any job it has zero impact on your CI, you get that anyway. So you only take my £2ph gardening job if you want to earn EXTRA in addition to your CI. If the market supports you getting a £15ph job you get that as well as your CI, market forces.
Except this way you do not need 200,000 people working for DWP. AND you remove the perverse incentives not to work with traditional welfare. What libertarians call a Win Win.
@ Kingbingo, re Turkey, they may not have welfare as we know it, but according to my man in Turkey, most people can wangle it so that they retire age 55 or so on a pension that is barely less than the average salary.
But he also agreed that there was little unemployment among young people, especially in rural areas.
PS, your last comment should have been directed at MF and not at Bayard.
@ MF, the point of a CBI is you get a sum of money (let's say £65 a week, same as current unemployment benefit) but this is NOT MEANS-TESTED OR WITHDRAWN. So that's enough to live on (by definition), and then if you earn something on top, you get income tax deducted from what you earn, but you keep the CBI IN FULL and that's that.
So somebody working for £2 an hour 35 hours a week has a net income of (say) £110 a week. What makes you think that this person will starve to death?
@MW - I didn't realise all that. It doesn't sound too bad. I just get the impression that most libertarians don't care too much about anything else other than their own situation. As long as they have a job and a good income then everything is right with the world.
Having said that, I did the Political Compass thing and found out I was a right-wing libertarian myself - so I don't know what's going on. I'm totally confused.
KB, I wasn't thinking of anywhere in particular, except perhaps India, but if you have no employment and no welfare, i.e. no money coming in, what are you going to do for food? Just because some countries can do it, like Turkey, doesn't mean that every country can do it (think sub-Saharan Africa). I agree that this country should be able to do it, but it's got a bloody long way to go and reducing the non-wage costs of labour and introducing universal benefits would be a good way to start. However, I don't think I'll see it my lifetime and I'm way under retirement age.
“I did the Political Compass thing and found out I was a right-wing libertarian myself - so I don't know what's going on. I'm totally confused.”
Actually Michael that’s an easy one. You are no doubt a bright chap who know how the world works and can apply these principles in real time.
But you have spent a lifetime in Britain, first at the hands of the British educational system and further a constant stream of lefties propaganda flowing from the BBC. These have brainwashed you into accepting huge swathes of ‘progressive/Keynesian’ ideals.
Once I realised I was a libertarian it was a long process to deconstruct all those ‘facts’ drummed into me in my prior period. Once you ‘get it’ it gives you a totally new outlook on the world.
Bayard,
“Just because some countries can do it, like Turkey, doesn't mean that every country can do it (think sub-Saharan Africa).”
You are comparing apples with dung heaps. Sub-Saharan Africa is a collection unsophisticated economies that would be backward regardless of how little welfare they have. However, the principle remains, if you compare two similar SSA countries, one that went socialist the other (slightly) capitalist and compare those. Take Kenya and Rhodesia in the 70’s. They went different ways and the one that choose less socialism prospered, the other declined.
You cannot compare Britain to SSA. You can compare it to countries with similar GDP per head. Take Hong Kong or Singapore, no welfare, indeed no entitlements, and they have better educational, health and pension provisions than we do.
I can provide detailed studies on such if you wish.
MF, that is how Citizen's Income works. Like I said, we can argue for a CI of anywhere between £0 and £100 per week; we can argue over what the flat tax rate should be (anywhere between 0% and 50%), those are just details.
On the topic of libertarianism, they are right on most things, such as railing against income tax and govt. protected monopolies - but most of them seem to overlook privately collected taxes, which are nearly as much again, and the biggest govt. protected monopoly of all, but there again, centuries of brainwashing seem to have done for the people of this country.
@MW I thought you said these Libertarians don't look kindly on CI? I'm confused, is Obo still a Libertarian?
Obo, great thread here, i am in 99% agreement with you and Kingbingo and 100% agreement with MW
I'm looking forward to the Obo post praising Land Value Taxation in which he agrees with Anti Citizen One in the comments.
"Immigrants have no problem getting the jobs that are already advertised. Why? Because they are not paid to sit and grow fat while watching Jeremy Vile."
I think this is more to do with the benefits poverty trap than the laziness of the Average British Unemployed. As you know, if yer immigrant earns an extra pound, that's an extra pound in his pocket. Meanwhile yer ABU could do a week's work and end up poorer than if he'd spent his time watching Jeremy Vile. I think that if a CI was introduced, you'd be surprised how industrious most of the "lazy" unemployed would become. After all many are already putting in a full week's work - cash in hand.
Post a Comment