A Britain to be Proud of?

[Newholland]

On a more serious note, I feel that the systems that the state uses whether it be the benefit system, the judicial system or the war on drugs need reform and some unorthodox thinking. On this board and generally we tend to rehearse the same arguments with both sides advocating approaches that often don't work very well.
The book below is about tackling poverty by the introduction of a basic minimum income for all with no means testing. It's an interesting idea and the book is well worth a read;

Utopia for Realists - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Not sure whether it would work, but no political party of the current day will go anywhere near this. Maybe it's an idea that will have its day.

What do you think ?

 

[ElBurroSinNombre]

What do you think ?

I think that generally governments should be using the available evidence to drive policy making instead of gut instinct and prejudice. The book I mention is quite a one sided promotion of a minimum wage for all without means testing and details the studies that have been done that show that a scheme like this actually frees people and can generate economic income.
The first study mentioned was when rough sleepers were given ~£2000 each with no strings attached. A large proportion of those people managed (perhaps surprisingly) to use the money to haul themselves out of poverty and off the streets, and a proportion became tax paying citizens who contribute to the economy. Would an approach like this be better (and cheaper) than what we do currently?
The war on drugs is another area ripe for reform - what we are doing just doesn't work. Repeating mantras to look tough like 'the war on drugs' achieves exactly nothing. Drugs have never been cheaper or easier to get hold of, in short prohibition doesn't work. Surely the solution should be for the state to be involved in the supply and distribution of drugs in a controlled way thus removing crime (and all that goes with it) from the equation.
Prostitution likewise.

I'd like to see more discussions and maybe a limited adoption of different and new ideas to find out what is truly effective. This would actually be the most efficient use of our tax payers money. As we have seen on this thread, the reflex of some is to blame the poor for being poor (lazy etc) and to want to penalise them. This gets us nowhere and the benefits system that we have does has many poverty traps (like the fact that it would take someone on UC 8 hours to earn the extra £20 that is being removed). Surely we can do better than this - we are certainly rich enough, but we may have to leave some of our pre-existing prejudices behind.

 

[Lala]

I think that generally governments should be using the available evidence to drive policy making instead of gut instinct and prejudice. The book I mention is quite a one sided promotion of a minimum wage for all without means testing and details the studies that have been done that show that a scheme like this actually frees people and can generate economic income.
The first study mentioned was when rough sleepers were given ~£2000 each with no strings attached. A large proportion of those people managed (perhaps surprisingly) to use the money to haul themselves out of poverty and off the streets, and a proportion became tax paying citizens who contribute to the economy. Would an approach like this be better (and cheaper) than what we do currently?
The war on drugs is another area ripe for reform - what we are doing just doesn't work. Repeating mantras to look tough like 'the war on drugs' achieves exactly nothing. Drugs have never been cheaper or easier to get hold of, in short prohibition doesn't work. Surely the solution should be for the state to be involved in the supply and distribution of drugs in a controlled way thus removing crime (and all that goes with it) from the equation.
Prostitution likewise.

I'd like to see more discussions and maybe a limited adoption of different and new ideas to find out what is truly effective. This would actually be the most efficient use of our tax payers money. As we have seen on this thread, the reflex of some is to blame the poor for being poor (lazy etc) and to want to penalise them. This gets us nowhere and the benefits system that we have does has many poverty traps (like the fact that it would take someone on UC 8 hours to earn the extra £20 that is being removed). Surely we can do better than this - we are certainly rich enough, but we may have to leave some of our pre-existing prejudices behind.

I’ll check out the book

 

[Newholland]

I think that generally governments should be using the available evidence to drive policy making instead of gut instinct and prejudice. The book I mention is quite a one sided promotion of a minimum wage for all without means testing and details the studies that have been done that show that a scheme like this actually frees people and can generate economic income.
The first study mentioned was when rough sleepers were given ~£2000 each with no strings attached. A large proportion of those people managed (perhaps surprisingly) to use the money to haul themselves out of poverty and off the streets, and a proportion became tax paying citizens who contribute to the economy. Would an approach like this be better (and cheaper) than what we do currently?
The war on drugs is another area ripe for reform - what we are doing just doesn't work. Repeating mantras to look tough like 'the war on drugs' achieves exactly nothing. Drugs have never been cheaper or easier to get hold of, in short prohibition doesn't work. Surely the solution should be for the state to be involved in the supply and distribution of drugs in a controlled way thus removing crime (and all that goes with it) from the equation.
Prostitution likewise.

I'd like to see more discussions and maybe a limited adoption of different and new ideas to find out what is truly effective. This would actually be the most efficient use of our tax payers money. As we have seen on this thread, the reflex of some is to blame the poor for being poor (lazy etc) and to want to penalise them. This gets us nowhere and the benefits system that we have does has many poverty traps (like the fact that it would take someone on UC 8 hours to earn the extra £20 that is being removed). Surely we can do better than this - we are certainly rich enough, but we may have to leave some of our pre-existing prejudices behind.

Not sure that’s the way to go but I take your point re something has to change, and there is no harm in a trial.

 

[ElBurroSinNombre]

Not sure that’s the way to go but I take your point re something has to change, and there is no harm in a trial.

I'm not sure whether it would work either but I am interested in new ideas. The interesting thing that the book highlights is that by guaranteeing a non means tested minimum income, it can free people to do stuff like getting educated for a job or taking part time employment if you have child care duties or just doing a little extra to get by. The current system stops this because as soon as you take a step towards changing your circumstances it effects your income (benefits), usually negatively. Penalising initiative like this is not a good way to help people progress out of poverty.

 

[ElBurroSinNombre]

The trouble is, that if any politician was brave enough to experiment with these ideas it would immediately provoke a backlash - skivers charter, money for nothing, work doesn't pay etc. I would prefer an evidence based approach rather than the gut reaction approach to policy.

 

[Newholland]

The trouble is, that if any politician was brave enough to experiment with these ideas it would immediately provoke a backlash - skivers charter, money for nothing, work doesn't pay etc. I would prefer an evidence based approach rather than the gut reaction approach to policy.

Get what your saying. Entrenched politics is real problem, sadly the current political landscape doesn’t look likely to change anytime soon.

 

[Chunkylad]

I think that generally governments should be using the available evidence to drive policy making instead of gut instinct and prejudice. The book I mention is quite a one sided promotion of a minimum wage for all without means testing and details the studies that have been done that show that a scheme like this actually frees people and can generate economic income.
The first study mentioned was when rough sleepers were given ~£2000 each with no strings attached. A large proportion of those people managed (perhaps surprisingly) to use the money to haul themselves out of poverty and off the streets, and a proportion became tax paying citizens who contribute to the economy. Would an approach like this be better (and cheaper) than what we do currently?
The war on drugs is another area ripe for reform - what we are doing just doesn't work. Repeating mantras to look tough like 'the war on drugs' achieves exactly nothing. Drugs have never been cheaper or easier to get hold of, in short prohibition doesn't work. Surely the solution should be for the state to be involved in the supply and distribution of drugs in a controlled way thus removing crime (and all that goes with it) from the equation.
Prostitution likewise.

I'd like to see more discussions and maybe a limited adoption of different and new ideas to find out what is truly effective. This would actually be the most efficient use of our tax payers money. As we have seen on this thread, the reflex of some is to blame the poor for being poor (lazy etc) and to want to penalise them. This gets us nowhere and the benefits system that we have does has many poverty traps (like the fact that it would take someone on UC 8 hours to earn the extra £20 that is being removed). Surely we can do better than this - we are certainly rich enough, but we may have to leave some of our pre-existing prejudices behind.

Good post.
I would love to see a more progressive approach to crime and minimum wage although I remember last time we debated it it ultimately came down to taxation again.
You would have to fund businesses in the sectors that require min wage Labour as an increase would impact on their profit margins. It’s not beyond the wit of economists to calculate where that lies and how it should be distributed.

Certainly the drug war is a joke and can’t be won. Demand for social drugs is too high to kill it off so why not tax it? Again I’d love to see a study that removed social stigma and basically calculates the cost of policing and health care for social drugs versus legalising it and supplying low cost but taxed.
Problem will always be that these decisions are not made on economic grounds but on emotional or political basis.

“Legalise heroin” but how can you, it kills so many people and ruins lives.
Yes it does, but so does alcohol. Also criminalising heroin hasn’t stopped the supply or demand one bit.

I don’t know the answer but it will go round and around until a radical change is attempted.

 

[Lytham_fy8]

Good post.
I would love to see a more progressive approach to crime and minimum wage although I remember last time we debated it it ultimately came down to taxation again.
You would have to fund businesses in the sectors that require min wage Labour as an increase would impact on their profit margins. It’s not beyond the wit of economists to calculate where that lies and how it should be distributed.

Certainly the drug war is a joke and can’t be won. Demand for social drugs is too high to kill it off so why not tax it? Again I’d love to see a study that removed social stigma and basically calculates the cost of policing and health care for social drugs versus legalising it and supplying low cost but taxed.
Problem will always be that these decisions are not made on economic grounds but on emotional or political basis.

“Legalise heroin” but how can you, it kills so many people and ruins lives.
Yes it does, but so does alcohol. Also criminalising heroin hasn’t stopped the supply or demand one bit.

I don’t know the answer but it will go round and around until a radical change is attempted.

Just decriminalise weed, the results from the US states are very encouraging and there's a whole line of tax revenue ready to tap in to there, let alone the wasted (pun intended) police hours etc...

 

[1966_and_all_that]

I’m 79 next month, I work full time to keep my wife and I just about ok, but it’s a struggle. That’s after I had a successful business and a net worth of £2 million pounds 15 years ago before it all went pear shaped.

I know plenty who are playing the system to get benefits, so forgive me if I don’t feel any sympathy. They should get off there arses and do some work.

Yes, I love my country.

I've said it before Mates, don't tar all people claiming benefits with the same brush. The overwhelming majority need those benefits. Cat is right about the reduction adding to difficulties for many people. I also fully understand that you love your country and sympathise for your stated plight.

 

[Chunkylad]

Just decriminalise weed, the results from the US states are very encouraging and there's a whole line of tax revenue ready to tap in to there, let alone the wasted (pun intended) police hours etc...

Not too many crimes committed by stoners. My TV and garage are safe as they’re too wasted to carry it. My fridge is the only thing at risk

 

[EagleDay]

On a more serious note, I feel that the systems that the state uses whether it be the benefit system, the judicial system or the war on drugs need reform and some unorthodox thinking. On this board and generally we tend to rehearse the same arguments with both sides advocating approaches that often don't work very well.
The book below is about tackling poverty by the introduction of a basic minimum income for all with no means testing. It's an interesting idea and the book is well worth a read;

Utopia for Realists - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Not sure whether it would work, but no political party of the current day will go anywhere near this. Maybe it's an idea that will have its day.

Maybe if they was to look at some of the past systems that worked and reintroduced
them would be a start. eg instead of getting applicants to sit in front of a computer for a few hours give them guaranteed interviews in posts that suit their abilities.

 

[Lytham_fy8]

Not too many crimes committed by stoners. My TV and garage are safe as they’re too wasted to carry it. My fridge is the only thing at risk

Lots of police hours spent on dealers though.

 

[Junior_BentsPlatformShoes]

It's the system that's at fault - the e-food voucher scheme that was set up to ensure our vulnerable children got fed during lock-downs and school holidays was open to massive abuse as this article illustrates ( Sorry it's the Mirror, lazy Googling). Why allow parents to buy anything but food with them?

Parents trying to buy beer with school meal vouchers 'abuse Asda staff'

The vouchers were designed to replace lunches kids were missing out on while schools were closed, parents don't seem to always understand that

www.mirror.co.uk

And even the food parcels we were given at school, all hand delivered to people's door steps by staff in their cars (without claiming fuel costs) was a joke - they were like a bag you'd give a master chef contestant to see what they could cobble together out of random ingredients. Not to mention a lot of parents receiving them wouldn't have a clue what to do with a turnip etc. as they've lived off processed food.

The money was there for children in poverty, the problem was it didn't find its way to them in a way that would have stopped them being hungry. Unfortunately as well, we've entitled money grabbing lazy-arsed people at both ends of the spectrum who abuse the system.

 

[Chunkylad]

Lots of police hours spent on dealers though.

I’m all for it. Spent a lot of time in Den Haag and most locals don’t care either way.
As you said, the US story is very interesting- one by one each state has analysed what the other states have done, then decided to move to decriminalisation

 

[Matesrates]

I've said it before Mates, don't tar all people claiming benefits with the same brush. The overwhelming majority need those benefits. Cat is right about the reduction adding to difficulties for many people. I also fully understand that you love your country and sympathise for your stated plight.

Thanks, but don’t worry about me, I’ve accepted my situation and done something about it, namely got a job

 

[Newholland]

I'm not sure whether it would work either but I am interested in new ideas. The interesting thing that the book highlights is that by guaranteeing a non means tested minimum income, it can free people to do stuff like getting educated for a job or taking part time employment if you have child care duties or just doing a little extra to get by. The current system stops this because as soon as you take a step towards changing your circumstances it effects your income (benefits), usually negatively. Penalising initiative like this is not a good way to help people progress out of poverty.

Just done some calculations on my own business, using the 15hr/ week/ Catinstalbans minimum £10/hr and current average 35hr week.(£350/week) My produce would have to increase by 252% to cover the extra labour.

 

[ElBurroSinNombre]

Just done some calculations on my own business, using the 15hr/ week/ Catinstalbans minimum £10/hr and current average 35hr week.(£350/week) My produce would have to increase by 252% to cover the extra labour.

What do you mean - extra labour for what?
The book also talks about increasing automation which are (and will) replace many jobs in the future.
If you are interested in the ideas I would read the book and then perhaps we can talk more about it.

 

[Newholland]

What do you mean - extra labour for what?
The book also talks about increasing automation which are (and will) replace many jobs in the future.
If you are interested in the ideas I would read the book and then perhaps we can talk more about it.

The extra labour to cover the current labour hours worked ie reduction in hours worked for existing staff, sorry if that wasn’t clear. Automation ie robots etc we have tried and found running costs and downtime difficult to justify. All industries are different but horticulture and agriculture aren’t easily adaptable but our food does represent a substantial and important part of household budgets. Don’t get me wrong I’m not trying to be obstructive or negative, it’s just my mind immediately focuses on practical matters.

 

[catinstalbans]

Portugal on drugs policy.
Finland on education.
Norway on criminal justice and arguably on welfare if UBI is seen as too big a step at this stage.
Finland's trial on UBI had gains on health and well being (less stress) but inconclusive on getting people into employment, though there was equally no upsurge in people not taking jobs either.
Progressive and successful policies are out there, but our corrupt government only want to look to right wing US models such as the absolutely disastrous proposals for teacher training.

 

[Chunkylad]

Portugal on drugs policy.
Finland on education.
Norway on criminal justice and arguably on welfare if UBI is seen as too big a step at this stage.
Finland's trial on UBI had gains on health and well being (less stress) but inconclusive on getting people into employment, though there was equally no upsurge in people not taking jobs either.
Progressive and successful policies are out there, but our corrupt government only want to look to right wing US models such as the absolutely disastrous proposals for teacher training.

Good post. If you just remove the last paragraph as it detracts from your good post.
We know you dont like the Govt and for me they’re inept but no more corrupt than any Tory govt (possibly even less as most are too inept to get away with it) just don’t keep repeating the same message