My point was simply that the cost of any form of unconditional income is not "population * amount given out", as with that maths the cost of £2k/year to everyone of working age would be over 80 rather than 30 billion. I'm not arguing that even small forms of unconditional income would be free, but the system is not as expensive as made out.
> 3% rise in taxes on all workers
A 3% rise in tax revenue, how that affects people will depend on how it's applied (changes to tax on businesses, for example).
We must consider at least
* Knockon effects of changing the tax thresholds / amounts
* Benefits that are being paid out that no longer need to be
* Changes in employment when people have a more reliable safety net
For example, with the £6k case, we can now remove JSA, ESA, Incapacity Benefit and Income Support I think at the least. That's about £20B we can knock off, while increasing the amount those people receive and removing the problems that come with things like benefits sanctions. The UK spends about £85B on welfare other than the state pension, and any of that spending that gets people's income up to £6k is completely covered already.
I would like to see more involved analysis for specific figures to know what the true cost might be.
> (no pensioners or children)
Children, yes, but any pensioners claiming more than this sum in state pension don't cost more.
> Also, in this case you literally wouldn't help any poor wage earners at all, since a minimum wage job in the UK is already making more than £10k.
Full time workers, true, but several forms of benefits now are restricted to those working fewer than 16 hours. A 20yo could be earning less than £4300 (£5.13 * 16 * 52).
Not a great source, but precise figures here aren't too important:
> 3% rise in taxes on all workers
A 3% rise in tax revenue, how that affects people will depend on how it's applied (changes to tax on businesses, for example).
We must consider at least
* Knockon effects of changing the tax thresholds / amounts
* Benefits that are being paid out that no longer need to be
* Changes in employment when people have a more reliable safety net
For example, with the £6k case, we can now remove JSA, ESA, Incapacity Benefit and Income Support I think at the least. That's about £20B we can knock off, while increasing the amount those people receive and removing the problems that come with things like benefits sanctions. The UK spends about £85B on welfare other than the state pension, and any of that spending that gets people's income up to £6k is completely covered already.
I would like to see more involved analysis for specific figures to know what the true cost might be.
> (no pensioners or children)
Children, yes, but any pensioners claiming more than this sum in state pension don't cost more.
> Also, in this case you literally wouldn't help any poor wage earners at all, since a minimum wage job in the UK is already making more than £10k.
Full time workers, true, but several forms of benefits now are restricted to those working fewer than 16 hours. A 20yo could be earning less than £4300 (£5.13 * 16 * 52).
Not a great source, but precise figures here aren't too important:
http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/jan/08/uk-bene...