Dev’s K in this case : –

“No, it’s withdrawal of benefits, i.e. money given to the illustrated family by other people (who are taxed to the hilt anyway) so the this family can afford their kids”

That’s certainly one way of looking at it.
Alternatively “so that the future of society is secured by a stable demographic profile”.
Or “so that children aren’t put at risk by catastrophic family events”
Or even “so the bodies don’t pile up in the streets”.

Children aren’t possessions to be afforded.

Also the consequences to the economy of the rate of childbirth reducing to an “affordable” level would be far more dangerous than the maintenance of the still pitifully low levels of state support currently grudgingly and inefficiently provided.

Perhaps. And perhaps someone who isn’t young or physically able and who has to look after children couldn’t. I don’t think we should assume that people whose benefits have been cut (if that’s what the CBI would amount to for some) will automatically be able to promptly get a job. Throw in free childcare for all, though, and you’re a significant part of the way towards convincing me. An adjustment for the significant differences in costs of living between regions too, because it’s not just rents that are higher in London – everything else is more expensive too.

“why should taxpayers pay for my lifestyle if the only thing stopping me is that I’m unwilling?”

But that would still happen with a CBI, perhaps more so in fact, if monetary benefits aren’t lower and all the stigma and hassle of being unemployed and relying on JSA is removed.

“And the CBI money is sufficient, even without working, to afford shared private housing (of which there’s a glut at the moment), or family social housing (with a flat child payment). Aussies and Kiwis manage it. Why shouldn’t Brits?”

What, single Aussies and Kiwis are living in London on £100 a week? All the ones I’ve ever met have jobs, which I imagine they find easier to get than your average unemployed council tenant because they’re young and skilled, plus they usually come with significant savings or the promise of a bail-out from home if things are hard, plus they don’t usually have children. No, again, this is not a good example: I can certainly see the attractions of the CBI in principle, but it doesn’t fill me with confidence if its proponents are only looking at the impact on those least likely to be affected.

Asolutely right, although this below sounds like a bit of a non sequitur to me. A sort of rich bashing for the hell of it.

“On necessarily limited expenditure budgets, the *unwilling to work are taking money directly from people who can least afford it*: say, single mothers who would like to work but find there are no Sure Start places nearby. That seems, not leftist, but Darwinian to me; *the biggest bastards thrive, fuck everyone else*”

DK

On necessarily limited expenditure budgets, the unwilling to work are taking money directly from people who can least afford it: say, single mothers who would like to work but find there are no Sure Start places nearby. That seems, not leftist, but Darwinian to me; the biggest bastards thrive, fuck everyone else. A CBI also removes the nonsensical situation of benefit withdrawal, which leaves people right now working 30 hour weeks for an effective 1.50 an hour… Aside from those who won’t work, and assuming those in real need like the disabled will have all their (non-monetary) requirements taken care of, who exactly is going to be left destitute?

Because in social rented housing there isn’t the trade off between price and quality of area that you get in the private sector. For this reason and because there’s a massive scarcity of social housing in general in London, there can be no market for it. Cut people’s incomes by introducing a CBI (and for many it will be an income cut), and you’ll be forcing poor people to either (a) move en masse to other regions of the country or (b) to take up any job they can find, no matter how badly paid, which pushes the balance of power firmly back in favour of employers, exactly the opposite of the intended effect.

By the way, I’m unconvinced by the assertion that there’s loads of decent jobs out there, particularly as the only example given so far is one which only the most able bodied and reckless could consider.

[James Earl Jones]

Ah, Jarndyce. Yet another step closer to the dark side. Join the right wing. It is your destiny.

[/James Earl Jones]

This may seem a minor point, and even a little off topic, but – damn! – I had to pick it up. What it shows is a total lack of original thinking. At what stage, exactly, did we decide that University is automatically the best option?

With the current spate of reports (yes, I’ll try to find links) showing how low the financial benefits of going to University are (in many cases, especially Arts, rather lower over a lifetime than the present cost of going), why are we still assuming that tertiary education – especially in our debased and poor-value University system – is the best thing?

I’m a graphic designer: I learnt “on the job”, as it were, in a printers (I’m a bright guy from a middle-class family, went to Eton, dropped out of my Microbiology course. Because I was bright enough to realise what I’m about to amplify). Now, I realise that this will mean little to anyone outside this industry, but I’ve had to explain – to University-educated designers – what a spot colour is. This is a bit like you having to tell your electrician how to wire a plug. And that’s not even the most heinous instance of ignorance amongst the tertiary-educated idiots that I’ve come across. Believe me, if you think that comprehensive school teachers are bad – and many (most?) are – Uni lecturers are, in many cases, considerably worse (mainly because they are hired primarily to research, not to teach). Universities have stuff all to do with meritocracy.

On topic, in order to maximise benefits of a flat rate tax, the whole system has to be changed. You know this 91.5% marginal tax rate? Is it marginal tax rate? No, it’s withdrawal of benefits, i.e. money given to the illustrated family by other people (who are taxed to the hilt anyway) so the this family can afford their kids. Let me clarify: I, as a single man, pay exorbitant Council Tax to pay for this family’s kids’ nursery. I pay exorbitant rates of tax on my personal income, the business income and my workers’ income, to benefit a couple so that they can afford to have children and (presumably) live in a house rather bigger than my one bedroom flat.

We are not talking about marginal tax rates here: we are talking about withdrawal of unearned income. No, hang on: it’s earned by someone else, and given, unearned, to our hypothetical family. So, were we to sweep away the entire benefits system and replace it with a CBI, we would automatically lose this 91.5% marginal tax rate rubbish.

There are things to be ironed out, but my economic revolution is taking place here, here, here and here. There is also a post on VAT, which I will have to rethink, and a couple of posts on Inheritance Tax here (with a Trackback to Jarndyce’s comment), and my reply here.

DK

Why? My partner was born and bred in Camden Town. But she can’t live there anymore because it’s too pricey, so we shopped around (which I was glad of – I hate Camden). What’s the big deal?

_I didn’t think there were that many suicidal sociopaths_

Well, it worked for me. I didn’t fancy it much at first to be honest. But in the end it’s a responsibility for everyone to provide for themselves, as a first best option. The second best option, the state, is supposed to be for those who can’t not those who won’t, whether because they think delivering mail beneath them or whatever. The less scroungers taking the piss on “disability”, the more SureStart nurseries for people who actually need them.

_I’ve no doubt that if you abolished the minimum wage there would be sufficient shitty, barely-paid jobs in London_

There are plenty already, whether we get rid of the minimum wage or not, something which I’d only countenance if the power relationship at work was rebalanced a little, with a CBI giving workers a credible threat to leave.