to explain more simply the interest of UNCONDITIONAL basic income. if you have an income that is not removed if you work and get paid, whatever it is, then you have no incentive not to work, and much incentive to work, even for cheap, but never if it is not productive. In this way basic income, unlike charity, promote work, but not absurd work, only productive work. This answer the catholic fear that people get lasy. People are mostly rational, for local decision.
take from another perspective, if you subsidize poor, you multiply poor, and reduce rich. if you subsidized unemployed, you multiply unemployed, and deter workers, in a relative way (you motivate less). if you subsidize obsolete industry, or industry done by less trained people in poorer countries, you multiply obsolete industry, deter modern industry, deter trained workers in rich countries, and promote low competence workers in rich countries, while detering induistry in place where it is the cheapest and people are not trained enough... the good way to judge policy is not through morality, but through incentive network. this way of analysing situation is valuable too for cold fusion, as it clear explains the groupthink that emerged rationally around LENR evidences. there was big subsidize for hotfusion, that were bigger because it was more expensive. matching subsidies with cost motivate people to propose higher costs. this is why you should not subsidize relative to the cost (the need of the poor, the need of big science), but fixed, unconditional, or at best to the opportunities. science is also subsidized if consensual, and if you integarte that publishing an article have much value for a scientist, then peer review process, and high impact journal decide of a network of subsidies. Current peer review by consensu tha promote high impact journal promote that money get to money, I mean citation index goes to citation index. people always forget that conditional subsidizes is a punishing tax on not deserving the subsidies. 2016-02-18 20:12 GMT+01:00 H LV <hveeder...@gmail.com>: > > from > > > http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/welfare/2016/02/how-i-learnt-stop-worrying-and-love-basic-income > > > How I learnt to stop worrying and love Basic Income > > John McDonnell's decision to consider moving to the benefit is the right > one, says Jonathan Reynolds. > > The > first time Basic Income was pitched to me I have to admit I thought it > sounded completely unrealistic. An unconditional payment to each > individual, to support their full lives, whether working, studying, caring > or being cared for? I remember sitting in Stalybridge Labour Club with a > beer after a meeting, when my friend Gordon introduced me to the concept. > “How else,” asked Gordon, “will we ensure sufficient support for people as > they have to retrain throughout their working lives - not just for several > different jobs, but for several different careers?”. > > Gordon’s question is the right one, and it stuck with me. My outlook on > politics is fundamentally shaped by my experience of growing up in the > North East in the 1980s. The closure of entire industries, like coal and > shipbuilding, had dramatic and fundamental consequences for the areas built > around them. The same is true of the tragic situation in the steel industry > today. I still believe the Thatcher Government’s abject response to > deindustrialisation lies at the heart of many of the problems the UK faces > today, such as low skills, worklessness, poor public health and so on. The > UK spent a fraction of what a country like Sweden spent on education and > retraining as traditional industries declined, and we have suffered the > consequences. > > But what should the left’s response be to this sort of seismic economic > change? The traditional response, calling for the nationalisation of > failing industries, doesn’t solve the problem. Running an industry at a > loss because it is subsidised by the taxpayer is not a long-term answer. > Globalisation means it was inevitable that the UK would have to exit some > traditional industries – I wouldn’t fancy bringing back the cotton mills to > Stalybridge, for instance – and education and retraining to take part in > new economic opportunities is the only solution. But as technology and the > growth of the MINT countries brings ever more economic disruption, as well > as opportunity, we must have a mechanism to provide people with both > security and a platform from which to be able to access these new > opportunities. Basic Income would do just that. This is the first of my > three justifications for backing it – as a policy to cope with inevitable > but fundamental economic change. > > The second justification concerns our existing welfare state. I have > always been taken aback by the bewildering complexity of our welfare > system. The Child Poverty Action Group Benefits Handbook, which like many > MPs I use to help constituents, is bigger than my copy of the Bible. The > modern evolution of the welfare state – conditionality, sanctions, and > adults being forced to fill in job search diaries as if they were in > primary school – I find unconscionable. I don’t deny there are a small > group of people who do need a kick up the arse. There are also people who > definitely need to access some support to get back into work, especially > with numeracy and literacy. But why should this be punitive? A system > which sanctions war veterans for selling poppies, or a person for attending > job interview, is both ridiculous and counter-productive. And that’s > before we consider the fundamental problem of our current benefits system – > how to taper off benefits when someone does return to work to ensure there > is an incentive to work and not a “benefits trap”. > > The Government’s answer is universal credit. Having been one of the > pathfinder areas for universal credit, I’m afraid they will be > disappointed. Thanks to George Osborne, universal credit will not now offer > the kind of work incentives it was hoped it would, but the real problem is > that it still cannot cope with the real nature of people’s working lives. > There is not, as much as some Tory MPs would claim there is, a big group of > people who never work and then a larger group who pay their taxes to > support these people. Instead, many people move frequently into and out of > work, because the work they can get is short-term, or insecure, or because > the other responsibilities in their lives cause complications. The benefits > system simply cannot cope with these people, and nothing I have seen > suggests universal credit will be a solution to that. As an example, not > only is universal credit designed to be paid four weeks after a claim is > made (on the huge assumption that everyone is paid monthly in arrears and > so will have four weeks wages to tide them over), if a claim for universal > credit is made too early, and the claimant receives their final pay packet > after lodging the claim, they can wait as much as 11 weeks before receiving > a penny. It is not surprise that foodbanks are booming. There are also > huge questions regarding conditionality as the nature of work changes: if > technology like Uber creates a hypothetically unlimited amount of > self-employed work, how will conditionality work? Will every job seeker be > forced to do self-employed work in exchange for their meagre support? It’s > a problem which is almost upon us now. > > My third, and final, reason for backing Basic Income is far simpler. I > object to the levels of poverty in this country and believe them to be an > indefensible waste of talent and resources. I wonder how many successful > businesses, or technological inventions, or medical breakthroughs, we miss > out upon because we do not give enough people the platform from which they > might fulfil their potential. Just think how more competitive the UK might > be in the global economy if we stopped doing this? In a recent answer > during Women and Equalities questions in the House of Commons, Nicky Morgan > defended the government’s redefinition of child poverty to me on the basis > that Government must tackle the ‘root causes of poverty’, which for her > where educational failure and worklessness. I certainly agree these should > be tackled. But what also struck me about this answer was that it > essentially returned to a Victorian definition of poverty, i.e. that > poverty is a result of character defects or personal problems. It is a > position that pre-dates the work of Charles Booth and Seebohm Rowntree in > 1903. There is no Conservative understanding of the person who works two or > three jobs but is still low paid, or who has had a successful career for > many years but then fallen on hard times. Our current response to a scale > of these problems is simply insufficient. > > There are many issues still to resolve about Basic Income, such as how to > give additional support to those with disabilities, and how to tackle the > chronic British problem with housing benefit when we simply do not have > sufficient houses. We would also need to consider how long economic > immigrants would have to be in the UK before they became eligible. But I am > convinced that many fundamental problems in the UK – be it dealing with > economic change, work incentives, poverty or a lack of competitiveness – > could be tackled in this way. I also think it provides an answer to one of > the perennial questions for the Labour Party - how is it that the public > loves the NHS yet resents the benefits system? The answer is, I believe, > that the NHS provides something for everybody. So should the rest of the > welfare state - providing again real social security for all. Moderates > within the Labour Party shouldn’t be afraid to embrace radical ideas. I’m > coming out for Basic Income. > > Johathan Reynolds is Labour/Coop MP for Stalybridge and Hyde, member of > the BIS Select Committee and incoming Chair of Christians on the Left. > >
