|
https://twitter.com/jimwaterson/status/1268847513315966977?s=20
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 11:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 17:09 |
|
|
Jose posted:good thread on why this policy and rhetoric is loving stupid You say that, but she uses 'safety net' rhetoric, which was exactly the Tory rhetoric supporting means testing. I wish Labour was supporting full UBI right now, obviously, but moving towards universalism and away from safety net language is a start.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 11:12
|
|
|
Oh dear me posted:You say that, but she uses 'safety net' rhetoric, which was exactly the Tory rhetoric supporting means testing. Safety nets aren't selective, though. They're loving nets. They cushion anyone who drops into them. They don't require anyone to fill out a form first to see if they're eligible to hit the net rather than the floor.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 11:16
|
|
|
Darth Walrus posted:They don't require anyone to fill out a form first to see if they're eligible to hit the net rather than the floor. You have to fill in the form so they can assess your proximity to the floor. It has always meant means testing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 11:18
|
|
|
Oh dear me posted:You say that, but she uses 'safety net' rhetoric, which was exactly the Tory rhetoric supporting means testing. Kier is supporting whatever is politically convienient, no surprise to anynone.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 11:23
|
|
|
I'm torn about UBI. Mainly because I worry that if it was introduced under the Tories (lol) or bad-Labour, it would be far too low to be useful, and also used an a get out of jail free for all social matters by said parties to replace all existing benefits "Please help, I lost my job and can't pay my rent" "Why not? You get £7,000 a year UBI just like everybody else, and they're managing" "Please help, my specific disability needs cost more than the UBI" "Stop moaning, you get £7,000 a year UBI just like everybody else, you don't want ~~special treatment~~ do you?  "I'd want it to look something like this: - UBI is £25,000 a year - People in £50,000 a year jobs are now in £25,000 a year jobs, plus UBI - These people's employers now pay an extra £25,000-ish in payroll tax for those employees - People in £15,000 a year jobs now get the UBI, and the employer will need to pay them something substantial if they want them to keep working - Something something handwavy tax system to make the previous step work (i.e. that employer will have to pay tax on top of the <£15,000 salary) - Kill all landlords, public housing rented at a sane proportion of £25,000 - Needs-based provision for disabilities etc, without horrible tests of course E: this is explicitly designed to slot into the current system, and appease the "where will the X-billion a year come from, eh??" types. I'm sure there are better ways if we work without those constraints. Bobstar fucked around with this message at 11:30 on Jun 5, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 11:27
|
|
|
The difference between the headline and the content of the article is illuminating, as is the trend for Labour (or, as has been pointed out, those who digest and report on them) to write headlines which seem significantly righter-wing than the substance actually is, even if that substance is a shift rightwards in comparison to the policy under Corbyn. Speaking for myself, it's the timing that frustrates me more than the policy. If this was coming out of the New Labour or Coalition era I'd think this all sounded great. But the fact that there's been much more coherent policy and less lovely rhetoric on offer previously makes it bitter to see. As does the fact that this is coming just weeks out of Corbyn's four-year stint and at a time when there's real impetus and interest in (and need for) a more universal and useful, and far less judgemental benefits system. Which, of course, is just the right time for Labour to start being cautious and 'sensible'.... I know my wishy-washy incrementalist side is coming out when I think that 'at least this would be better than what we have now' when one of the biggest things reading this thread over the years has made me realise that any improvements you make while still acting on your opponent's terms aren't really improvements, and even if they are they won't stick. That said, the this could be talking about a system similar to the German one, where they pay significantly more for their equivalent of NI but get a high percentage of their wage as benefit for 12 months (24 months if they've been employed for a very long time, IIRC) if they've been employed for a period before claiming. Outside of that, they have a UC-like standard payment which has various no-quibble bolt-ons so you get significantly more if you live with a partner, more if you have kids etc. etc. The system also pays your health insurance (not relevant here...yet). I believe there are some means-tested elements like housing and utility costs.I think there are also rather IDS-like reasons you can be kicked off the salary-related scheme and onto the UC-like one, but that can't be stopped for you and the right to receive it is in the constitution. Is it perfect? Definitely not. Would it be better than the systems New Labour and the Coalition put in place - probably. Is that a reason alone to support it? Possibly not.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 11:27
|
|
|
Bobstar posted:I'm torn about UBI. Mainly because I worry that if it was introduced under the Tories (lol) or bad-Labour, it would be far too low to be useful, and also used an a get out of jail free for all social matters by said parties to replace all existing benefits £25k a year is loads. Rents would shoot up around here if they were tied to that per person income.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 11:33
|
|
|
BalloonFish posted:The difference between the headline and the content of the article is illuminating, as is the trend for Labour (or, as has been pointed out, those who digest and report on them) to write headlines which seem significantly righter-wing than the substance actually is, even if that substance is a shift rightwards in comparison to the policy under Corbyn.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 11:36
|
|
|
sassassin posted:£25k a year is loads. Rents would shoot up around here if they were tied to that per person income. That’s why one of the points was “kill all landlords”?
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 11:39
|
|
|
Darth Walrus posted:Safety nets aren't selective, though. They're loving nets. They cushion anyone who drops into them. They don't require anyone to fill out a form first to see if they're eligible to hit the net rather than the floor. Oh dear me posted:You have to fill in the form so they can assess your proximity to the floor. It has always meant means testing. safety net rhetoric justifies things like the savings cap in UC. if you've still got £15k in the bank you've not fallen yet. have to burn through your life savings first before the state will support you.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 11:41
|
|
|
Cerv posted:exactly what if you have 3-4k in the bank
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 11:49
|
|
|
Oh dear me posted:I don't like the rhetoric, but if you look at the actual policy proposals they are about getting rid of means tests, which seems good. If they're trying to use National Insurance arguments to restore Universality, I'll wince a bit but I'll take it. They're about getting rid of means tests during the Covid crisis, ie when real people need to claim UC. As soon as it's back to just the cripples and scroungers then we can go right back to the good old days an alleged labour mp posted:I think the income threshold, the means-tested bit of Universal Credit should go during the crisis, because if you've been saving for a housing deposit or substantial item, you of course could end up with no eligibility at all because of that, or at least more likely have a substantially reduced entitlement This has nothing to do with universality. It's about inconvenience to people well off enough to consider buying a house prior to the pandemic
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 12:03
|
|
|
Bobstar posted:I'm torn about UBI. Mainly because I worry that if it was introduced under the Tories (lol) or bad-Labour, it would be far too low to be useful, and also used an a get out of jail free for all social matters by said parties to replace all existing benefits
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 12:03
|
|
|
Yeah universal basic services has a better argument for it both under social science and actual worked examples, like the NHS (when properly funded) and education (until 18) and residential water (in NI) and all the municipal services. Going back to Maslow's bad hierarchy distinctions, if it's necessary to sustain human life, there's a case for making it universal as a service. Some UBI ideas are good though, giving people enough that they can feed themselves, ideally from Co-Operative Co-Partnership stores rather than for-profits, sounds better than a National Huel Service.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 12:10
|
|
|
There's some decent points in the specific proposals, severely watered down by wrapping them up in a shift towards contribution based benefits which are a massive gently caress you to migrants, the disabled and the young, and then all dressed up in strivers/skivers rhetoric "to win back public trust, we need to completely endorse the Tory narrative, but we'd do it much better than the Tories you guys I swear" (last bit probably true given the specific proposals, but it's still triangulation of the worst kind & likely completely ineffective)
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 12:12
|
|
|
I have a growing need to propose a theme for an episode for the podcast to look at, where would be the best place to do that?
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 12:21
|
|
|
yeah the corollary of you ought to get more out if you put more in is that you ought to get less out if you put less in, which is not a great mindset (even if there is some contribution linked stuff already) the stuff on young people is also suspect imho quote:UC is a system designed for high employment, Reynolds says, whereas we will likely see more applicants than vacancies in any recession. He would therefore like to see the DWP take a less punitive approach, with a particular focus on supporting young people. e: and tbf maybe some sub-sub-minimum wage apprenticeship schemes learning how to stack shelves XMNN fucked around with this message at 12:31 on Jun 5, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 12:28
|
|
|
TACD posted:As I understand it, this is part of the argument for providing universal basic services instead of income. If you're directly guaranteeing the provision of food, shelter, and medicine then the providers of those services can't play silly buggers with the price to exclude people. Good point, and to roll in sassassin's point too, if you do that then the headline cash figure doesn't need to be so high (and I did just pluck that out of the air as being considerably higher than benefits - though real living wage is just under £20,000 if you assume 40h a week, 22.3k in London) And that's very doable too. We already have the medicine, at least in principle. Housing we agree on (could be free at point of use or token rent). Food - I guess current supermarkets aren't the most absolutely terrible example of a market (high praise I know) in that they provide food and kind of compete (moreso than utilities, trains, or US health providers). But I also like the British restaurant idea we talked about in an earlier thread. Transport - Luxembourg's done it And yes, if everybody gets used to these tangible free things, they would hopefully be harder to take away. E: just remembered my actual point: if you wanted the UBS but not the UBI, you could have income benefits like the current furlough scheme, where they pay 70-90% of your wage. But with a nice high floor. They have something like that in some Scandinavian countries (I've just read), but it looks like you have to pay into a voluntary scheme, otherwise you get the measly basic one. Bobstar fucked around with this message at 12:50 on Aug 12, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 12:29
|
|
|
A world-beating system!!
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 12:36
|
|
|
Bobby Deluxe posted:I have a growing need to propose a theme for an episode for the podcast to look at, where would be the best place to do that?  or join us on the discord!
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 12:37
|
|
|
Bobstar posted:Good point, and to roll in sassassin's point too, if you do that then the headline cash figure doesn't need to be so high (and I did just pluck that out of the air as being considerably higher than benefits - though real living wage is just under £20,000 if you assume 40h a week, 22.3k in London) Then you can let them out at either a token rate that's just enough to cover the fees, interest on the bonds, and a common maintenance pool, or at a higher rate typical for the local area that also allows the renter to build equity on the property they're renting. It does run the risk of ending up a bit right-to-buyish but once it starts rolling instead of housing benefit flowing from the state to landlords most people currently on assistance could afford the basic rate, or if they do require support it'll be kept in the fund, and once landlords see the writing on the wall you wouldn't even need courts and compulsory purchase to capture more properties for the fund. Common Ground Trusts are also a great non-state solution to more land being in the Commons while still providing housing. No reason you can't do both. Same with the Scandinavian voluntary schemes for unemployment insurance. There's a divide between the good rate and 'basic' but it's driven by trade union membership, it's not like there's private insurance companies 'competing' for the individual's insurance.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 12:44
|
|
|
TACD posted:As I understand it, this is part of the argument for providing universal basic services instead of income. If you're directly guaranteeing the provision of food, shelter, and medicine then the providers of those services can't play silly buggers with the price to exclude people. Applied to shelter, medicine, and utilities this is cool. But once you add in food, if you don't remove cash benefits the Tories soon will. And people do need more than food, shelter and medicine in life. I'm getting food parcels at the moment. It's great, I'm very grateful to everyone. But if I actually had to live entirely on the dismal food provided, and had no money to buy entertainments, craft supplies, etc, I'd be massively worse off than I am now.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 12:46
|
|
|
quote:Forces fear entire stations could shut down and undercover officers could be placed in danger through the national system. Oh dear me posted:Applied to shelter, medicine, and utilities this is cool. But once you add in food, if you don't remove cash benefits the Tories soon will. And people do need more than food, shelter and medicine in life.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 13:00
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:I have a physical need to see the tweet that this was in response to: Someone posted this trick in this or a different thread a few days ago. Google the deleted tweet URL and pick the cached version from the dropdown. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 13:03
|
|
|
there's probably something to the Labour calculus that the 'new Labour heartland' city vote will support free food/shelter/transport the concomitant political danger (at least in view of the left) that I would forecast is the reversal of the same trend which underpinned the collapse of the social-democratic-golden-age consensus to begin with - namely reversals in culture warring. Just as gentrification reverses the decline of the city center by changing its class composition, free/universal food/shelter/transport would drift towards the magnitudes, needs, and desires of a middle class fearing temporary precarity rather than (vastly more costly) permanent disability or non/un-employment it would also be subject to political demands to be subject to local governance/administration/funding, partly as it is relatively intrusive compared to technocratic medical care, but also because it would ensure that the middle class only socially insures the middle class still, political programmes don't have to be effective forever to be effective enough to win elections in the here and now, and all reactions take time
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 13:14
|
|
|
Ash Crimson posted:what if you have 3-4k in the bank then your savings are ignored for UC. everything under 6k is. up to 16k your entitlement is tapered off by £4.35 for every 250. over 16k you're entitlement to UC is zero. not 15k, I misremembered. so you're expected to spend your savings on supporting yourself before the state will support. means testing innit
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 13:20
|
|
|
"Get more out if you've put more in" is ludicrous and has no place in the benefits system, with the possible exception of people with higher rents needing more housing benefit (although they should be in council houses). It's extremely dangerous rhetoric to use because it invokes taking away benefits from "scroungers" and immigrants, and going back to the deserving and undeserving poor. I agree an extremely charitable reading could say that isn't what he meant, and he's actually saying our current system penalises those who've paid in more by making them ineligible for benefits (because of too many savings). If that's the case, I agree. You shouldn't have to watch your life savings disappear pointlessly before falling into a "safety net". But even so someone definitely needs to have a word about his language.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 13:24
|
|
|
Get more out if you put more in is nonsensical. Because if you can afford to put more in, you don't need to get more out. Not to mention that if you've never put any in, because you're, say, loving YOUNG, then what? gently caress you I guess?
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 13:29
|
|
|
lol? https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1268883690148573184?s=20
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 13:36
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/bennite75/status/1268878320751575043?s=20 https://twitter.com/IanLaveryMP/status/1268884338944376834?s=20
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 13:38
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:Get more out if you put more in is nonsensical.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 13:40
|
|
|
TACD posted:Yea, as Guavanaut suggested some parts would probably be better served as income whatever the setup is. I'm not familiar with the latest thinking on how UBS should be set up and which parts should still be covered as income instead. ronya posted:it would also be subject to political demands to be subject to local governance/administration/funding, partly as it is relatively intrusive compared to technocratic medical care Food people definitely care a lot about, as above, and housing is also very personal, so that's why I'd go with the housing bond idea, that people can choose low rent or building up equity to get a step on the ladder and do some DIY and all that, and you don't see the bond behind the curtain. It's also cheaper to run than current housing benefit and doesn't funnel billions from the state to private landlords, so Politics Home will probably frame it as "Plan to get 4 million people off benefits will save the country £5 billion." but you can't have everything. Umbra Dubium posted:Someone posted this trick in this or a different thread a few days ago. Google the deleted tweet URL and pick the cached version from the dropdown.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 13:41
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/jreynoldsMP/status/1268868602192711680?s=20 so its explicitly about messaging to get the middle class to buy in because "hey you might get to use it and it'll be even better for you than the poors isn't that fantastic!"? e: r..ronya? https://twitter.com/michaeljswalker/status/1268853789668388865?s=20 XMNN fucked around with this message at 13:59 on Jun 5, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 13:55
|
|
|
We already have a thing where what you get out is based on what you put in and it's called a bank account.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 13:55
|
|
|
Besides, I thought people already got out of the system what they put in, that's the whole rationale behind not executing all the billionaires
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 13:56
|
|
|
The important thing is that you can't have people taking more out of the system than they're putting in without good reasons *eyes landlords*
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 14:05
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:We already have a thing where what you get out is based on what you put in and it's called a bank account. So.... nationalise banks?
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 14:07
|
|
|
The underlying assumption: that we can just fiddle with the dials and eventually come up with a system that will convince everyone that welfare isn't a transfer of wealth from working people to the unemployed, is ridiculous. It's the same old technocratic garbage. That "get out what you put in" directly implies "get less if you put in less" is obvious. For the kind of person that appeals to, the cruelty is the point, and if that's the case then why not just vote for the party of maximum cruelty. Turning a big dial that says "hurt the poor and disabled" etc etc
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 14:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 17:09 |
|
|
XMNN posted:https://twitter.com/jreynoldsMP/status/1268868602192711680?s=20 "It's not necessarily right-wing" talk about damning with faint praise. It's maddening because they're so close to a breakthrough with "voters more likely to vote for benefits if they're universal" but they just have to gently caress it up and go back to talking about scroungers and strivers.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 14:14
|
|