Unconditionally Basic Salary for everybody.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Animus, I was kind of getting where you were coming from but then I thought about what a hedge fund really is and really... your mates did not 'earn' it. Don't get me wrong, I realise they might have done 60 hour weeks or whatever, but then there are doctors and nurses in this country who do that and don't get those kind of insane rewards.

I agree entirely. They are also scientists who work 6 to 7 days a week with 10 to 12 hour plus days too who get paid the same basic salaries with short term contracts and NO redundancy pay.
Ever thought about how much blood,seat and tears have gone into those scientific discoveries and inventions you hear about in the news?? Many of these will actually help mankind too.

If it were not for the strikes a few years ago the pay situation would have been worse as many scientists were being paid less in real terms than in the 1960's!!

[TheAnimus]

Worth point out i only know the billionare, and two millionares through work.

But i would actually say that its a lack of understanding of what is done for you to simply describe it as a gambling. A lot of the time its about been able to comprehend what is going on at a company, why so many people aren't confident in the company, or even why too many people are (buying 'puts' is a very important way of preventing bubbles).

If you've got someone who has an understanding which is far above that of the average person, then having them do an average level of skill job is really a waste of their time. (economics you could call this a 'cost', and make it clear to understand how negative not fully utalising anythign, be it a dwindling natural reasource, or someones time is).

[Mousemat]

I do not disagree with any of what you have said, I do however think it is worth considering the fact that very few rich people actualy come up with these ideas/inventions/advances themselves. We would still have the intellectual talent, the issue I think is how to incentivise that talent and ensure that the good ideas are developed.

Absolutely, I'm by no means trying to insinuate that being rich makes you the best and brightest. I was just trying to point out that through the centuries, the best and brightest have quite often had private money sponsoring their endeavours, either through them coming up with an idea and then seeking/being offered financing to develop and market that idea, or simply from the fact that the University which they attended has Alumni financiers which allowed those Universities to persue research into expensive projects and experiments.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Oh I agree we're incredibly lucky (thanks, Labour), but it still has to be paid for with money so I'm not sure what point it's being used to make.

Because it still means the poorer among us still has access to healthcare. I have seen the effects of not having this in a poor country where poor people have to put pleas for donations in the local newspaper so that their kid can have an operation which is pretty standard in this country. I do not want this to happen in this country. We have a social duty to help the others around us.

The better off among us can afford private healthcare so it will never be as important to us.

[kalniel]

Because it still means the poorer among us still has access to healthcare. I have seen the effects of not having this in a poor country where poor people have to put pleas for donations in the local newspaper so that their kid can have an operation which is pretty standard in this country. I do not want this to happen in this country. We have a social duty to help the others around us.

I agree, but in fact I'd argue that the very fact that we do allow people to earn money and get rich actually aids us in giving healthcare to all - those rich people are paying more in taxes for a service they don't use as much.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Absolutely, I'm by no means trying to insinuate that being rich makes you the best and brightest. I was just trying to point out that through the centuries, the best and brightest have quite often had private money sponsoring their endeavours, either through them coming up with an idea and then seeking/being offered financing to develop and market that idea, or simply from the fact that the University which they attended has Alumni financiers which allowed those Universities to peruse research into expensive projects and experiments.

Except in the past only the rich could afford to go to university!! If you were clever and poor then tough luck!!

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

I agree, but in fact I'd argue that the very fact that we do allow people to earn money and get rich actually aids us in giving healthcare to all - those rich people are paying more in taxes for a service they don't use as much.

TBH I have no problem if people get rich from their own endeavours and foresight. As long as they are not taking the taxpayer or the average person for a ride then it is fine. This is where regulation by the government(as representatives of the electorate) comes in.

What the OP is suggesting is like in Star Trek where money and pursuit of personal wealth are not the main factors in pushing mankind forward. I do not see this happening in today's world TBH as it would mean our entire civilisation and psyche would need fundamental changes.

[Cov]

... whatever one decides to do, the basic income, will be secure, no matter what.
On the top of that income, everybody would be free to earn additional money.
But the whole point is, the independancy that would give you and everybody around you, ...

Alright, before I decided to open a thread with this subject, I knew already your negative reactions.
In fact, I was very surprised when reading the posts of Transylvanic, James D, G4Z & EducatedFool.
All the rest of you behave like masters in a master/slave society, which we still live in.
Those "masters", of course, wouldn't bother to read my initial posting properly, because their prejudgement is like implanted in their brains.

People from outside the UK who read this thread, might not know that England is still deep conservative. Every little gain of social justice is still a major issue because the power is kept in tight grip of the wealthy & the corrupt government.
The only god is money in this country over any other religion.

As I already suggested, people who're confronted with this model for the first time (like may discussions have shown already), feel so uncomfortable at first to think that you actually don't need to be slave anymore.
Yes, to liberate slave thinking rather than justifying the financial aspect seems the main problem here.

As most politicians absolutely don't mind to prostitute themselves to secure their income, there is no bloody wonder that the lid is kept superglued on the pot of changes.
Any statistics or evaluation from them would contradict any serious attempt to introduce improvements for the "slaves" of this society.

There is no real justice without independence. And forcing people into poverty because things don't work out, no matter how hard they try ?
I cannot think of a more violent behaviour than the exploitation of those in need, that's what the UK is built on.

In our current system, we don't care about individuals who fall through the social net.
As long as you have managed to secure your existence, you couldn't care less about others.
That's a selfish, egoistic and greedy way of thinking and the very reasons which will make us humans extinct from this planet.

Greed and egoism - recognize yourself ?
Thought so.

[TheAnimus]

I'll grant you, he has no reason to. And in his position, I would not feel compelled to spend my money on others, no matter how large my personal wealth. But that is the very reason why laws should exist to prevent people from reaching those positions. Because we cannot rely on benevolent individuals helping the world.

.......

you spare no thought for the people in the eastern world who are working their butts off day and night and getting a fraction of what their effort is worth.

Thats not true. I do spare a thought for them, and i've come to a conclusion which you implicitly agree to have as well. I just don't care! If you've honestly never even bought so much as a bottle of water, a coffee, consumed alcohol, eaten anything that wasn't the most efficently farmed vrs sustiance balance. Given everything else to help the 'developing world' then yes you have a point.

I know i don't, i have spent YTD a horrific sum of money on food, wine, travel, beer, even musiems! I also give about £2.5k to a hospice that looks after my grandfather, in the hopes such institutes will be around should i need them.

Then lets look at the NHS i wounder how much money people spend on dieing people, extending their life by just 6 months, how many simple appendectimies this could of bought elsewhere?

We put ourselfs first, it makes a good life for us, and its a whole can of worms for philosophy to try and decide the optimum level of world happyness.

Do we agree on this? We're all barstards who are squandering money on such rediculous none life essentials such as sewage to our home (we could walk to a ditch) and PCs? Think how many lifes Hexus members would save if we never upgraded our PCs again, we could probably make it into 6 figures!

So what gives you the right to deicde other people should give up their money?

What is great is with a free market you can always be looking for more ways to turn poverty, into production. Look at people who use sweet shops, be it Nike or Apple they are having to move them, because the areas they first used are now more expensive, that is to say there is now alternative employement! So long as people aren't beaten or coerced into work, by anything other than the desire to have things (be things food, meds or ps3s) this effect will happen.

Screw this nonsense about 'the market will regulate itself,' the banking market didnt exactly bowl us over with that one, did it? People should get fair compensation for expending effort. Right now, the guys at the top are getting ridiculously overpaid while the shmoes at the bottom are getting trampled.

This is a gross over generalisation about the mess, personally i like to blame it all on CDS Basket traders, but even that is an unfair simpliton view. Just like any "System" you will get oscilation, perhaps we should look at a way of making the negative feedback system converge faster? (i'm trying to say the world isn't a perfect place, you can go from boom to bust, but thats not to say the process wouldn't take you to utopia ultimately! This is why you need understanding of all factors, who here thinks they can begin to muster that).

And what about Paris Hilton? What about Elizabeth Windsor? What merit do they have to deserve such wealth? What effort did they expend that is being recompensed in such splendid fashion?

This is more about the cards you are given by the dealer, some people will have parents who help educate them, are we to say parents shouldn't help their children learn, because other parents won't? Yes its unfair, but in one way its almost like a Darwinian concept perhaps? Paris hilton by been brought up so badly by her parents won't have much of her fortune once their not around something tells me thou. So that money will be released into the general population, helping provide jobs etc?

At any rate, you have also made the mistake of believing I am arguing from a perspective of self-interest. I too happen to work in a hedge fund. But until a hedge fund is managing my money, I am not a capitalist, I am merely a capitalist's puppet. I do not argue for fairer laws and greater egalitarianism to pull my own self up, I do so out of a desire to see people evolve beyond the basic urges to acquire power and things.

Your's don't have a employee saving scheme? Ask around you might be missing out!

The problem is such ideas go against the desire to better ourselfs, and rapidly decent into starvation, as i got commented on for saying before, if my role paid only twice as much as my flatmate's job, i'd work where she works. Its that simple, i wouldn't take this **** where it not for significant return, why should 'I' have to in a communist state be the person who makes sacrifices, its rather unfair to ask me to! This is where most of these ideals fall down, communisim is fairer to the person who is less 'useful' where as capitalisim is fairer to the more useful person. Which do you think actually helps the whole population? Yes its sad that Maths teachers get pissant wages (living in london on 35k..... my travel card is £5 a day alone!) but at the same time its a plesant job, i could easily see myself retiring to do in 15 years time. The Buffets of the world who seam to just love doing stressful business decisions are freaks of nature, most people have to be paid extra to get them to do it.

Accounting and accountability are not identical concepts. Therefore I don't need to address this point.

No the country demands by law you prove that its not a benefit. Yet not for an MP. Thats a moral issue right there. Just because its demonstrated accountancy, dosen't stop it been a moral quagmire!

[TheAnimus]

Greed and egoism - recognize yourself ?
Thought so.

Care to actually address the example of my parents attempts to run a Day Nursery in Cornwall.

The long term effect of the minimum wage meant pricing out care for babies in the creche, because of the legal requirements for a 1 to 3 ratio too.

How would your idea resolve this type of very common problem, rather than create inflation.

[G4Z]

Worth point out i only know the billionare, and two millionares through work.

But i would actually say that its a lack of understanding of what is done for you to simply describe it as a gambling. A lot of the time its about been able to comprehend what is going on at a company, why so many people aren't confident in the company, or even why too many people are (buying 'puts' is a very important way of preventing bubbles).

If you've got someone who has an understanding which is far above that of the average person, then having them do an average level of skill job is really a waste of their time. (economics you could call this a 'cost', and make it clear to understand how negative not fully utalising anythign, be it a dwindling natural reasource, or someones time is).

I realise I do not fully understand the financial market (does anybody?), but to me that is part of the problem. the very fact is is so indecipherable to joe average has allowed the banking/investment industry as a whole to conjour a veil of mystique over everything they do and sucessfully lobby for deregulation. It is gambling though, whichever way you look at it although I might liken it to pass the parcel where all the assets get passed around between the players each one selling it for more than it was worth until the music stops and the poor sap who opens it finds its a flaming pile of bovine excrement.

When it gets down to it mate, I just don't belive any of this clowning around is actualy productive for society only for the few that benefit. Feel free to show me I am wrong, as I know you have a lot more experience in this area.

[Mousemat]

Except in the past only the rich could afford to go to university!! If you were clever and poor then tough luck!!

As I said earlier, the rich initially reap the rewards of wealth but ultimately the rest of us benefit too. In the past only the wealthy were able to access formal education but over a prolonged period of time the rest of us became able to access these facilities. Remember that the way in which people from poor backgrounds were first able to enter a University was not through government grants and loans, but through individual Universities themselves adopting policies of scholarships and bursaries.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

As I said earlier, the rich initially reap the rewards of wealth but ultimately the rest of us benefit too. In the past only the wealthy were able to access formal education but over a prolonged period of time the rest of us became able to access these facilities. Remember that the way in which people from poor backgrounds were first able to enter a University was not through government grants and loans, but through individual Universities themselves adopting policies of scholarships and bursaries.

The "prolonged" period of time was a couple of centuries to be precise. In fact it was only with the formation of private universities in the 1800's which did not discriminate on the wealthy upper classes and religious standing that more universal university education existed(UCL for example). Try going to Oxford or Cambridge in the 1700's and see the problem then.

However this only meant that richer people from the lower classes could now go to university.

It was only with the concept of free universal healthcare,welfare and subsidised education achieved though taxation of everyone who was working which lead to a more equal system.

Without these reforms in the 1940's and 1950's it would still suck to be a poor person in this country and many of the class boundaries would probably still exist.

[TooNice]

If you think that's a fair system, then you're only one of the pathetic supporters of injustice for your own benefit.

My own benefits of course. Because as a student, this scheme would of course lead me to be taxed even more. Oh wait

How about if I said, 'if you think your system is fair, then you are one of the pathetic supporters of injustice for your own laziness.'.

Yeah, you see where your silly finger pointing at anyone who disagrees with your views lead? Not even a half-decent discussion. At least transylvanic has put forward points of discussion and not stuck to petty arm waving and 'if you aren't with me, then 'blah *sensationalism* blah'.

It saddens me that people say the word like it's a self-explanatory bad thing. An ender, rather than a starter, to discussions.

I was actually the first to use the word communism on this thread. I did not feel like expanding because I did no feel like posting pages (as others here have done) until I confirm that the OP is not just trying to argue with sheer sensationalism. The problem I have with communism isn't so much the ideal it is on paper (not the worst thing ever), but it's success in practice. It hasn't really worked has it? Perhaps the system isn't flawed, but humans characteristics can't get it to work.

The current system is not perfectly fair, far from it. But given the choice between a system where there is a big gap between the extremely wealthy and the extremely poor (but where there is this chance of making it up there, or at least reach a somewhat comfortable lifestyle), and a system where everyone (except perhaps the 'leaders') will be 'equally' poor (and starving), I would rather take my chance with the former.

[...]
The vast majority of people would far rather live in a nice house, have nice cars, and earn 30k a year to do this - hence they'd go and get a job.[...]

You are making an assumption that the vast majority are hard working and ambitious. While it is a nicer way of thinking it than the other way round, it is difficult to prove either way. The prospect of having a lots of layabout procreating, and getting paid for it is probably not good for any country.

[Mousemat]

The "prolonged" period of time was a couple of centuries to be precise. In fact it was only with the formation of private universities in the 1800's which did not discriminate on the wealthy upper classes and religious standing that more universal university education existed(UCL for example). Try going to Oxford or Cambridge in the 1700's and see the problem then.

However this only meant that richer people from the lower classes could now go to university.

It was only with the concept of free universal healthcare,welfare and subsidised education achieved though taxation of everyone who was working which lead to a more equal system.

Without these reforms in the 1940's and 1950's it would still suck to be a poor person in this country and many of the class boundaries would probably still exist.

I think that what we have to establish here is that there isn't a rich and poor divide, but rather a sliding scale of wealth onto which everyone fits. "Richer people from the lower classes" could by no means be considered wealthy, but just as they are richer than others in their 'class' there were/are also people in the 'upper class' with enough money to fund their education and maintain the University but with no where near enough money to bankroll creative projects by the University.

I'm not trying to deny that more modern reforms have been beneficial and have improved access on a wider scale, my point was that the older institutions are based on the money of the wealthy and that this money has been used to further educational endeavours (particularly in scientific areas) which have benefited us all.

Although it has indeed taken a long time for the education system to reach this level of access, I would argue that it has taken thousands, not hundreds of years. Large donations to educational endeavours were also around in Ancient Greece for example.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

I think that what we have to establish here is that there isn't a rich and poor divide, but rather a sliding scale of wealth onto which everyone fits. "Richer people from the lower classes" could by no means be considered wealthy, but just as they are richer than others in their 'class' there were/are also people in the 'upper class' with enough money to fund their education and maintain the University but with no where near enough money to bankroll creative projects by the University.

I'm not trying to deny that more modern reforms have been beneficial and have improved access on a wider scale, my point was that the older institutions are based on the money of the wealthy and that this money has been used to further educational endeavours (particularly in scientific areas) which have benefited us all.

Although it has indeed taken a long time for the education system to reach this level of access, I would argue that it has taken thousands, not hundreds of years. Large donations to educational endeavours were also around in Ancient Greece for example.

It all has not been down to money for example. The separation of faith and class from universities also helped a lot.

When UCL was set up in 1826 it was the first university in the country to be secular and admit people regardless of their religion,gender or class. However you still had to pay so it meant that people from sections of society who would never be accepted at university before could go to university as long as they had money. These types of people were considered wealthy but of not sufficient class or religious background to go to the traditional "ancient" universities which had a lot of connections with the Church. The fact is you still needed the money so almost all university admissions were based on ability to pay and/or social standing NOT ability. It has only been in the last century that university entrance has been more connected with actual intellectual ability.

In fact UCL was called the "Godless Institution of Gower Street" at the time by the Church!!