Search Results

This chapter examines various objections to a Citizen's Basic Income, such as: people should not be paid for doing nothing; immigration would go up; people would not work; we cannot afford it; it would cause a hike in public expenditure; the money could be better used on other things. Another objection is that if means-tested benefits are abolished, then we would not know to whom we should give passported benefits such as free school meals. The chapter responds to each of these objections, focusing in particular on funding schemes for the Citizen's Basic Incomes such as making changes to the existing tax and benefits structure, taxing appropriation of the commons, or by means of consumption taxes or a Financial Transaction Tax. It also considers some of the problems that a Citizen's Basic Income cannot solve, including disability, housing costs, fuel poverty and climate change.

This chapter discusses the past and current state of the debate on the Citizen's Basic Income. It begins with the Poor Law of 1601 to the era of means-tested benefits. In particular, it cites William Beveridge's 1942 report which proposed a comprehensive system of National Insurance Benefits and centrally administered National Assistance. It then traces the origins of universal benefits in the UK, from Family Allowance to Child Benefit, and considers other failed proposals to reform the tax and benefits systems, including Tax Credits and attempts at a Citizen's Basic Income. It also explains why proposals such as ‘Universal Credit’ were and have been implemented, but not the proposal for a Citizen's Basic Income. Finally, it describes the National Health Service's (NHS) provision of universal, unconditional and nonwithdrawable healthcare and the global debate over the Citizen's Basic Income, and especially with respect to its feasibility and implementation.

This chapter considers four different methods for implementing a Citizen's Basic Income. The first is ‘all in one go’, which abolishes means-tested benefits. The second is ‘all in one go’, but retains means-tested benefits. The third option is gradual roll-out, in which Child Benefit would no longer be payable beyond the sixteenth birthday; that is, the sixteen-year-olds would receive no Income Tax Personal Allowance. The last option involves inviting volunteers among the pre-retired, between the age of sixty and the state pension age. The chapter evaluates each of these methods, taking into account their advantages and disadvantages, and describes an implementation scenario based on the third method. It concludes by proposing an additional option: introducing a very small Citizen's Basic Income that will rise slowly as the rates and thresholds for Income Tax and National Insurance Contributions as well as means-tested benefits adapt.

This chapter presents another case study that analyses the government policies to inform older people of their rights to means-tested benefits. It first describes briefly the social security benefits that are designed for older people, and the financial and demographic situation of older people in the UK. It then takes a short historic view of central government policies on information about means-tested financial assistance for older people. The case study investigates why concern about older people as a group led to more active and targeted information. The chapter is focused on the New Labour government's information policy for Income Support/Minimum Income Guarantee.

This chapter examines developments in social security policy in 2005. It discusses the continuation of the government's primary focus on reducing poverty through paid work, supplemented with means-tested benefits in the form of tax credits. It notes that these cover an increasingly wide range of those in low-paid work, following the extension of the working tax credit to those without children. It identifies the greatly extended role of Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs (HMRC) in delivering social security in the form of tax credits, as a significant development in social security policy. It involves extending the department's role to one of distributing income as well as collecting revenue, and in the process dealing with a significantly poorer population with different needs and expectations than the traditional client base of the Inland Revenue.