>Even if you use tax breaks to give CI to the better off you are still
>talking about a prohibitively expensive policy.
To who?
My understanding is that a CI scheme could be introduced with minimal change of
net income at any level. The extra income from CI would be compensated for by reductions in other types of income, such as benefits and pensions.
I think in practice it would be difficult to introduce a CI without a small degree of (IMHO badly needed) progressive redistibution. If the income of an unemployed person is already as low as can be tolerated and the poverty trap is to be eliminated then it follows that those in work are receiving a higher income than before introducing a CI. This extra has to come from somewhere. Detailed proposals have been made by Hermione Parker who proposes a modest increase in taxation. For more information see http://www.ownbase.org.uk/citizens-income/
A CI would be probably be introduced at a low level at first, a figure of £20 has been proposed. This I think is proper caution because it would be a revolutionary change. However it means that one of the benefits of a CI, the low cost of administration, would not be realised until most of the current hugely complex and expensive means testing benefits regime can be scrapped.
Some commentators have objected to the fact that a CI would be paid to all, including the well off. This is not a rational objection because it would be off set by an increase in taxation. However it is an understandable intuitive objection which, I suggest, would be overcome by seeing a CI as a sort of dividend.
John Greenwood jcg@argonet.co.uk
--
------------------------------------------------------------- Posted to uk-policy, a service of Nexus. http://www.netnexus.org/ Hosting and email provided by new media consultants On-Line Publishing