This is where someone with conservative views diverges from me for instance. You appear to be viewing this solely through the lens of parents being rewarded for leaving assets to their children. After all, they have worked hard to pass something down to their heirs, right?
I am seeing this from the heir. They were born into wealth by sheer fucking dumb luck. Just as a child to a pair of heroin addict parents lucked out. Its a fucking coin toss that ensures the same families continually build wealth and ensure the divide grows wider with every passing day. And in your story, its is only through the father inheriting that wealth from the grandmother that he was able to turn her business into a billion pound business. So much exclusivity. The inheritance divide is a far more significant problem than the wealth divide in the UK IMO.
If there were better controls of inheritance I would be fully in favour of it.
I would be for a flat tax rate if the prices varied, those on minimum wage pay 12 times less for everything so contribute 12 times less tax (in theory).
Then Iām sure thereād be a rich mans scheme to proove heās on the minimum wage (in fact a vagrant without resource).
It is fairly straightforward. The conservative argument for UBI is that government is so horrifically inefficient, that if you are going to provide the means to live for some portion of the population, it simply makes sense to use a single scheme. If nothing else, you reduce the number of civil service jobs needed. We actually did see that in Ontario.
If you make another reference to Chairman Mao in relation to my politics, I will remove you from the forum. Iāve had enough now. Believing in progressive taxation and a social safety net doesnāt make you a communist tyrant. You are being deliberately insulting and provocative. I donāt think your right wing views make you a Nazi. You owe me the same curtesy.
The Ontario trial used 4000 participants (with a 2000 person control group) in the Hamilton area. Unfortunately, it was cancelled after a year after a change in government, so as a trial the results are at best provisional. However, one of the results observed was a much higher rate of exiting public support entirely. The delivery savings are a little more difficult to quantify, because the relatively small size of the scheme as a trial is inherently less efficient - but even there the preliminary results suggested there would be a savings at scale.
Iāll not post the photo of the brand new electric car that turned up one day to collect from the FB and ranted because the food bank was closed. Happy to DM you the photo though. And the X5 which brought much mirth here over the years. In fact Iāll photograph the collection carpark (clue in the name there) next time I go past.
You canāt use a handful of piss-takers to denounce the whole system.
Iād also argue a car is now pretty much an essential. Itās very hard to live without one. Thatās a problem of the society we have created, and part of the reason we need food banks.
Itās like people moaning about refugees having mobile phones. You try living without one.
So, to be clear, a couple of vehicles are hard evidence of the underlying drivers of food bank use across a society of millions, but defined trials of universal basic income prove nothing?
I can remember a homeless person rolling up to a shelter in a Golf GTi complete with chauffeur. I mean I remember it distinctly because it was my car, I was driving and I was volunteering for the Salvation Army that weekend but that tramp arrived in style.
