16 comments on “Timmy elsewhere

  1. Is it worth pointing out, only absolute loons would be the sort of bird-brains would vote for Xmas?
    CBI’d put out of business a complete loon-based industry of allocating all those benefit resources

  2. One of Niven’s Laws, “There is no cause so right that one cannot find a fool following it.”

  3. Nice idea. Attractive idea.

    But as soon as stories emerged of ‘rich’ people getting it, then it would be doomed along the lines of why should Mick Jagger get the CBI?

    And then you’re back to ‘entitlement systems’, ‘means testing’ etc, etc.

  4. I agree with the general observation made both here and on the ASI page:
    “This would be a good place to start” yes, but not end! The cbi works if it is given as a universal benefit with ‘leave well alone’ being the logical next steps. However, there is no way that your new friend the professor and his colleagues in the green movement and the Green QE boys are ever going to leave it there. They like the idea of universal benefits right up to the point they realise its, well, universal. That point will be,as GeoffH says, when Sir Mick Jagger picks it up.

  5. On the no-smoking thing:

    Actually, if you have given up responsibility for paying for your health to the state as well as, judging by some fellow patients I’ve observed in NHS hospitals over the years, responsibility for looking after your health, well then, at that point the State does indeed get a say in how your lifestyle affects your health.

    He who pays the piper…

  6. Quite so, those who actually pay enough tax to cover their own CBI plus that of a few hundred others would be accused of being morally repugnant if they actually collected it and of taking more than their fair share.

  7. @GeoffH et ors
    There would be a simple way of dealing with the “whassaboot Sir Mick, then?” Allocate a specific tax band we’ll call the “Caring & Sharing Tax” takes over from the bottom tax band, covers all those CBI payments.
    It’d also emphasize the fact, most of what spending, taxation covers, gets paid for out of the taxes of higher earners. That you do have to have a considerable income before you become a net contributor.

  8. bis:

    How does renaming the basic Income tax band to something – no matter how caring and sharing – else change anything?

    Sir Mick et al would still be seen as higher rate tax payers – even super-duper-high tax payers – with more than enough dosh not to ‘need’ a CBI payment. Just look at the occasional current fuss over Sir Mick’s bus pass and, eventually, his ‘free’ TV license.

    In which case it becomes neither a ‘basic’, nor a ‘citizens’ income.

    As I said, great idea but it founders on the envy and spite of the mass who resent Sir Mick’s and others’ wealth and earning power.

  9. Uncle Milt suggested a negative income tax below a certain level of income. I wonder why this idea hasn’t captured the imagination as much as the cbi, particularly amongst ASI contributors.

  10. Mick Jagger getting it wouldn’t turn a hair. Wayne Rooney getting it would lead to a meltdown of the political and media class.

  11. “How does renaming the basic Income tax band to something – no matter how caring and sharing – else change anything?”

    Because that’s the way people think.

    Hell. People think National Insurance is insurance.

  12. It doesn’t have to be in the form of income for high earners. It could simply be part of the tax free allowance (which would sort of make it a negative income tax, I guess – both ideas are approaching the same results and methods)

  13. Kerosene fridges worked well for me in Fiji 56 years ago, and they are economical.
    New industry?

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.