Timmy elsewhereApril 10, 2014 Tim WorstallTimmy Elsewhere16 CommentsAt the ASI. Bit of a bind when obvious loons end up supporting some plan that you also support. previousWell, we knew this was going to happen, didn’t we?nextMaybe time to update the city gossip column? 16 thoughts on “Timmy elsewhere” bloke in spain April 10, 2014 at 9:34 am 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 gunker April 10, 2014 at 9:47 am One of Niven’s Laws, “There is no cause so right that one cannot find a fool following it.” GeoffH April 10, 2014 at 9:54 am 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. GeoffH April 10, 2014 at 9:56 am and PS: I rather think Barbara Castle would have approved of a CBI. Ironman April 10, 2014 at 10:16 am 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. Ironman April 10, 2014 at 10:19 am 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… DocBud April 10, 2014 at 10:23 am 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. bloke in spain April 10, 2014 at 11:12 am @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. bloke in spain April 10, 2014 at 11:17 am Does “Citizen’s Basic Responsibility” tax sound better? GeoffH April 10, 2014 at 11:48 am 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. GeoffH April 10, 2014 at 11:50 am PS: And just imagine the reaction to city bankers getting it. Ironman April 10, 2014 at 12:15 pm 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. Rob April 10, 2014 at 1:33 pm Mick Jagger getting it wouldn’t turn a hair. Wayne Rooney getting it would lead to a meltdown of the political and media class. bloke in spain April 10, 2014 at 3:04 pm “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. Rational Anarchist April 10, 2014 at 3:55 pm 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) alan scott April 10, 2014 at 6:42 pm Kerosene fridges worked well for me in Fiji 56 years ago, and they are economical. New industry? Leave a Reply Cancel replyYour email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *Comment Name * Email * Website Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.