Johann Hari has written an article regarding unemployment and benefits.
He reveals a very important and under-known (to coin a word) fact - we can afford benefits!
Benefits for the unemployed constitute 3 percent of government expenditure.
We can afford welfare.
Please tell this to Anne Widdecombe and the DailyMail-ists!
Unfortunately Johann neglects to point out that work does not have to be the same thing as paid employment.
With mechanisation there will inevitably be less paid work. Other types of work have to be researched.
Other factors will mean that suitable paid employment will be hard to find.
Therefore to tell people who can't get a job to starve will be a terrible injustice and crime.
That is what is being proposed.
Saying to someone:
"You refuse to get or cannot get a paid job. Therefore you can starve," is the full horror of what is proposed.
Many people, because they are taught to believe in capitalist ethics, would at first wholeheartedly agree with this. "Earn your keep. Pay your way. No free lunch..." etc.
Firstly, the government can easily afford paying those who don't work a minimum allowance.
Secondly, there may not be work.
Thirdly, everyone has a right to basic needs.
Fourthly, why should work be paid work?
Fifthly, if we believe in human liberty people should have a choice as to what to do.
Sixthly, everyone wants to work and do something. So to believe that those who don't do conventional work are selfish and idle is not entirely true. ........
A universal income where the government gives money to the people instead of people giving money in taxed wages to the government is the best solution. What does it matter which way the money goes?
Tax revenue will still come from those who earn large amounts.
The only fair system is a universal basic income to guarantee the human right to basic needs.
...........
Logical ramblings:-
If I am owed my basic needs (because I can't work) then I am owed my basic needs in all circumstcances.
The alternative is to say:
If I cannot work then I am owed my basic needs but;
if I can work then I am not owed my basic needs.
Therefore you are saying that: if I can work then I am not owed my basic needs.
Which is absurd.
EITHER
1) EVERYONE IS OWED THEIR BASIC MINIMUM INCOME FOR NEEDS OR
2) THEY ARE NOT OWED THIS INCOME.