Holyrood 2016 : Voting Intentions

[Honest Saints Fan]

SNP/Green for me.

[NotThePars]

While I do agree some form of safety net is required. I don't agree with the current methods being used. The fundamental reason why I hate the welfare state is because it subsidizes reckless and irresponsible people at the expense of the more responsible and productive people. Whatever you subsidize you get more of; and whatever you tax you get less of. If you're taxing good behavior; while subsidizing bad behavior. It's going to lead to bad things in the long run. This is why I've always been in favour of replacing the welfare system, with some form of basic income.

Don't worry NotThePars, I know exactly what you're gonna say. You're going to use some form of unsubstantiated ad hom attack, while attempting to paint me as the bad guy. Followed by some kind of faux outrage mixed in with righteous indignation.

Saves me the bother of typing it out then you Redditbro Tory loving c**t. ðŸ‘ðŸ»

[NotThePars]

FWIW I support a basic income I just don't want that to replace a welfare system because that's literally an insane proposal that Stuart Dickson was ridiculed for on here a good 6-7 years ago.

[Wee Willie]

 

 

Vote early, vote often was a buzzphrase on here at referendum time

I can remember that.

I tried tae follow that at the polls but they saw through my disguise

[Ad Lib]

FWIW I support a basic income I just don't want that to replace a welfare system because that's literally an insane proposal that Stuart Dickson was ridiculed for on here a good 6-7 years ago.

A basic income that supplements the welfare system would be staggeringly expensive. Even to give everyone £5kpa would cost more than 1.5 times the DWP's total budget (both the benefits and pensions parts), the value of all tax credits and all benefits not administered by DWP combined.

It's a total non-starter unless it's replacing most benefits and tax-based work incentives and being accompanied by other tax changes like swingeing cuts to the personal allowances. Even allowing for substantial savings in administration it would make the poor worse off and literally just throw a fixed sum of money at people that demonstrably don't need it.

A minimum income guarantee or negative income tax might be viable alternatives to things like tax credits and other in-work benefits but the basic income is just a wasteful solution looking for a problem to misdiagnose. That's why the English and Welsh Greens got pilloried by the third sector for it in the 2015 General Election and why therefore they quietly dropped it.

[NotThePars]

A basic income that supplements the welfare system would be staggeringly expensive. Even to give everyone £5kpa would cost more than 1.5 times the DWP's total budget (both the benefits and pensions parts), the value of all tax credits and all benefits not administered by DWP combined.

It's a total non-starter unless it's replacing most benefits and tax-based work incentives and being accompanied by other tax changes like swingeing cuts to the personal allowances. Even allowing for substantial savings in administration it would make the poor worse off and literally just throw a fixed sum of money at people that demonstrably don't need it.

A minimum income guarantee or negative income tax might be viable alternatives to things like tax credits and other in-work benefits but the basic income is just a wasteful solution looking for a problem to misdiagnose. That's why the English and Welsh Greens got pilloried by the third sector for it in the 2015 General Election and why therefore they quietly dropped it.

 

I was more thinking about SD's "give everyone five grand for their medical bills and if they punt it f**k'em" approach.

[Fotbawmad]

A basic income that supplements the welfare system would be staggeringly expensive. Even to give everyone £5kpa would cost more than 1.5 times the DWP's total budget (both the benefits and pensions parts), the value of all tax credits and all benefits not administered by DWP combined.

It's a total non-starter unless it's replacing most benefits and tax-based work incentives and being accompanied by other tax changes like swingeing cuts to the personal allowances. Even allowing for substantial savings in administration it would make the poor worse off and literally just throw a fixed sum of money at people that demonstrably don't need it.

A minimum income guarantee or negative income tax might be viable alternatives to things like tax credits and other in-work benefits but the basic income is just a wasteful solution looking for a problem to misdiagnose. That's why the English and Welsh Greens got pilloried by the third sector for it in the 2015 General Election and why therefore they quietly dropped it.

Based on the trials done in Indian and African villages. It has been successful. However, we'll need to see how it works when done on a macro scale in the form of Finland. You talk about the costs, but you ignore the stuff you don't need. For example, you no longer need to fund further education, because people can pay for it as the result of basic income. No need for government pensions (which is half the current welfare state)schemes. It also solves the in work benefits traps, which has become an even greater issue in recent times thanks to the "living wage" implemented by the Tories during the last budget. 

[P45]

Kez's teeth are appalling.

 

Why would anyone want to vote for that?

[Granny Danger]

Kez's teeth are appalling.

 

Why would anyone want to vote for that?

Because most folk are more intelligent than to vote for someone based upon how their teeth look. Obviously not you.

[Mr Bairn]

Kez's teeth are appalling.

 

Why would anyone want to vote for that?

 

 

http://everydaysexism.com/

[Antlion]

Kez's teeth are appalling.

Why would anyone want to vote for that?

*slowly shakes head with an entreating gaze*

Stop. Preaching. Haaaaate.

[Ad Lib]

Based on the trials done in Indian and African villages. It has been successful. However, we'll need to see how it works when done on a macro scale in the form of Finland. You talk about the costs, but you ignore the stuff you don't need. For example, you no longer need to fund further education, because people can pay for it as the result of basic income. No need for government pensions (which is half the current welfare state)schemes. It also solves the in work benefits traps, which has become an even greater issue in recent times thanks to the "living wage" implemented by the Tories during the last budget.

Sorry, but this just isn't true.

The UK spends about £89 billion on education. If you cut all education spending, not just further and higher education spending, you would be saving less than one third of the ticket-cost of a £5k basic income. If you abolished pensions you also save less than 1/3. You get to just over half-way to paying for these out of the basic income, and this literally includes every school from Land's End to Skaw.

No matter which way you look at it, a basic income in a state as developed and sophisticated as ours simply isn't an efficacious use of funds. It is either set so low that it doesn't achieve its policy objectives even remotely as closely as a benefits system or state funded or supported programmes do, or it is set so high as to increase the deficit upwards of six-fold.

[Peppino Impastato]

 

Sorry, but this just isn't true.

The UK spends about £89 billion on education. If you cut all education spending, not just further and higher education spending, you would be saving less than one third of the ticket-cost of a £5k basic income. If you abolished pensions you also save less than 1/3. You get to just over half-way to paying for these out of the basic income, and this literally includes every school from Land's End to Skaw.

No matter which way you look at it, a basic income in a state as developed and sophisticated as ours simply isn't an efficacious use of funds. It is either set so low that it doesn't achieve its policy objectives even remotely as closely as a benefits system or state funded or supported programmes do, or it is set so high as to increase the deficit upwards of six-fold.

Efficacious is your favourite word.

[Ad Lib]

Efficacious is your favourite word.

That's funny. A quick forum search suggests the last time I used it was August 2015 and that I've used it a grand total of 5 times in the 9 years 4 months I've been a user on this site, excluding quoting you on this post.

Day for day, post for post, you use the word more often than I do on here.

Must be your favourite word.

[Peppino Impastato]

 

That's funny. A quick forum search suggests the last time I used it was August 2015 and that I've used it a grand total of 5 times in the 9 years 4 months I've been a user on this site, excluding quoting you on this post.

Day for day, post for post, you use the word more often than I do on here.

Must be your favourite word.

You must have searched incorrectly, I've read you use it several times. No need to get all prissy either it was an observation borne out of affection for my crazy wee troll.

[Ad Lib]

You must have searched incorrectly, I've read you use it several times. No need to get all prissy either it was an observation borne out of affection for my crazy wee troll.

I wasn't getting prissy

Perhaps you can quote me the posts in which I used the word "efficacious", because a search literally using the forum's search function, with no forum or date restrictions, generates two posts in January 2015, one in August 2015, and the one you quoted.

Actually, I think   must be your favourite word, though why I don't know.

[Peppino Impastato]

 

I wasn't getting prissy

Perhaps you can quote me the posts in which I used the word "efficacious", because a search literally using the forum's search function, with no forum or date restrictions, generates two posts in January 2015, one in August 2015, and the one you quoted.

Actually, I think   must be your favourite word, though why I don't know.

I don't know why nbsp happens it annoys me too. I may be mistaken but am sure you've used it a few times, perhaps not.

[Wilky1878]

SNP 48

Greens 43

Labour 8

Ld 6

Ukip -31

Tory -34

As I though SNP and greens much a muchness and running away with it. Both right wing parties well out of the equation.

[Jute]

SNP - 60

Greens - 47

SLAB - 20

Libs - 10

Tory - (-24)

UKIP - (-35)

Should not be a surprise given the above I will be Voting SNP/SNP.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

Not surprisngly my results were all over the place:

 

Labour - 45

SNP - 35

Green - 34

Lib Dem - 22

Tory - -17

UKIP - -18