Killer Arguments Against Citizen's Income. Not (19)

From an idiot on the left (emailed in by BenJamin):

The original philosophy behind basic income... came from neo-liberal economists who where absolutely fine with people getting unearned income. Their entire system of economics was a justification for unearned interest, profit and rent.

They were also dead against people getting needs based benefits. The basic income proposal was a wedge to be used to destroy the existing welfare state, and the moral principles on which it stood. Once it was in place, they would go ahead with charging for all sorts of things which were now distributed according to need, and cancel existing needs based benefits.

Give people enough cash to barely survive, and then leave the rest to the magic of the market. Minimum wage legislation would go, as would unemployment benefits. Since people would not loose [sic] any benefits by going to work, and since their survival was already largely subsidized [sic] by the state they would be willing to take on work for lower wages. It would be the ideal support for the gig economy of micro-jobs.

This first bit is all bollocks. Simplifying the welfare system and National Minimum Wage legislation are two completely separate topics, but I reproduce here to set the scene and make fun of his crap spelling...

There would be a downward pressure on the lower end of the labour market. The net effect on the class distribution of income would be that those on slightly above average wages subsidize [sic] low wages, whilst low wage employers reap the benefit, something which already happened with Gordon Brown’s tax credit scheme.

Working Tax Credits are only paid to people in low paid jobs. So they might - indeed - have depressed wages at the lower end. A basic income paid to all would by definition have a much, much smaller downward impact on wages at the lower end (if any).

From idiots on the right:

A CONTROVERSIAL Labour Party plan to give everybody in the UK taxpayers money, regardless of whether they are in work, would encourage unemployment and make the poor even worse off according to a stunning new report.

The new study, from the Centre for Social Justice, concludes the proposed policy would create a “massive disincentive for people to find work”.

Yes, to some extent, there will be some people who would have otherwise taken a really low paid job for a few hours who no longer do so. Which means that employers will have to offer slightly higher wages.
------------------------------------------------
I wish these I could put these fucknuts in a room together, with one side explaining why it will push wages down and the other side counter-arguing that it will discourage people from taking low paid jobs until they realise the two arguments are a) very weak and b) cancel each other out anyway.

Funnily enough, both sides go with the complete lies that welfare simplification is
a) unaffordable, and
b) would leave the poorest even worse off (as if The Daily Mailexpressgraph gives a shit about them anyway, at least the Guardianstas do in a back-handed sort of way).