Tax credits are the flip side of a balanced economy. You should pay pay tax when you when you gamble your money and win but to gamble and loose is a cost of business hence tax credits.

Given the huge transfer payment to the various members of the Parasite Class (Dole, Yarts Lecturers, Green Grifters, etc) it obviously works.

Ho hum the same old dreary drivel from the communists, who never learn anything.

1.
You contradict yourself in holding that employment under capitalism is intrisically exploitative, and yet bemoaning its alleged imminent disappearance. To be consistent, you should want everyone to be without work. Indeed, this was one of the idiot tenets of Marx: that under socialism, everyone would lose the distinction between work and leisure.

2.
Socialists/morons have been moaning that technology is going to cause employment to disappear since the Luddites. You are operating at their intellectual level, without their excuse.

Remember the 80s, when computers were going to make employment disappear? Didn’t happen, did it?

The reason, which you have failed to understand, is that, while ever human effort can satisfy human wants, there will always be employment, fool. Why don’t you even take any trouble to understand what you’re talking about before you open your mouth, much less rush into print?

3.
There is no school of economics that calls itself "neoliberal", so this is a straw man, and as this has been pointed out to you before, it is a dishonest straw man at that.

To the extent that anyone calls for de-regulated markets but wants the increased regulation of labour or other unions, yes that is contradictory. But that’s not an argument against free markets. It only proves that socialism of any kind cannot be defended without reliance on markets without which we would all starve. Socialism is mere political parasitism on the productive class, and the consumption of other people's capital enforced by monopoly aggression by the State, that is all.

4.
Notice how, at no stage, does the author advance any theory of the state or coercive action that would justify any of his assumptions about its beneficence?

(cont.)

The great contradiction underlying all of it is that the author bemoans "capitalism" for not providing as high a living standard as he would want, when it is only capitalism that has ever provided the living standards he has experienced and expects. The belief that socialism is more physically productive than capitalism is just mere economic illiteracy. So is the belief that it's more ethical. Notice how John doesn't make any attempt to specifically identify, let alone prove, these necessary premises on which his entire argument depends?

John, if you want to maintain that, prove it. And make sure you prove your theory of value as concerns the ethics of threatening to imprison people to fund what you want – conveniently didn’t mention that, did you? Show us how you've worked it out. And make sure you understand, can correctly represent, and refute the economic calculation argument, without which, you've got nothing. Go ahead.

John,
1. will the basic income be paid voluntarily, or under threats of prison and rape?
2. is that "cruel"?
3. why not just provide an income free to everyone in the world, so that no-one has to work?

Answer the questions.

As one of the other posters has noted, Tomlinson is one of the those rare individuals still living in the age of Labor versus capital, having been able to ignore all the changes to society since the height of the Cold War. Probably there is a Bakelite AM radio set, tuned to the one remaining socialist radio station in the region, sitting on his office book shelf. It's needed to prop up all the books on Marxism bought at collectivist book shops in the 1940s. After all, what could have changed?

From the sublime to the ridiculous! And when paid work is less punitive on the idle rich! Portly pompous unpatriotic and tax dodging bankrupts We may as well revisit slavery that comes with conditions, all food clothing shelter,health care and education for the family of one male slave! And given that exceeds the basic wage! Then truly can we say, the basic wage is too small! Yes the future may well see the end of many jobs and proffessions? A lot of what constitutes legal practise, conveyancing, could be completely automated! Antiquated diamond encrusted gold plated legal jurisprudence could i.e., be largely replaced by covertly deployed space age lie detection that prevented the innocent going to jail and the guilty escaping it! All of which occurs now and at great expense to the public purse! That said, I think that some aspect of capitalism is essential going forward as is fair reward for endeavor and excellence!

And that's indubitably bound to cooperative capitalism!

We could still have steel smelting and a vehicle manufacturing industry in this country, if it were employee owned and operated co-ops; and where all related activity was conducted or components were constructed, on a single site by a co-op! Utilizing cheap abundant clean energy supplied at virtual cost!

Then transported via rapid rail and or, our own fleet of very fast roll on roll off ferries, That then eliminated all unnecessary handling! Would enable us to dominate the vehicle market/most manufacture!

Our choice? Shut it down, give it away! Why? Because our government has no business in business, even as just arms length facilitators!

What in heaven's name do they think their role is? Don't just do something, stand there? Mouth flapping in the breeze! Perhaps?
Alan B.

Alan B
for a moment there I thought you couldn't be serious but you are. Automation of the legal system? You're hopeful. Steel smelting by workers collectives? Didn't Mao try that in the cultural revolution with the result being mass starvation? In fact the Chinese are now refusing to rationalise their steel industry with the result being a flood of steel that will sweep your collectives out of existence, if they ever got started..