# FILE NAME: 00002091.soc
# TITLE: Should everyone be entitled to at least £10,000 a year income? [66b9042ad5cb06d60e33085334c3baed]
# DESCRIPTION: 
# DATA TYPE: soc
# MODIFICATION TYPE: original
# RELATES TO: 
# RELATED FILES: 
# PUBLICATION DATE: 2025-10-12
# MODIFICATION DATE: 2025-10-12
# NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4
# NUMBER VOTERS: 5
# NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4
# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of a basic income for everyone. This would help to reduce poverty and also help to reduce the stress that people experience when they are struggling to make ends meet. The group thought that this would also help to reduce crime and increase the overall wealth of the country. The group thought that the minimum income should be set at £10,000 per year. This would be enough to provide the basic necessities of life.
# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - Everyone should have a basic income, but only if they work. If they do not work, then the government will lose money. This was a difficult topic for participants to discuss, but they were able to reach a consensus view on it.
# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We have come to the decision that everyone should be entitled to £10,000 a year income. This will help reduce the stress of those who earn less than that amount, provide a basic income for those who are struggling and help to boost the economy. The consensus was that although £10,000 isn’t a large amount, it will provide for basic needs and will help those who are struggling. It will give people who are underpaid, such as carers and teachers, a basic wage which they can then work to increase. It will also give those who struggle with mental health, and are therefore unable to work as much as they would like, an income that can provide for basic needs.
# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of the idea of a basic income. There was some debate around whether it should be £10,000 or £20,000 for a couple. The group was in favour of a basic income for everyone, whether they work or not. The group thought that this would reduce the stress on individuals and families, as they would have a basic income to rely on. The group also thought that it would reduce crime, as people would not be as desperate to survive. The group thought that it would also increase the overall wealth of the country, as people would be able to spend their money on goods and services, rather than just surviving. The group also thought that it would increase the quality of life for citizens, as they would be able to afford to do things that they enjoy, rather than just surviving. The group also thought that it would encourage people to work, as they would be able to afford to do things that they enjoy, rather than just surviving. The group also thought that it would encourage people to work, as they would be able to afford to do things that they enjoy, rather than just surviving.
2: 3,4,1,2
1: 4,3,1,2
1: 2,1,3,4
1: 1,3,4,2