I mean pick the logic out of this:
Mankind is hard-wired to work. We gain satisfaction from it. It gives us a sense of identity, purpose and belonging … we should not be trying to create a world in which most people do not feel the need to work.”
This twat can contradict his is argument in the same sentence without even realizing it.
Plus the basic premise isn't even correct from a sociological or biological viewpoint. For most of mankind's history we were hunter gatherers who worked just enough to keep ourselves fed like any other animal.
And as for the moral problem for giving money to people who have done nothing to earn it does his ability to think allow him to connect the direct line in that chain of thought to inherited wealth, like the kind he has benefited from? Of course it fucking doesn't, his thinking stops at prole money he probably hasn't got the intellect or imagination to conceive of his wealth as unearned.
How can this thick cunt have a moral problem with making sure that everyone has food to eat and decent shelter, but no moral problem with tens of thousands of people living on the streets millions needing food banks and cuts in basic payments to disabled people?
The right's politics is poisonous it morally corrupts people and makes them see their fellow human beings as problems and a potential threat to their own wealth.
Some form of Universal Basic Income is coming unless we are willing to see our fellow citizens living in absolute poverty in ever greater numbers, there will come a point where even the morally stunted morons who read the Sun and the Daily Mail will realize that people like Boles lump them in with the destitute and will have no problem seeing them go the same way if it protects their unearned wealth.
There was some comedy gold in the article though
Boles is widely viewed by his colleagues as one of the more thoughtful backbenchers in a party hungry for a convincing riposte to Corbyn’s radical socialism.
If I can pick holes in his thesis I think he has problems, it wouldn't pass muster as an A level essay surely.
He does make a convincing case that Marx was correct though, although inadvertently I'd imagine:
Boles warned that taxing firms that benefit from automation would simply discourage them from investing. “The only sure result of a robot tax would be lower investment, lower productivity and lower wages.”
Or as Marx put it: ownership of the means of production coming into conflict with the productive possibilities
We can only have technological advances in the means of production if it suits and enriches the owners of capital
When robots and computers remove even more productive jobs from economy you wonder who Boles thinks is going to buy the goods produced? Perhaops he envisages an economy where we all deliver parcels to each other for minimum wage or less, he appears to be thick enough.