[Politics] Sir Keir Starmer’s route to Number 10

[Barnet Seagull]

I'm a big fan of universal basic income for one simple reason. The choice to work. Basic income is just that. Just enough to provide basics but enough to empower individuals. Boss a dick? Leave. Job not rewarding? Leave.
Not paid enough for the work? Employers will have to pay more. Want to work locally, you can.

It will provoke further automation and innovation and build community.

Couple it with an automated payment transaction tax and its easily affordable.

Introduce APT first, slowly and start winding down all other taxes, then start to build up UBI.

For the employer, less tax, no business rates, no NI. The real challenge will be attracting and retaining labour. They will need to be much more flexible and pay what the market demands.

You will also see a thriving gig economy.

The really significant risk is business competitiveness globally but this is the same as now.

If you view tax as a way to remove money from the economy and stabilise currency (which fundamentally it is) small tweaks to APT can fund UBI and control inflation, thus maintaining competitiveness but also supporting public services.

The challenge is that both these changes impact those who seek and want to maintain power and therefore, government and media will never endorse it. Generation Y may be the first to start to shift us in that direction. We've been fed a narrative that we are work-shy which isn't the case for 99%. For the 1% is that laziness or a systemic lack of opportunity?

All in all, both in place get us closer to a fairer world where there is equality of opportunity

 

[abc]

I'm a big fan of universal basic income for one simple reason. The choice to work. Basic income is just that. Just enough to provide basics but enough to empower individuals. Boss a dick? Leave. Job not rewarding? Leave.
Not paid enough for the work? Employers will have to pay more. Want to work locally, you can.

It will provoke further automation and innovation and build community.

Couple it with an automated payment transaction tax and its easily affordable.

Introduce APT first, slowly and start winding down all other taxes, then start to build up UBI.

For the employer, less tax, no business rates, no NI. The real challenge will be attracting and retaining labour. They will need to be much more flexible and pay what the market demands.

You will also see a thriving gig economy.

The really significant risk is business competitiveness globally but this is the same as now.

If you view tax as a way to remove money from the economy and stabilise currency (which fundamentally it is) small tweaks to APT can fund UBI and control inflation, thus maintaining competitiveness but also supporting public services.

The challenge is that both these changes impact those who seek and want to maintain power and therefore, government and media will never endorse it. Generation Y may be the first to start to shift us in that direction. We've been fed a narrative that we are work-shy which isn't the case for 99%. For the 1% is that laziness or a systemic lack of opportunity?

All in all, both in place get us closer to a fairer world where there is equality of opportunity

You make a compelling case but I don’t think you can dismiss the risk to competitiveness so easily. I guess where the payment is set is key though.
Employers pay according to supply and demand now, so I don’t see a change there.
The cynic in me says that whilst the laudable objective is to annialate bureaucracy, we are not capable as a society of doing this any more. The civil service, lawyers, government, etc etc will find ways of maintaining the status quo.
But some of the posts here have made the case for the principal very well. So I now have an open mind but a lot more understanding of the implications and potential knock on effects needed. Fascinating though.

 

[beorhthelm]

I'm a big fan of universal basic income for one simple reason. The choice to work. Basic income is just that. Just enough to provide basics but enough to empower individuals. Boss a dick? Leave. Job not rewarding? Leave.
Not paid enough for the work? Employers will have to pay more. Want to work locally, you can.

when did we start assuming we shouldnt have to work, that the state provide us with everything? and what happens once you have a lifestyle based on wage income, living beyond the basics - as most do - they'll be back to square one. there would be constant belly-aching the basic isn't enough, and probably wouldn't be, then add-ons creep in for groups saying they need more.

 

[Javeaseagull]

when did we start assuming we shouldnt have to work, that the state provide us with everything? and what happens once you have a live style based on wage income, living beyond the basics - as most do - they'll be back to square one. there would be constant belly-aching the basic isn't enough, probably wouldn't be, then add-ons creep in for groups saying they need more.

Exactly! We can't all be Royalty.

 

[chickens]

when did we start assuming we shouldnt have to work, that the state provide us with everything? and what happens once you have a lifestyle based on wage income, living beyond the basics - as most do - they'll be back to square one. there would be constant belly-aching the basic isn't enough, and probably wouldn't be, then add-ons creep in for groups saying they need more.

I think the difference is that at present, failure/inability to work can often lead to downright barbaric outcomes, homelessness, suicide, entrenched poor mental health. In the envisaged scenario there are still absolutely consequences for not meeting your obligations, but they don’t take one problem and turn it into an interconnected web of problems.

Take an example scenario: An individual who has been working in the same job for a number of years, is as part of a company reorganisation moved into a different team where they don’t know anyone and has a personality clash with their new line manager. This individual does their best, but feels work has gone from a positive to a negative in their life. They start applying for other jobs, but aren’t getting interviews and this begins getting them down. They don’t have a lot of support outside work, so they try to do their best, but their performance suffers and they’re put on performance review.

In our current world, this can lead to job loss, the consequences of which can quickly be homelessness, which in turn, if that forces them from the area in which they were living, can lead to loss of access to a GP.

From one problem, that individual now has multiple problems, and the route back to work is the work of months or even years, rather than weeks.

In a case where UBI was in payment, the individual could hand in their resignation, see their doctor, get the help they needed, resume applying for jobs, and potentially return to work within a number of weeks, with nothing worse than a note on their credit history that they missed two monthly payments.

It’s no coincidence that we have ever increasing levels of mental health issues within most civilizations, we push people too hard, with too much at stake.

 

[Sid and the Sharknados]

I think the difference is that at present, failure/inability to work can often lead to downright barbaric outcomes, homelessness, suicide, entrenched poor mental health. In the envisaged scenario there are still absolutely consequences for not meeting your obligations, but they don’t take one problem and turn it into an interconnected web of problems.

Take an example scenario: An individual who has been working in the same job for a number of years, is as part of a company reorganisation moved into a different team where they don’t know anyone and has a personality clash with their new line manager. This individual does their best, but feels work has gone from a positive to a negative in their life. They start applying for other jobs, but aren’t getting interviews and this begins getting them down. They don’t have a lot of support outside work, so they try to do their best, but their performance suffers and they’re put on performance review.

I'll be honest, I don't see that as a problem that the state should be intervening in.

I realise it might ultimately have deeper and darker consequences down the line, but getting sacked because you can't get on with your new colleagues in a new team crosses my personal line into "have you ever met somebody with real problems?" territory.

I do also appreciate that this is just a hypothetical example.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

I'm a big fan of universal basic income for one simple reason. The choice to work. Basic income is just that. Just enough to provide basics but enough to empower individuals. Boss a dick? Leave. Job not rewarding? Leave.
Not paid enough for the work? Employers will have to pay more. Want to work locally, you can.

It will provoke further automation and innovation and build community.

Couple it with an automated payment transaction tax and its easily affordable.

Introduce APT first, slowly and start winding down all other taxes, then start to build up UBI.

For the employer, less tax, no business rates, no NI. The real challenge will be attracting and retaining labour. They will need to be much more flexible and pay what the market demands.

You will also see a thriving gig economy.

The really significant risk is business competitiveness globally but this is the same as now.

If you view tax as a way to remove money from the economy and stabilise currency (which fundamentally it is) small tweaks to APT can fund UBI and control inflation, thus maintaining competitiveness but also supporting public services.

The challenge is that both these changes impact those who seek and want to maintain power and therefore, government and media will never endorse it. Generation Y may be the first to start to shift us in that direction. We've been fed a narrative that we are work-shy which isn't the case for 99%. For the 1% is that laziness or a systemic lack of opportunity?

All in all, both in place get us closer to a fairer world where there is equality of opportunity

Good point about the gig economy. My main concern about this sector is the lack of reliable hours and the low pay. This is mitigated somewhat by UBI.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

when did we start assuming we shouldnt have to work, that the state provide us with everything? and what happens once you have a lifestyle based on wage income, living beyond the basics - as most do - they'll be back to square one. there would be constant belly-aching the basic isn't enough, and probably wouldn't be, then add-ons creep in for groups saying they need more.

You have a very jaundiced cynical view of people. There is a very small minority of people who are lazy good for nothings but contrary to the Daily Mail/Express, they are few and far between. Most people just want to get by in life, with a job they enjoy, and have some leisure time with their family or even on their own.
Almost every claim for PIP is turned down, and then granted on appeal. How much time and money does that waste at the DWP?
ATOS are useless (I have experience of that)

Don't emphasise the dole dodgers (it's almost impossible nowadays) but look out for the profiteers, off shore tax avoiders and those who lie about freeports, and special enterprise zones. They cost us billions and millions of pounds.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

I'll be honest, I don't see that as a problem that the state should be intervening in.

I realise it might ultimately have deeper and darker consequences down the line, but getting sacked because you can't get on with your new colleagues in a new team crosses my personal line into "have you ever met somebody with real problems?" territory.

I do also appreciate that this is just a hypothetical example.

Bullying is very real in the workplace, believe me.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

I'll be honest, I don't see that as a problem that the state should be intervening in.

And I think the gist of the post is they won’t need to, or it’s a loss less likely under UBI

 

[Sid and the Sharknados]

Bullying is very real in the workplace, believe me.

If the word bullying had been used, rather than personality clash, then I would obviously be significantly more sympathetic.

That said, I still don't view it as a problem for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to deal with.

 

[Sid and the Sharknados]

And I think the gist of the post is they won’t need to, or it’s a loss less likely under UBI

UBI is itself a state intervention. There may well be lots of benefits to it as have been well described on this thread, but I don't see that situation as one that particularly justifies it.

 

[chickens]

I'll be honest, I don't see that as a problem that the state should be intervening in.

I realise it might ultimately have deeper and darker consequences down the line, but getting sacked because you can't get on with your new colleagues in a new team crosses my personal line into "have you ever met somebody with real problems?" territory.

I do also appreciate that this is just a hypothetical example.

Absolutely, and perhaps I wasn’t explicit there, but the point of the example was really that this led to mental health issues, which are very real regardless of initial cause or inciting incident.

The point I was trying to make was that (regardless of inciting incident) individuals in our present system have no room to breathe. One problem almost immediately becomes several, because what’s at stake is everything - access to healthcare, access to housing, access to heat (if it’s winter) access to food.

At present we have a complex and unwieldy set of benefits that will kick in eventually if the claimant knows the system and what to apply for when, though if the claimant was a homeowner they won’t pay the homeowner’s mortgage, but will pay private rent to a landlord (so they’ll pay somebody else’s mortgage) once the homeowner has lost their house.

The benefits are colossally expensive to administer, because there is reams of conditionality attached to each one, which in turn means we’re employing hordes of Civil Servants whose only job is to ensure that the conditionality is being met.

Go to any homeless shelter in town, and in among those who gave up long ago, and those whose addictions have held them in place for years, you will find plenty of individuals who simply had a health issue combined with an arsehole boss or a disintegrating relationship, and that’s all it’s taken to get them there.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Absolutely, and perhaps I wasn’t explicit there, but the point of the example was really that this led to mental health issues, which are very real regardless of initial cause or inciting incident.

The point I was trying to make was that (regardless of inciting incident) individuals in our present system have no room to breathe. One problem almost immediately becomes several, because what’s at stake is everything - access to healthcare, access to housing, access to heat (if it’s winter) access to food.

At present we have a complex and unwieldy set of benefits that will kick in eventually if the claimant knows the system and what to apply for when, though if the claimant was a homeowner they won’t pay the homeowner’s mortgage, but will pay private rent to a landlord (so they’ll pay somebody else’s mortgage) once the homeowner has lost their house.

The benefits are colossally expensive to administer, because there is reams of conditionality attached to each one, which in turn means we’re employing hordes of Civil Servants whose only job is to ensure that the conditionality is being met.

Go to any homeless shelter in town, and in among those who gave up long ago, and those whose addictions have held them in place for years, you will find plenty of individuals who simply had a health issue combined with an arsehole boss or a disintegrating relationship, and that’s all it’s taken to get them there.

Well said. I had a verbal warning, followed by a written warning for having three operations in 16 months. There was a meeting where I was told not to do it again. I simply retorted the offending part of my body had been removed so it wasn’t likely to happen again. It was embarrassing and verging on bullying, sick notes had been supplied and discussion about medical issues were painful.

 

[chickens]

Well said. I had a verbal warning, followed by a written warning for having three operations in 16 months. There was a meeting where I was told not to do it again. I simply retorted the offending part of my body had been removed so it wasn’t likely to happen again. It was embarrassing and verging on bullying, sick notes had been supplied and discussion about medical issues were painful.

I’m sorry to hear it. I’ve had a couple of bad bosses in my life before, and they are capable of making life utterly miserable. One in particular, who was fully aware of what he was doing while I tried to juggle work and caring for my mother who had cancer at the time, I will always remember for his low grade unpleasant obstructiveness and the level of undisguised racism he showed to members of my team when I wasn’t there.

The organization I worked for got him out in the end, but it was too late for me, I’d decided that my life was being made impossible and had thankfully found work elsewhere.

 

[Sid and the Sharknados]

Absolutely, and perhaps I wasn’t explicit there, but the point of the example was really that this led to mental health issues, which are very real regardless of initial cause or inciting incident.

The point I was trying to make was that (regardless of inciting incident) individuals in our present system have no room to breathe. One problem almost immediately becomes several, because what’s at stake is everything - access to healthcare, access to housing, access to heat (if it’s winter) access to food.

At present we have a complex and unwieldy set of benefits that will kick in eventually if the claimant knows the system and what to apply for when, though if the claimant was a homeowner they won’t pay the homeowner’s mortgage, but will pay private rent to a landlord (so they’ll pay somebody else’s mortgage) once the homeowner has lost their house.

The benefits are colossally expensive to administer, because there is reams of conditionality attached to each one, which in turn means we’re employing hordes of Civil Servants whose only job is to ensure that the conditionality is being met.

Go to any homeless shelter in town, and in among those who gave up long ago, and those whose addictions have held them in place for years, you will find plenty of individuals who simply had a health issue combined with an arsehole boss or a disintegrating relationship, and that’s all it’s taken to get them there.

Thanks for the polite reply. I completely agree with your assessment of the problems.
That said, I'm slightly wary of the implication by some on this thread that UBI would somehow pay for itself by simplifying the benefits system. A quick Google suggests that the total budget for the DWP for 2023/24 is £279bn (https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cdp-2023-0154/). If we're to pay about 30million adults £1600 a month then that works out to £576bn a year, so even if we remove every other cost and all other pensions and benefits that still suggests more than doubling the spend on welfare.

 

[beorhthelm]

I think the difference is that at present, failure/inability to work can often lead to downright barbaric outcomes, homelessness, suicide, entrenched poor mental health. In the envisaged scenario there are still absolutely consequences for not meeting your obligations, but they don’t take one problem and turn it into an interconnected web of problems.

Take an example scenario: An individual who has been working in the same job for a number of years, is as part of a company reorganisation moved into a different team where they don’t know anyone and has a personality clash with their new line manager. This individual does their best, but feels work has gone from a positive to a negative in their life. They start applying for other jobs, but aren’t getting interviews and this begins getting them down. They don’t have a lot of support outside work, so they try to do their best, but their performance suffers and they’re put on performance review.

In our current world, this can lead to job loss, the consequences of which can quickly be homelessness, which in turn, if that forces them from the area in which they were living, can lead to loss of access to a GP.

From one problem, that individual now has multiple problems, and the route back to work is the work of months or even years, rather than weeks.

In a case where UBI was in payment, the individual could hand in their resignation, see their doctor, get the help they needed, resume applying for jobs, and potentially return to work within a number of weeks, with nothing worse than a note on their credit history that they missed two monthly payments.

It’s no coincidence that we have ever increasing levels of mental health issues within most civilizations, we push people too hard, with too much at stake.

what obligations? i dont see any mention of obligations with any proposal of UBI. just a automatic payment.
in your example the person earning say 20k on top of their UBI will have responsibilities and commitments, making losing that 20k income difficult - what's different? seems naive at best they can resolve their issue and find alternative work in a couple of months, have no consequence of missing mortgages and payment, how does UBI alone make the world so easy?

 

[rogersix]

Truthfully when it comes to HS2. That is a U-turn. Still, Stanley Johnson made a few million out of it.

forgive my ignorance, but how did SJ monetise the, "northern powerhouse"?

 

[Thunder Bolt]

forgive my ignorance, but how did SJ monetise the, "northern powerhouse"?

He seemed to be the only one who got the market price for his house, allegedly.

 

[chickens]

Thanks for the polite reply. I completely agree with your assessment of the problems.
That said, I'm slightly wary of the implication by some on this thread that UBI would somehow pay for itself by simplifying the benefits system. A quick Google suggests that the total budget for the DWP for 2023/24 is £279bn (https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cdp-2023-0154/). If we're to pay about 30million adults £1600 a month then that works out to £576bn a year, so even if we remove every other cost and all other pensions and benefits that still suggests more than doubling the spend on welfare.

No, UBI would absolutely need paying for, and that’s for me where the question is. It could easily be paid for if we were taxing wealth properly, but you can’t do that on your own, otherwise individuals simply move their country of residence.

There need to be global agreements on tax, and then laws that prevent organisations or individuals hoarding money. Either the money is in play and working, or organizations/individuals are getting taxed on it.

The only alternative I can think of, if a country wanted to try and act unilaterally is to impose ownership rules, e.g. to be eligible to own assets in the UK, you and your organization need to be based in the UK and subject to UK tax laws.

I could see a lot of international organizations pulling out of the UK if such laws were enacted however, potentially leaving our GDP significantly lower. Having said that, I wouldn’t shed a tear if (for example) Amazon left the UK, they pay almost bugger all tax, and effectively shut smaller local tax-paying businesses down, because they can’t compete. This is where (I believe) the money to pay for UBI comes from.

Close the loopholes that allow Amazon to book profits made in the UK in Ireland, and get them (and Apple and Google and chums) paying their fair share of tax.

what obligations? i dont see any mention of obligations with any proposal of UBI. just a automatic payment.
in your example the person earning say 20k on top of their UBI will have responsibilities and commitments, making losing that 20k income difficult - what's different? seems naive at best they can resolve their issue and find alternative work in a couple of months, have no consequence of missing mortgages and payment, how does UBI alone make the world so easy?

The difference is that with UBI the basics are still paid for. Yes the individual would be unable to make repayments for luxuries that they had taken out on credit, there would be struggle until they had resolved their situation, but they would not incur homelessness, hunger, cold or lack of access to healthcare. They may have to change shopping habits from branded to economy in the short term, but all of this is incentive to sort their situation out without it becoming an almost existential threat.

That (to me at least) seems a significant and desirable change.