[Politics] Universal Basic Income anyone?

[Badger Boy]

I am 100% in favour of UBI. I have been thinking a lot about it over the last few weeks and I see several problems with implementation. There is a significant difference in earnings in the North and the South - so how would you adjust what people can earn? What is the minimum people can earn and still be eligible for the UBI?

Personally, I don't know how anyone in the South can live on less than £1k per month. I'm sure it can be done, but your existence won't be easy, fun or fulfilling. You probably also won't be in a position to support the local economy by eating out, for example. I know some people who live with less than that level of income, but I'm always inherently sad on their behalf because they have such small and limited lives. I'm not trying to live their life for them, they seem perfectly happy - but with a bit more cash in their pocket their options would be greater and that is better for everybody exponentially.

 

[blue-shifted]

Unemployment wasn't actually bad before the virus struck. Getting employment back to where it was after the virus will take years, but not decades.

Then there's the argument that new jobs will just be created to replace the ones taken by automation. It's hard for us to visualise what they will be, because they don't exist yet, but historically this has happened every time there has been technological breakthroughs.

I'm not closed the idea of UBI, but in the short term, I'd prefer to see much higher taxation, to reduce inequality and provide a more thorough safety net within the existing system. (oh and I suppose to pay back the Covid debt as well)

 

[Gwylan]

There’s details which need addressing, like geographical weighting, but I’m broadly in principle of this idea.

Why? The idea of a universal basic income is that everyone gets the same - no matter what they do or where they live or what age they are (although there is a debate as to whether it applies to kids or not) That's what universal means.

And I think framing it all about costs is the wrong way to do it - yes, it's going to cost a hell of a lot to implement - some of which will be paid for by cutting other costs (pensions, housing benefit, job seekers etc). There'll also be a lot less bureaucracy. And there can also be adjustments to taxes - the idea of UBI means that millionaires would get it too but that could be offset by tax increases.

But it's the hidden benefits that matter: productivity will increase as people will be happier; there'll be more small businesses as people would have a safety net; people would be better educated as they'd be able to do more training/learning - these are all factors that could improve the general wealth of society.

There may be less crime as people would have their needs fulfilled. With less financial worry for families, there may be a reduction in domestic violence - money is the number one cause of marital discord.

These are all tangible benefits that don't appear in any assessment of UBI. Yes, it's going to cost but there needs to be a need to look beyond the balance sheet

 

[blue-shifted]

I am 100% in favour of UBI. I have been thinking a lot about it over the last few weeks and I see several problems with implementation. There is a significant difference in earnings in the North and the South - so how would you adjust what people can earn? What is the minimum people can earn and still be eligible for the UBI?

Personally, I don't know how anyone in the South can live on less than £1k per month. I'm sure it can be done, but your existence won't be easy, fun or fulfilling. You probably also won't be in a position to support the local economy by eating out, for example. I know some people who live with less than that level of income, but I'm always inherently sad on their behalf because they have such small and limited lives. I'm not trying to live their life for them, they seem perfectly happy - but with a bit more cash in their pocket their options would be greater and that is better for everybody exponentially.

The cost to the exchequer might be a bit of an issue with this? (I admire the hardcore socialism on display, you're significantly to the left of Corbyn and McDonnell, but don't let anyone tell you there's something wrong with that)

 

[blue-shifted]

If it were introduced, I'd argue for no regional weighting.

We need to encourage more people (and jobs) out of London and into the regions, so this would be one mechanism by which to achieve this.

 

[Chicken Run]

As I said, I’m in agreement with the principle. Which part of this are you struggling with?

None of it, it’s you who appears to be struggling, come on give me an idea of what I might get as my universal payment, it is after all an idea you agree with in principal, don’t be shy [emoji23]



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Chicken Run]

If it were introduced, I'd argue for no regional weighting.

We need to encourage more people (and jobs) out of London and into the regions, so this would be one mechanism by which to achieve this.

Agreed, if someone living in the south picked up more for doing **** all all day than someone in the north then surely many would attempt to migrate down south?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Why? The idea of a universal basic income is that everyone gets the same - no matter what they do or where they live or what age they are (although there is a debate as to whether it applies to kids or not) That's what universal means.

And I think framing it all about costs is the wrong way to do it - yes, it's going to cost a hell of a lot to implement - some of which will be paid for by cutting other costs (pensions, housing benefit, job seekers etc). There'll also be a lot less bureaucracy. And there can also be adjustments to taxes - the idea of UBI means that millionaires would get it too but that could be offset by tax increases.

But it's the hidden benefits that matter: productivity will increase as people will be happier; there'll be more small businesses as people would have a safety net; people would be better educated as they'd be able to do more training/learning - these are all factors that could improve the general wealth of society.

There may be less crime as people would have their needs fulfilled. With less financial worry for families, there may be a reduction in domestic violence - money is the number one cause of marital discord.

These are all tangible benefits that don't appear in any assessment of UBI. Yes, it's going to cost but there needs to be a need to look beyond the balance sheet

The weighting discussion is one I’ve seen before, I don’t necessarily support it I just wanted to provide an example. But one item you mention is less bureaucracy; this is one element I really like. The current system is chaotic and all over the place and must cost a fortune to maintain. Giving everyone x pounds a week should be simple to administer. Adding geographical weighting will be a significant admin overhead to maintain so, after consideration it’s not a need. Also, it might encourage people to move away from London i.e. spread the population more evenly.

 

[Gwylan]

The cost to the exchequer might be a bit of an issue with this? (I admire the hardcore socialism on display, you're significantly to the left of Corbyn and McDonnell, but don't let anyone tell you there's something wrong with that)

UBI is not hardcore socialism. As someone pointed out earlier, Milton Friedman was an early advocate - it's seen by conservative economists as a) a way to reduce welfare payments and b) a way to encourage entrepreneurs

 

[beardy gull]

Recent trial in Finland. Payment was around 560 euro a month.

https://www.newscientist.com/articl...employment-and-well-being/#Echobox=1588847201

 

[highflyer]

Yes. Time has come. It's doable.

Can replace the income related welfare system to a large extent, but not completely. And must be additional to free healthcare, education etc.

Beware the right-wing vision of UBI whereby it is used as an excuse to remove all free government funded services and let the market run everything.

What it can do though, amongst other benefits is encourage entrepreneurial activity on a small scale - it removes at least part of the risk for those with a good idea, and perhaps with dependents, but who have not been blessed to be born into a situation where failure simply means failing back onto the bank of mum and dad.

Expect a rapid, but short lived, boom in new bands, small scale cup cake shops and aromatherapy practioners.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

None of it, it’s you who appears to be struggling, come on give me an idea of what I might get as my universal payment, it is after all an idea you agree with in principal, don’t be shy [emoji23]



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

You seem to be hell bent on derailing every thread you open at the moment. Stop being a prick.

 

[m@goo]

I kind of sit on the fence. Yes everyone should have a certain standard of living but I'm not sure just giving out cash is the right way to achieve that. It's a bit like Child Benefit - who really uses it for the purpose for which it was given ? Instead it should be free school uniforms, food vouchers and vouchers for kids activities. UBI should be the same - instead of cash everyone should get an allowance of water, electric and gas. All essential commodities which cost far too much money. If UBI extends past that then food vouchers and maybe subsidised internet access.

I tend to agree with this stance. A UBI might work in some countries where the attitude and culture towards money and life in general is different but not so sure it would work in the UK.

I'd rather see reduced rates and fees in all areas for people on a low/no income than give them a financial allowance each month.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

I tend to agree with this stance. A UBI might work in some countries where the attitude and culture towards money and life in general is different but not so sure it would work in the UK.

I'd rather see reduced rates and fees in all areas for people on a low/no income than give them a financial allowance each month.

Maybe it, coupled with the lock-down experience of having life reduced to its essentials, will encourage a different attitude?

 

[Seasidesage]

UBI is going to take time to implement, all of the discussion about the level is perfectly valid as is the argument currently about encouraging people to do nothing. Reports suggest that by 2050 half of all current jobs will be carried out by machines. If that is correct we are going to have to think very differently about how we consider work, will it become a privilege? Education may well become more important but not everyone can or will benefit from that and its likely that being highly educated will not automatically mean you are employed.

But if the level of UBI is too low or non existent, the alternative could be 50% of the population with insufficient resources and no legal pathway to achieving it. This threatens society in a fundamental way and will need to be addressed somehow. I am unlikely to be around to see it but the planet never mind the UK is going to have to fundamentally re-evaluate how things are done and how society is structured and that's in addition to climate change etc. There will be people who never work a day in their lives being born now....

 

[Chicken Run]

You seem to be hell bent on derailing every thread you open at the moment. Stop being a prick.

I only asked you to give me an idea of what sort of payment you thought would be feasible, you couldn’t answer it! How’s that me derailing, you’ve spent a lifetime on challenging people on other threads over the years, I think it’s you that’s the prick.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Gwylan]

all of the discussion about the level is perfectly valid as is the argument currently about encouraging people to do nothing. .

A few people have said this but without any explanation as to why this is an issue? Why shouldn't people do nothing if that's what they want to do?

The idea of a UBI is that it's enough to live on (just about) but people like other things: going for a drink with mates, going to the football, buying a car, going on holiday, splashing out on nice clothes or a meal out?

Why do people think that those desires are going to go away?

 

[beorhthelm]

A few people have said this but without any explanation as to why this is an issue? Why shouldn't people do nothing if that's what they want to do?

because the rest of the nation has to pay for it?

 

[Chicken Run]

A few people have said this but without any explanation as to why this is an issue? Why shouldn't people do nothing if that's what they want to do?

The idea of a UBI is that it's enough to live on (just about) but people like other things: going for a drink with mates, going to the football, buying a car, going on holiday, splashing out on nice clothes or a meal out?

Why do people think that those desires are going to go away?

I actually agree with you, but I’d worry that many who choose to do nothing will after a while start moaning they want an increase


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[blue-shifted]

UBI is not hardcore socialism. As someone pointed out earlier, Milton Friedman was an early advocate - it's seen by conservative economists as a) a way to reduce welfare payments and b) a way to encourage entrepreneurs

Don't think Friedman was advocating a grand a month to be fair, which the fella I was replying to was.