[Politics] Universal Basic Income anyone?

[Pavilionaire]

Whilst it isn't perfect there's a lot right about the present system - leaving aside Covid 19 for the moment:

1. There is a financial incentive for people to work.
2. Unemployment has been low for some time so there are jobs.
3. Both the tax gap and the black economy are relatively small - the vast majority of people pay their taxes on time.
4. National Minimum Wage and National Living Wage concerns are being addressed, and there are fewer employers taking the piss.

My immediate concern is for young people, particularly those taking the plunge with their first proper job. Those kids will invariably start at the bottom and if there is a guaranteed level of state income that may be similar to what they can earn I fear many will not be incentivised to work.

Immigration has always bailed us out re jobs that the British don't want to do, but with Brexit, the Points Based System and current political thinking those immigrants won't be there this time.

 

[yxee]

What I don't understand is, if your goal is to redistribute income, what does UBI do that our current system can't? Just raise taxes and increase the threshold.

If you want to give people money who have chosen not to seek employment, then I can't see how the vast majority of people (who work) would support this.

 

[WATFORD zero]

So what one expect to get living in Hove assuming no top up?

Typical socialist[emoji23] Great ideas but no clue of the cost...

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]

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?

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.

Another well though out, informative, detailed and well reasoned contribution to yet another thread

 

[Gwylan]

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

You're still avoiding the question: why is this an issue? There won't be more than a couple of hundred people who want to live like that - the cost is minuscule

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

No, because Friedman was writing at a time when £500 a month would have been astronomical, let alone a grand. My guess would be something like £700 to £750 per adult per month.

So, a family of four living in Brighton would have to survive on, say, £1500. The cheapest flat (two bed) that I can find on Right Move is £800. Let's say £120 for utilities, £110 council tax £30 phones - that leaves £440 for food and clothes. No broadband, little money for transport or luxuries but enough to survive on. I can't see any UBI being too much lower than that

 

[Seasidesage]

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?

Different things or they are in my mind. UB is an insurance scheme to cover being out of work. Currently work is not really optional although some people don't obviously for the majority its not an option. UBI is basically the state allocating you an allowance. In the next 10 years or so It's not a question of whether people want to work it'll be a question of if they can.

 

[Chicken Run]

Another well though out, informative, detailed and well reasoned contribution to yet another thread

I learnt all my skills from following your input on the Brexit thread.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Gwylan]

UBI is basically the state allocating you an allowance. In the next 10 years or so It's not a question of whether people want to work it'll be a question of if they can.

Indeed - although I think the effects of automation are exaggerated, it will happen.

But you have a mindset that UBI is bolted onto the current system where the vast majority of people work full-time. With UBI will come a new pattern of part-time workers, four-day weeks, job shares, zero hour contracts etc.

There will always be jobs but instead one person having a job as an accounts clerk, say, that will be shared with two people doing two days a week.

People (not you, I think you have it) are really struggling with the concept of UBI

it's universal so everyone gets the same amount regardless of your age, income or location
It's basic, so everyone can live off it, just about
It's income, so it's not taxed or stopped for any reason - if it's set at £1000 a month, that's your income

For people currently on benefits, they'll probably be getting less on UBI but won't get penalised if they want to work a few hours

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Different things or they are in my mind. UB is an insurance scheme to cover being out of work.

This is a different thing though, it’s not universal basic income....it’s unemployment benefit you’re thinking of...or whatever it’s called these days.

 

[Gwylan]

This is a different thing though, it’s not universal basic income....it’s unemployment benefit you’re thinking of...or whatever it’s called these days.

Er.... what do you think UB stands for?

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Er.... what do you think UB stands for?

Doh....I read that as UBI. My bad.

 

[Gwylan]

Doh....I read that as UBI. My bad.

Will there be enough UBI to afford glasses?

 

[Seasidesage]

This is a different thing though, it’s not universal basic income....it’s unemployment benefit you’re thinking of...or whatever it’s called these days.

HT that was the point I was trying to make, badly clearly.

 

[beorhthelm]

You're still avoiding the question: why is this an issue? There won't be more than a couple of hundred people who want to live like that - the cost is minuscule

i was putting forward the obvious reply. you cant seriously believe this group would be a couple of hundred people, if it were it doesnt really address the point of principle of why they could choose to drop out of work. this needs to be answered, put along side the list of intangible benefits.

i see you've put a suggested rate £700 a month. the cost of this is ~£386bn, about half the total revenue and nearly 3 times current welfare budget. so if we assume it would replace welfare, a net increase of ~£266bn. this lead to two questions, 1) can we afford that, 2) if so would we better spending that money elsewhere? could uplift health and eduction budgets by 50%, for half of the cost of UBI on that figure.

 

[blue-shifted]

You're still avoiding the question: why is this an issue? There won't be more than a couple of hundred people who want to live like that - the cost is minuscule



No, because Friedman was writing at a time when £500 a month would have been astronomical, let alone a grand. My guess would be something like £700 to £750 per adult per month.

So, a family of four living in Brighton would have to survive on, say, £1500. The cheapest flat (two bed) that I can find on Right Move is £800. Let's say £120 for utilities, £110 council tax £30 phones - that leaves £440 for food and clothes. No broadband, little money for transport or luxuries but enough to survive on. I can't see any UBI being too much lower than that

That example, of course is assuming that there are two adults bringing up the family of 4. Often, there will be just one parent of course, or there may be some sort of special need so a top up would be needed in some instances.

So if we are saying £700pm per adult. £700 x 12 months x 46m = £386bn per year in payments. Minus from that of course, some of the existing welfare payments, (though it would be very hard to get rid of them all). About double what we currently spend on working age benefits.

The other way I think about it is, to pay each person their £700 each month, how much would we have to first collect from them in tax in that months pay packet? Even assuming they were all working about contributing Income Tax. A huge amount per person. Don't forget we still have to pay for police, health etc

 

[zefarelly]

Universal basic human rights would be a priority over income for me . . . . as long as we have religion in the world it'll never happen.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Will there be enough UBI to afford glasses?

HT that was the point I was trying to make, badly clearly.

I’ve just started wearing glasses actually. Well, I’m still practicing with them at the moment. I forget to put them on, and then find them a bit difficult when I do.

 

[KZNSeagull]

Would UBI also replace the state pension?

 

[Gwylan]

i was putting forward the obvious reply. you cant seriously believe this group would be a couple of hundred people, if it were it doesnt really address the point of principle of why they could choose to drop out of work. this needs to be answered, put along side the list of intangible benefits.

You must know some very weird people. Most people I know like going out, like going for a drink, like spending money on nice things occasionally. Most parents I know would be horrified about the idea of not buying their kids birthday or Christmas presents.

You may know people like that I really, really don't think there many people in the UK like that

i see you've put a suggested rate £700 a month. the cost of this is ~£386bn, about half the total revenue and nearly 3 times current welfare budget. so if we assume it would replace welfare, a net increase of ~£266bn. this lead to two questions, 1) can we afford that, 2) if so would we better spending that money elsewhere? could uplift health and eduction budgets by 50%, for half of the cost of UBI on that figure.

Your figures are way out. In 2017, the latest figures I can find, the government spent £264 bn on welfare, so it's probably higher now - £386 bn isn't even twice that, let alone three times that amount.

The shortfall, therefore is £110 billion. There'll be a tax increase to cover some of that - let's say it raises £70 bn, so there's a shortfall of around £40 bn

As I said, this is not just about economics, but there'll also be a reduction in bureaucracy as we wouldn't have to adminster so many different benefits, the increase in productivity would mean further increases in income ... but it's hard to quantify. But it's really not just about the money

 

[Gwylan]

Would UBI also replace the state pension?

Yes

 

[beorhthelm]

Your figures are way out. In 2017, the latest figures I can find, the government spent £264 bn on welfare, so it's probably higher now - £386 bn isn't even twice that, let alone three times that amount.

my numbers are from Ukspending, i wonder how and why the splits differ. however i note you are including pensions, and the total welfare+pensions are £280bn, so not so different. and, now the costs are £436bn...

it is about the money because once you accept the arguments on the benefits, and move to how to deliver it, this is a rather large impediment. you've assumed a 140bn gap with a unqualified assumption you'll get 70bn more in tax (why? would expect a reduction especially from NI, as millions of second earners dont need to), which is still a substantial amount. it missed the question, is this the best way to spend our money?