[Politics] Universal Basic Income anyone?

[Sorrel]

The big question with UBI is not the income itself, but what you actually do with the other benefits: income support, housing benefit, child tax credits etc.

If it replaces other benefits then we have to accept that some people still won't have enough money and/or will waste it on non-essentials and then require more help from the state. What do we do in those cases? And how much administration will be required to help?

If it doesn't replace other benefits, but instead they continue - will it actually change anything (other than causing inflation for a while)?

 

[Gwylan]

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

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?), which is still a substantial amount. it missed the question, is this the best way to spend our money?

Why? Because if I'm earning, say, £3000 every month - I'll pay approximately £600 in tax and NI (don't argue that it's not, this is for illustrative purposes only)

If basic rate income tax is increased by 10p in the pound then, according to IFS, that would raise £55 billion and our bloke on £3000 a month pays about £250 more in month in tax BUT he will be better off by £750 from UBI

I'm writing on a football forum and I'm not really going to spend my fine tuning all the figures but it's certainly going to be possible to tweak the tax rates (VAT and corp tax too ) to bring in more income.

My argument is, yes, it's a good way to spend money. It will take a lot of pressure off the lower paid and unemployed, it will enable people to be employed more effectively, it will encourage people to set up businesses. I can't think of any other way of doing this

 

[Blue3]

Money is social illusion, money is little more than an idea its is only valuable as long as it is perceived to be valuable being nothing more than a token for exchange for somthing given that token holds the illusion of a fair exchange, think of money as an idea and not as a tangible asset.

So how would universal basic income UBI work well the idea has been around for a couple of thousand years, the Romans ran a form of UBI collectively Rome expanded its boundaries taking among other things wheat this was then shipped back to Rome where on a daily basis made into btead and distributed to the citizens at no cost to themselves did work yes to a point but as soon as Rome lost North Africa so the gain dried up

If society acts as a social construct and we don't have this lust for more then yes UBI is very possible it would need for a large part of the world to not continue to blindly follow the USA model

 

[beorhthelm]

Why? Because if I'm earning, say, £3000 every month - I'll pay approximately £600 in tax and NI (don't argue that it's not, this is for illustrative purposes only)

If basic rate income tax is increased by 10p in the pound then, according to IFS, that would raise £55 billion and our bloke on £3000 a month pays about £250 more in month in tax BUT he will be better off by £750 from UBI

I'm writing on a football forum and I'm not really going to spend my fine tuning all the figures but it's certainly going to be possible to tweak the tax rates (VAT and corp tax too ) to bring in more income.

My argument is, yes, it's a good way to spend money. It will take a lot of pressure off the lower paid and unemployed, it will enable people to be employed more effectively, it will encourage people to set up businesses. I can't think of any other way of doing this

illustrative numbers are fine, you've highlighted the tax increases will be needed. i misread earlier post, as the UBI would lead to tax increase.

 

[Gwylan]

The big question with UBI is not the income itself, but what you actually do with the other benefits: income support, housing benefit, child tax credits etc.

If it replaces other benefits then we have to accept that some people still won't have enough money and/or will waste it on non-essentials and then require more help from the state. What do we do in those cases? And how much administration will be required to help?

If it doesn't replace other benefits, but instead they continue - will it actually change anything (other than causing inflation for a while)?

UBI replaces other benefits, pensions, allowances etc

Basic - people have enough to live on. They can afford housing, food, utilities but nothing else. If they want more: why should the state pay for them?

The only tweak that i'd make would be for disabled and those unable to work

As I said to beorthelm - I'm not an economist and the finer details would need to be refined but the idea would be if you want more, then work for it

BUT, the jobs market would be tweaked accordingly, so there'd be more work

 

[Horton's halftime iceberg]

Its the way, especially with so much automatism of work. Will improve society 100 fold, as its proven where its been tested voluntary and community work goes through the roof. This then improves the area and children/teenagers get more attention and also reduces truancy. Could be paid for easily by government and taxes on highly automated billion pound companies.

 

[Glawstergull]

I am interested to know what people consider the basic requirements to be. Or to put it another way what should the state provide and not provide. As some have suggested people "like" going for a drink, football and the odd "luxury" but is it the states job to provide these. Do I want to keep people from poverty YES. Should I pay for someone's SKY TV when I don't have it due to budgeting constraints?

 

[Badger Boy]

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)

I am fiercely independent but I am quite left on issues about helping people. I think that the cost could be offset by actually collecting the appropriate rate of tax from the superwealthy, but that's a whole other argument.

I think any system would take years to really get right because you'd have a high rate of fraud in the first few and you'd need to be agile in checking claimants genuinely qualified and weren't just being chancers. But the vast and overwhelming majority of claimants would be genuine and the good you would do with this kind of benefit would significantly exceed the negatives. I would rather some people got money they didn't genuinely qualify for than others who should get money aren't able to pay the rent AND eat food every day, for example.

I grew up poor and made something of myself but not everyone is capable of doing such a thing. If I can help make life easier for young people born into struggling families, I should.

 

[Horton's halftime iceberg]

I am interested to know what people consider the basic requirements to be. Or to put it another way what should the state provide and not provide. As some have suggested people "like" going for a drink, football and the odd "luxury" but is it the states job to provide these. Do I want to keep people from poverty YES. Should I pay for someone's SKY TV when I don't have it due to budgeting constraints?

Your already paying for lots of things for lots of different people, in Tax's, In profits, in pensions, whatever you spend your money on has a cause and effect. You cannot effect how people spend their money. But the amount the government spend on welfare and the way automatism will take away most people work, it has been shown to improve society and most people use the time for good.

 

[Gwylan]

I think any system would take years to really get right because you'd have a high rate of fraud in the first few and you'd need to be agile in checking claimants genuinely qualified and weren't just being chancers.

Why would there be any fraud? There would be no such thing as genuine claimants.

 

[Bulldog]

I know i'm missing something, but why would we not simply add the UBI to taxable income?

High earners on 40/45% would pay almost half straight back to the treasury making it a lot more affordable. Low earners may pay nothing more than now.

Do calculations allow for a lot of the extra cash being spent on things that are going to generate income for the treasury, such as VAT, excise duty, and increased taxes on business profits?

 

[Gwylan]

I know i'm missing something, but why would we not simply add the UBI to taxable income?

High earners on 40/45% would pay almost half straight back to the treasury making it a lot more affordable. Low earners may pay nothing more than now.

Do calculations allow for a lot of the extra cash being spent on things that are going to generate income for the treasury, such as VAT, excise duty, and increased taxes on business profits?

Yes, that's pretty much what was I was saying. My back of the envelope calcuations suggested that UBI at £750 per adult per month would cost about £50 to 60 bn a year more. Increases in taxation would mean that basic rate payers (and lower) would be better off and the higher tax payers would be worse off.

And yes, there'd be other tweaks too, to NI, VAT, corporate tax etc. For example, one idea I just had would be to increase NIC for employees who didn't allow job sharing and reduce it for those who do. - that will create more jobs.

UBI only really works when there are massive opportunities for part-time work, so that would be where we'd rethink things.

 

[Machiavelli]

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.

Yes, I'm convinced that the welfare state was one of the key reasons that gave The Beatles (to take just one prominent example) the opportunity to share their talent with us.

 

[Machiavelli]

Money is social illusion, money is little more than an idea its is only valuable as long as it is perceived to be valuable being nothing more than a token for exchange for somthing given that token holds the illusion of a fair exchange, think of money as an idea and not as a tangible asset.

So how would universal basic income UBI work well the idea has been around for a couple of thousand years, the Romans ran a form of UBI collectively Rome expanded its boundaries taking among other things wheat this was then shipped back to Rome where on a daily basis made into btead and distributed to the citizens at no cost to themselves did work yes to a point but as soon as Rome lost North Africa so the gain dried up

If society acts as a social construct and we don't have this lust for more then yes UBI is very possible it would need for a large part of the world to not continue to blindly follow the USA model

Yes, but I think of money as a relation or a credit system. As soon as money is created, you have a creditor and a debtor. It's much the same as the balance columns of an accounting spreadsheet.

 

[Machiavelli]

There are often disparaging comments about how politics threads on NSC develop. Well this one is going extremely well, and there's been an articulate, persistent advocate of UBI that has very much contributed to this

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Yes, I'm convinced that the welfare state was one of the key reasons that gave The Beatles (to take just one prominent example) the opportunity to share their talent with us.

“If we value artists, we should pay them benefits – Ireland is leading the way”

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...-benefits-ireland-britain-creative-industries

 

[Bob'n'weave]

The big question with UBI is not the income itself, but what you actually do with the other benefits: income support, housing benefit, child tax credits etc.

If it replaces other benefits then we have to accept that some people still won't have enough money and/or will waste it on non-essentials and then require more help from the state. What do we do in those cases? And how much administration will be required to help?

If it doesn't replace other benefits, but instead they continue - will it actually change anything (other than causing inflation for a while)?

I understand there are a number of UBI models that can be tailored to suit. One model suggested was that UBI would replace the dole, or unemployment benefit, or jobseekers allowance or whatever they call it now. Other benefit structures for housing, special needs etc would not be included but still available. I think that this would reduce admin resources to deal only with people who have issue and can't work for medical reasons or need other kinds of support.

 

[beorhthelm]

“If we value artists, we should pay them benefits – Ireland is leading the way”

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...-benefits-ireland-britain-creative-industries

suggest if we want to value and fund artists, some sort of grant or aprenticship like format would be better than benefits, recognising they are working.

 

[cunning fergus]

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?

The political message (if a political party is prepared to advocate it) for the state to provide money to those individuals the choose not to work will be tricky, plus I would assume for numerous reasons this money will be need to be available to British born, British passport holders and those not long out of a dingy on a beach near Hastings. Whoever is pimping that message politically will need plenty of luck.

 

[cunning fergus]

I am fiercely independent but I am quite left on issues about helping people. I think that the cost could be offset by actually collecting the appropriate rate of tax from the superwealthy, but that's a whole other argument.

I think any system would take years to really get right because you'd have a high rate of fraud in the first few and you'd need to be agile in checking claimants genuinely qualified and weren't just being chancers. But the vast and overwhelming majority of claimants would be genuine and the good you would do with this kind of benefit would significantly exceed the negatives. I would rather some people got money they didn't genuinely qualify for than others who should get money aren't able to pay the rent AND eat food every day, for example.

I grew up poor and made something of myself but not everyone is capable of doing such a thing. If I can help make life easier for young people born into struggling families, I should.

You sound like the perfect proponent of a change to the existing inheritance policy whereby when you drop off your perch, save for a nominal amount, everything else goes to the state so they can help people. If a Government could do that think of the money that could be distributed to those that have not made something of themselves.

I think it needs a few genuinely committed politicians and other left leaning types to do that first on a voluntary basis, you know, set an example like.