[Politics] Universal Basic Income anyone?

[Blue3]

The cost of UBI in monetary terms to the UK.

The U.K. Has about 50 million people of working age if each of these were given £2500 tax free per year that would cost around £125 billion to fund annually.

The cost of the entire benifits system to the uk is around £77 billion if this was scrapped to fund UBI it would leave a shortfall of £48 billion this short full could be halved if the UK / EU £350 million per week was diverted into UBI, so we are looking for £20 billion to fund the short full a tax rise of 0.4p in every £ earned would raise £20 billion other options might be to shave bits off other government budgets we currently spend £42 billion on defence, £133 billion on health, £92 billion on Education.

In addition the UK has 2.5 million $ millionaires a little more in contributions from this sector of society would help together with insuring companies pay their taxes

 

[Glawstergull]

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.

I fully understand how it works today but we are discussing a possible alternative. If I want to help as many people as much as I can there needs to be a optimizing of the finite pot. That requires an understanding on the level we are trying to bring people up to. Some here have alluded to a system where the support is provided in vouchers or credit with utilities, housing and other essentials. The intent to help needs to be matched by the intent to prevent abuse of the system or me the taxpayer stops buying in.

 

[Gwylan]

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.

I'll give the same reply to that as I gave to beorthelm - there'll be very, very few people who'll choose not to work - people want to go to pubs, buy birthday presents for their kids, run a car, go for meals out etc. This may shock you but there families now who don't work; however UBI is calculated, it will mean that a family living on benefits will be worse off. I don't think it's going to be tricky at all for a government to say we're going to cut the money for those people who choose not to work, I think that it will be more of a vote winner.

I do agree that the problem of who gets UBI is a trickier question. As you say, giving it someone who's just landed on Hastings beach would be problematic but I don't see someone born in Bangladesh or Jamaica who came to England as an infant and has spent 30 years working and paying taxes in the UK should be denied it. There's also a flipside to this: what about British ex-pats and non-doms: should they receive it if they have lived abroad?

These are fine details that need to be sorted, not something that can be done on a football message board. I'm just talking of the advantages of UBI in general.

 

[Gwylan]

The cost of UBI in monetary terms to the UK.

The U.K. Has about 50 million people of working age if each of these were given £2500 tax free per year that would cost around £125 billion to fund annually.

The cost of the entire benifits system to the uk is around £77 billion

You're way out with your figures. As mentioned earlier, the UK welfare budget is about £270 billion

And £2500 would be a pretty low figure for UBI: my guess would be somewhere between £7000 and £9000 per year

 

[beorhthelm]

... however UBI is calculated, it will mean that a family living on benefits will be worse off.

not really. just as some advocates might want to replace all welfare, some would set rules that keep all existing welfare. the political quarter most oftern pushing UBI would not support people being worse off.

what we've found here is there isnt any concensus on what UBI should be. the amount, how much it costs, who receives it, what it replaces if anything, are different to different people.

 

[Gwylan]

not really. just as some advocates might want to replace all welfare, some would set rules that keep all existing welfare. the political quarter most oftern pushing UBI would not support people being worse off.

what we've found here is there isnt any concensus on what UBI should be, the amount, how much it costs, what it replaces if anything.

I accept that there are different theories on this, I'm just stating what I'd do if I were appointed dictator

yes, there are some people who advocate keeping welfare but that wasn't what Friedman and the conservative economists had in mind - the whole point of it is that eliminates the cost of welfare

 

[Badger Boy]

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

Because there's always fraud whenever you have a benefit or a scheme of any kind. You have to be prepared for it and how to respond to it and because you know that the people who do not like the policy would jump on any opportunity to highlight the flaws. There would be flaws in any plan.

I'm not sure what your point about there being no genuine claimants is. Are you suggesting that everyone in this country earns enough money to sustain themselves and their family?

 

[KZNSeagull]

Because there's always fraud whenever you have a benefit or a scheme of any kind. You have to be prepared for it and how to respond to it and because you know that the people who do not like the policy would jump on any opportunity to highlight the flaws. There would be flaws in any plan.

I'm not sure what your point about there being no genuine claimants is. Are you suggesting that everyone in this country earns enough money to sustain themselves and their family?

Universal means that everyone gets it, so there are no "claimants" as such.

 

[Bakero]

Because there's always fraud whenever you have a benefit or a scheme of any kind. You have to be prepared for it and how to respond to it and because you know that the people who do not like the policy would jump on any opportunity to highlight the flaws. There would be flaws in any plan.

I'm not sure what your point about there being no genuine claimants is. Are you suggesting that everyone in this country earns enough money to sustain themselves and their family?

You seem to be missing the point, Badger. Everybody would receive the payment, regardless of their financial situation. There would be no means testing.

 

[The Clamp]

UBI has been knocking around for a while and has/is been implemented in a number of ways, in a number of countries/regions to stabilise failing economies or address specific problematic sections of populations, i.e certain provinces or impoverished sections of society, Brazil is a good example of this. Canada, Africa and Europe have also used various UBI models for varying reasons, or as case studies.


Automation, innovations in tech, globalisation and rising populations are all underlying factors for experimentation in UBI since the 70's and seem to be relevant just as much now. This, plus the downturn in global economies due to C19 means we are facing serious financial challenges that will impact huge sections of the UK population.

Given the situation ATM, does anyone see some form of UBI in the UK as workable?

Of course it’s workable. Never under a Tory government though. It goes against everything they stand for.

 

[Badger Boy]

Universal means that everyone gets it, so there are no "claimants" as such.

You seem to be missing the point, Badger. Everybody would receive the payment, regardless of their financial situation. There would be no means testing.

Sorry - you're both absolutely correct and I wasn't properly applying the word Universal.

In my opinion - it shouldn't be universal. It should be qualified for people earning under a certain threshold, on a sliding scale depending on how many people are in the home. For example, families would be entitled to more than a single person. I didn't make that clear in my previous comments and I apologise.

 

[Horton's halftime iceberg]

I fully understand how it works today but we are discussing a possible alternative. If I want to help as many people as much as I can there needs to be a optimizing of the finite pot. That requires an understanding on the level we are trying to bring people up to. Some here have alluded to a system where the support is provided in vouchers or credit with utilities, housing and other essentials. The intent to help needs to be matched by the intent to prevent abuse of the system or me the taxpayer stops buying in.

I think the minute you mess with the fundamental idea, quick easy access to funds, the more it doesn't become what it is. We have enough money alone to introduce it just using the current budgets on welfare. 75% of households would benefit from the changes, while the richest 25% would lose money. Other impacts would be for child poverty to be cut by more than a third and pensioner poverty by almost a third.

 

[beorhthelm]

I think the minute you mess with the fundamental idea, quick easy access to funds, the more it doesn't become what it is. We have enough money alone to introduce it just using the current budgets on welfare. 75% of households would benefit from the changes, while the richest 25% would lose money. Other impacts would be for child poverty to be cut by more than a third and pensioner poverty by almost a third.

only way we'd have enough in the current welfare budget with a low payment, less than recieve by those on benefits today. so they would all be worse off. to cut child poverty by a third would need a rate high enough for incomes brought above median earning, far in excess of the numbers mentioned and the current welfare budget.

 

[Gwylan]

For example, families would be entitled to more than a single person. I didn't make that clear in my previous comments and I apologise.

Families would get more than a single person - it's delivered per person. One debate that there'd need to be is whether children count as people (for the purposes of UBI). Under my dictatorship, they would but at half rates (until they're 18). This would reduce my proposed £700 per person to something like £500 per adult per month

I think the minute you mess with the fundamental idea, quick easy access to funds, the more it doesn't become what it is. We have enough money alone to introduce it just using the current budgets on welfare. 75% of households would benefit from the changes, while the richest 25% would lose money. Other impacts would be for child poverty to be cut by more than a third and pensioner poverty by almost a third.

I think that's too simplistic: the way I see it (and I accept there are different interpretations) would be that people on low or average pay would be better off. People at the lower end of the higher rate tax bracket would be roughly unaffected and people over, say, £75k per year would be worse off. The other people who'd be worse off would be people who live solely off benefits - to attain a decent standard of living, they'd have to take part-time jobs (something that's hard for them to do at the moment as it would mean benefits being cut).

As I said earlier, in nearly every version of UBI, there's a need for a more equal division of jobs and far more part-time jobs available - it won't work otherwise

 

[Horton's halftime iceberg]

only way we'd have enough in the current welfare budget with a low payment, less than recieve by those on benefits today. so they would all be worse off. to cut child poverty by a third would need a rate high enough for incomes brought above median earning, far in excess of the numbers mentioned and the current welfare budget.

We have enough to fund it now with the Welfare Budget in the UK. To even it out the richest pay more tax towards it, this goes to the poorest.; So even though the richest can still claim the UB if they want. They would still be paying more, this evens it out from top to bottom. I have been sold on this for years, it makes sense, it is pretty simple, it eradicates a lot of poverty across society. With more work becoming automated (Tax automated profitable companies) it allows people to do more for the community or take up new carears and earn money on top that will pay more tax into the system.

 

[beorhthelm]

We have enough to fund it now with the Welfare Budget in the UK.

current welfare budget is £126bn, for 46m working age population thats ~£52 a week each. if there is to be more taxes, thats acknowledging need for larger budget.

 

[Machiavelli]

Sorry - you're both absolutely correct and I wasn't properly applying the word Universal.

In my opinion - it shouldn't be universal. It should be qualified for people earning under a certain threshold, on a sliding scale depending on how many people are in the home. For example, families would be entitled to more than a single person. I didn't make that clear in my previous comments and I apologise.

I've encountered worse crimes on NSC

 

[GOM]

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

So about the same as the new state pension. I would go for that, meaning, I'll take the dosh and give up work and thank the rest of you for your tax money. Selfish moi ?

 

[HalfaSeatOn]

Families would get more than a single person - it's delivered per person. One debate that there'd need to be is whether children count as people (for the purposes of UBI). Under my dictatorship, they would but at half rates (until they're 18). This would reduce my proposed £700 per person to something like £500 per adult per month



I think that's too simplistic: the way I see it (and I accept there are different interpretations) would be that people on low or average pay would be better off. People at the lower end of the higher rate tax bracket would be roughly unaffected and people over, say, £75k per year would be worse off. The other people who'd be worse off would be people who live solely off benefits - to attain a decent standard of living, they'd have to take part-time jobs (something that's hard for them to do at the moment as it would mean benefits being cut).

As I said earlier, in nearly every version of UBI, there's a need for a more equal division of jobs and far more part-time jobs available - it won't work otherwise

Can you help discourage large families with your policies, dictator. BBC news interviewed struggling families this week. Three had a minimum of 6 children. I couldn't sleep at night with that many mouths to feed in normal times never mind in these Covid-19 days.

 

[Blue3]

You're way out with your figures. As mentioned earlier, the UK welfare budget is about £270 billion

And £2500 would be a pretty low figure for UBI: my guess would be somewhere between £7000 and £9000 per year

Apologies I took the numbers off the web I probably should have read all the posts on here first