Universal Basic Income.
Discussion
I've wondered about it but I can't help but think that all you end up doing is resetting '£0' at whatever the UBI is set to; if everyone magically has an extra '£x' in their earnings, surely everything else will just go up in price to match it except now we have the cost of funding it falling on the public purse? Am I viewing it in an overly-simplistic way?
I'm not against the idea but I don't really see how it can work if I'm honest.
I'm not against the idea but I don't really see how it can work if I'm honest.
The only way to look at it is raw cost. If it is cheaper to run a basic UBI system and scrap all the benefits, then great. There is a lot of administration costs in the current benefit system. I am sure some benefits would have to stay like disability.
I imagine a UBI that everyone gets the same regardless would be cheaper to administer than the benefits system but would the extra cost of giving people the money save money overall? I guess it depends how you cost it? Would a UBI mean no feckless causing havoc? i doubt it.
I imagine the scum class who people want to get rid of would not change, they would just piss away the extra money on s
t and still claim poverty. It might help some decent folk though.
I imagine a UBI that everyone gets the same regardless would be cheaper to administer than the benefits system but would the extra cost of giving people the money save money overall? I guess it depends how you cost it? Would a UBI mean no feckless causing havoc? i doubt it.
I imagine the scum class who people want to get rid of would not change, they would just piss away the extra money on s
t and still claim poverty. It might help some decent folk though. Funk said:
I've wondered about it but I can't help but think that all you end up doing is resetting '£0' at whatever the UBI is set to; if everyone magically has an extra '£x' in their earnings, surely everything else will just go up in price to match it except now we have the cost of funding it falling on the public purse? Am I viewing it in an overly-simplistic way?
That's the problem.A capitalist society is driven by ability to pay the highest price (which is very simplistic I know!)
Take a house. The price is determined by nothing other than what someone is willing and able to pay. This applies to rent and purchase. This is why when you see these developments of 500 houses going up with the intent of flooding the market to bring prices down, all you end up with if 500 more houses of similar prices to others in the area. If you're selling, why would you sell for less than someone is willing to pay?
UBI could work but would require controls to a level that would end up with a communist state.
In theory it makes a lot of sense to me.
Do away with all the complicated admin around all the different benefits currently available by bundling it all up in to one payment. Claiming it back in tax from people who are earning enough gives a graduated system making it worthwhile for unemployed people to take a part time job, rather than the stupid situation now where people taking a part time job could lose benefits meaning they have less money coming in if they work than if they don't. It should also cut massively on benefit fraud as there'd only be the system that ought to be way easier to manage.
The issue is however you set the tax boundaries there's always going to be some people who do better out of it and some who do worse, meaning it'll be declared unfair and never get implemented.
Do away with all the complicated admin around all the different benefits currently available by bundling it all up in to one payment. Claiming it back in tax from people who are earning enough gives a graduated system making it worthwhile for unemployed people to take a part time job, rather than the stupid situation now where people taking a part time job could lose benefits meaning they have less money coming in if they work than if they don't. It should also cut massively on benefit fraud as there'd only be the system that ought to be way easier to manage.
The issue is however you set the tax boundaries there's always going to be some people who do better out of it and some who do worse, meaning it'll be declared unfair and never get implemented.
Isn't furlough effectively an experiment into Universal Basic Income. I would guess that people who earn 30K and under are quite enjoying being paid 80% to stay at home.
Maybe this is what will happen in the future, more and more unskilled people will just be paid a wage to stay home?
Maybe this is what will happen in the future, more and more unskilled people will just be paid a wage to stay home?
As AI and automation improves and (unfortunately) removes more and more jobs from the market, I suspect UBI will become a necessity.
That’s assuming that we’re on the road to a post scarcity economy, rather than a sci-fi dystopia where wealth is concentrated in the hands of very few people, and everyone else is left to starve...
ETA: current state of play, UBI would really only work if the cost of provision is offset by dramatic reduction in admin costs, or if we dramatically refocus what government spends money on.
The state pension is UBI, isn’t it? The problem is that UBI paid at a level you can live on is surely rather expensive.
That’s assuming that we’re on the road to a post scarcity economy, rather than a sci-fi dystopia where wealth is concentrated in the hands of very few people, and everyone else is left to starve...
ETA: current state of play, UBI would really only work if the cost of provision is offset by dramatic reduction in admin costs, or if we dramatically refocus what government spends money on.
The state pension is UBI, isn’t it? The problem is that UBI paid at a level you can live on is surely rather expensive.
Edited by DanL on Wednesday 3rd March 10:08
I'm not convinced that it will be possible to set UBI at a level which allows the removal of the more complicated benefits which currently take account of the different costs of living of people in different situations. Which means one of; it costs too much, it throws some people into poverty, it doesn't deliver the promised simplification.
It appeals from a simplicity point of view, and I'm a fan of simple.
BUT.
It causes an increase in reliance on the state. The state provides. The state is mother. The government pays me. Not "the richest 30% (or whatever) of productive people pay taxes, but I don't have to because I don't earn enough". No, "the government pays me".
I think that's a dangerous route to go down, personally. The more people see the state as a provider rather than a shared cost, the more those in charge will use it to manipulate people for votes.
BUT.
It causes an increase in reliance on the state. The state provides. The state is mother. The government pays me. Not "the richest 30% (or whatever) of productive people pay taxes, but I don't have to because I don't earn enough". No, "the government pays me".
I think that's a dangerous route to go down, personally. The more people see the state as a provider rather than a shared cost, the more those in charge will use it to manipulate people for votes.
I do see the practical possibilities of it, but I struggle with one of the ideological positions of many advocates of it - that nobody should have any obligation to be useful to society. That everybody else literally owes you a living. I just think about the history of humanity and indeed the state of humanity in much of the world today, and wonder how we have got to the point where we think we can make work optional in the first world.
I have to say I put up the original post in ignorance.
I assumed UBI was give everyone unemployed the same sum of money per year.
On a quick Google I find it’s paying everyone the same sum of money regardless of employment status.
Now I’m even more confused.
I can’t see how a sum large enough to support an unemployed person can be given to everyone? Or alternatively a sum of money given to everyone surely can’t be large enough to support someone not to work?
If it’s going to need further additions and bureaucracy surely that negates part of the argument?
The whole point is that at 18 everyone will receive £1k per month.
No benefits, no means tested, no management of all said benefits, it’s a huge cost on a cost to manage and control the benefit system.
Whether it then gets added to your total earnings and you get taxed at source for PAYE, £50k to £62k so 40% odd would be returned via the higher tax, etc.
I assume it would also replace the state pension?
No benefits, no means tested, no management of all said benefits, it’s a huge cost on a cost to manage and control the benefit system.
Whether it then gets added to your total earnings and you get taxed at source for PAYE, £50k to £62k so 40% odd would be returned via the higher tax, etc.
I assume it would also replace the state pension?
Drawweight said:
I can’t see how a sum large enough to support an unemployed person can be given to everyone? Or alternatively a sum of money given to everyone surely can’t be large enough to support someone not to work?
They "give" it to everyone. And then any money people choose to earn on top is taxed highly enough to claw it back. The structure of the tax system is of course subject to the usual political wrangling about what "fair" means, so although there are both left wing and right wing advocates of UBI the actual effect on the distribution of wealth would be likely to be very different. DanL said:
As AI and automation improves and (unfortunately) removes more and more jobs from the market, I suspect UBI will become a necessity.
That’s assuming that we’re on the road to a post scarcity economy, rather than a sci-fi dystopia where wealth is concentrated in the hands of very few people, and everyone else is left to starve...
ETA: current state of play, UBI would really only work if the cost of provision is offset by dramatic reduction in admin costs, or if we dramatically refocus what government spends money on.
The state pension is UBI, isn’t it? The problem is that UBI paid at a level you can live on is surely rather expensive.
Automation has been improving in huge leaps and bounds for hundreds of years, but we've still all got a job if we want one. Automation improves the amount and quality of stuff we're able to have for a given unit of labour, but it doesn't seem to lead to unemployment overall.That’s assuming that we’re on the road to a post scarcity economy, rather than a sci-fi dystopia where wealth is concentrated in the hands of very few people, and everyone else is left to starve...
ETA: current state of play, UBI would really only work if the cost of provision is offset by dramatic reduction in admin costs, or if we dramatically refocus what government spends money on.
The state pension is UBI, isn’t it? The problem is that UBI paid at a level you can live on is surely rather expensive.
Edited by DanL on Wednesday 3rd March 10:08
I'm not sure I can believe that the state/economy can afford to give all of us, what, £15-£25k a year, indefinitely.
Lord.Vader said:
The whole point is that at 18 everyone will receive £1k per month.
No benefits, no means tested, no management of all said benefits, it’s a huge cost on a cost to manage and control the benefit system.
Whether it then gets added to your total earnings and you get taxed at source for PAYE, £50k to £62k so 40% odd would be returned via the higher tax, etc.
I assume it would also replace the state pension?
Great. We would have 48k coming into our household and nobody would have to work, especially given the higher taxes needed fund it wouldn't make it worth working.No benefits, no means tested, no management of all said benefits, it’s a huge cost on a cost to manage and control the benefit system.
Whether it then gets added to your total earnings and you get taxed at source for PAYE, £50k to £62k so 40% odd would be returned via the higher tax, etc.
I assume it would also replace the state pension?
Someone did a poll on her to see who would continue working if there basic needs were taken care off. Overwhelmingly people said they would give up work our do something easier they liked. That was without higher taxes.
If you pay people not to work, and heavily tax those that do, don't be surprised when people choose not to work.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff