Universal Basic Income

[Eboue]

Well, they did earn it. Can you tell me that Zuckerberg or Buffet or Gates have not earned their wealth?

Yes.

 

[Edgar Allan Pillow]

Reading your posts I got a strong inference that you believe that the poor are that way as a result of them not working hard enough.

Not really. I just think in any Darwinian society, income inequality will exist in some form or other. So many here are arguing that people are being poor because of fault of conspiracy of rich people. So many Robin Hood wannabe's thinking they are conducting a social crusade.

I just don't think anyone should be getting free money (there are exceptions). Focus should on empowering them so they can sustain on their own and not encourage dependence on external factors.

 

[Edgar Allan Pillow]

Yes.

Let's agree to disagree.

 

[Silva]

Not really. I just think in any Darwinian society, income inequality will exist in some form or other. So many here are arguing that people are being poor because of fault of conspiracy of rich people. So many Robin Hood wannabe's thinking they are conducting a social crusade.

I just don't think anyone should be getting free money. Focus should on empowering them so they can sustain on their own and not encourage dependence on external factors.

we're only 1 mention of market forces away from paul ryans dick exploding

 

[Mike Schatner]

Let's agree to disagree.

Zuckerberg, Bezos, Gates and Buffet will all tell you themselves they didn't earn their wealth. Seen all four guys being interviewed and they are somewhat humble and all of then are committed to giving their wealth away.

 

[Silva]

Zuckerberg, Bezos, Gates and Buffet will all tell you themselves they didn't earn their wealth. Seen all four guys being interviewed and they are somewhat humble and all of then are committed to giving their wealth away.

they're giving their money to foundations they own and giving those foundations to their children, it's a tax scam

 

[Mike Schatner]

they're giving their money to foundations they own and giving those foundations to their children, it's a tax scam

There are undoubtedly huge tax savings but the money belongs to the foundation. Nothing up with a well funded family foundation committed to good causes.

 

[Wibble]

Not really. I just think in any Darwinian society, income inequality will exist in some form or other. So many here are arguing that people are being poor because of fault of conspiracy of rich people. So many Robin Hood wannabe's thinking they are conducting a social crusade.

I just don't think anyone should be getting free money (there are exceptions). Focus should on empowering them so they can sustain on their own and not encourage dependence on external factors.

• Society is not run by natural selection or anything like it. And even if it were it is something we should avoid like the plague.\
• The majority of people being poor is largely controlled by the very richest sections of society who largely control, or at least hugely influence, politics, finance, law, government and the media.
  
• Social mobility is getting worse and worse in the developed world. Just because you can find one or two people who went from rags to riches means nothing. It is a statistical outlier.
• And an more equitable distribution is a great idea - trying to dismiss it as being like Robin Hood is a silly straw man argument which is meaningless.

The facts are that full employment will become harder and harder to achieve. And then impossible. So unless we are ok with throwing a huge proportion of our population onto the scrap heap, creating a massive crime problem and various other social ills then we need to move away outmoded ideas and towards a society where everyone gets educated and nobody starves or dies due to a lack of heath care whilst retaining motivation for people to better themselves financially and socially. A subsistence level UBI is the best way of starting to move towards this goal that I have heard to date.

And everyone seems to assume that it is something you would just turn on overnight. In fact it is something that would have to be introduced gradually over a significant period as all other taxes and benefits were adjusted without causing huge social or economic disturbance.

 

[Silva]

Nothing up with a well funded family foundation committed to good causes.

There are undoubtedly huge tax savings

you're almost there

 

[Mike Schatner]

you're almost there

Just because their kids are on the boards of the foundation does not mean its their personal piggy bank.

6. Can I or members of my family be employed by my foundation? Yes. By appointing children or other family members as officers or directors, you will have the option of making the foundation a family affair. However, paying yourself or family members requires strict adherence to detailed IRS rules. To avoid the potential for legal problems, you must consult with your attorney before paying yourself or family members.

7. Can my family or I engage in transactions with the foundation? The IRS strictly prohibits self dealing. Disqualified individuals (the donor, lineal descendants and antecedents, e.g., parents, children and their spouses, and people under their employment) may not engage in transactions with the foundation except to make donations to it, or under limited circumstances, to receive fair market value compensation for services.

 

[Eboue]

its true silva. the clintons didnt get any money from the clinton foundation

 

[Edgar Allan Pillow]

And an more equitable distribution is a great idea - trying to dismiss it as being like Robin Hood is a silly straw man argument which is meaningless.

It's not equitable distribution. It's just Robbin Hood strawman that people think about.

Let's implement a extra tax (say 3% over and above current tax rate) for all earners above poverty line, so we can give everyone below poverty line a UBI. Now that's equitable distribution with everyone contributing..let's see how many support it.

 

[Silva]

Let's implement a extra tax (say 3% over and above current tax rate) for all earners above poverty line, so we can give everyone below poverty line a UBI. Now that's equitable distribution with everyone contributing..let's see how many support it.

if you're going to be a buzzword generator at least use them right

UBI applies to everyone, it is not means tested, what you have described is the existing welfare state

equitable distribution is not a equally applied flat rate or equal split of anything, in taxation terms what you have described is a flat tax

 

[Edgar Allan Pillow]

if you're going to be a buzzword generator at least use them right

UBI applies to everyone, it is not means tested, what you have described is the existing welfare state

equitable distribution is not a equally applied flat rate or equal split of anything, in taxation terms what you have described is a flat tax

Enlighten me. How is this funded?

 

[Silva]

its true silva. the clintons didnt get any money from the clinton foundation

of course, and how are they meant to help people if the foundation doesn't have private jets available at a moments notice, it must be the peasant in me not understanding how tough and strong the IRS is

 

[Silva]

So you're an expert. Enlighten me. How is this funded?

tax the shit out of people, cold war style, this time spending it on UBI instead of the military

 

[Mike Schatner]

of course, and how are they meant to help people if the foundation doesn't have private jets available at a moments notice, it must be the peasant in me not understanding how tough and strong the IRS is

Despite documenting 20-25 hours a week working for the Foundation they didn't even claim fair market value compensation for services.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfac...at-pundit-clintons-get-no-personal-benefit-f/

 

[Wibble]

It's not equitable distribution. It's just Robbin Hood strawman that people think about.

Let's implement a extra tax (say 3% over and above current tax rate) for all earners above poverty line, so we can give everyone below poverty line a UBI. Now that's equitable distribution with everyone contributing..let's see how many support it.

That is a strawman argument. Set up a scenario deigned to get people to say no.

We already have to (and should) support people who are unemployed or unable to work. Supporting this portion of the population would get much cheaper with UBI as you would avoid the majority of the huge administration costs associated with running these systems. The employed might well be taxed more but would get it back as recipients of the UBI. A UBI is as it says Universal, everyone gets it.

As unemployment rises, as it will, we have to deal with this somehow and this is by far the best way as the alternatives are total societal breakdown or use a far more expensive means tested social security system.

 

[Oo0AahCantona]

This threads quite annoying to read through when a lot of opinions are built upon A either a failure in understanding what UBI is, and as a result providing inaccurate examples to back their point or B analysing it on economic principles that don’t apply.

 

[Grinner]

This threads quite annoying to read through when a lot of opinions are built upon A either a failure in understanding what UBI is, and as a result providing inaccurate examples to back their point or B analysing it on economic principles that don’t apply.

Bit like the majority of threads and posts in the footy forums then, lack of basic understanding and applying incorrect methods of analysis.

 

[berbatrick]

http://news.gallup.com/poll/228194/...utm_content=morelink&utm_campaign=syndication

Public Split on Basic Income for Workers Replaced by Robots
by RJ Reinhart

Story Highlights

• 48% of Americans support a universal basic income program
• 46% of supporters would pay higher personal taxes to support it
• 80% of supporters say companies should pay higher taxes to fund the program

Surprised by how high these numbers are.

Edit - the gender, age, and party breakdowns are the usual. The education breakdown is interesting - 51% of high school grads, but only 42% of college grads, support it*. Hubris on the part of the college grads, I think.
*Is that the populist vote a good leftist can attract?

 

[Abizzz]

This threads quite annoying to read through when a lot of opinions are built upon A either a failure in understanding what UBI is, and as a result providing inaccurate examples to back their point or B analysing it on economic principles that don’t apply.

Lets contribute by clearing up confusion then and try to create a common understanding of what we are talking about here? I'll try by addressing some of the ones I ran across:
(bolded part is what I view as misconception)

• It can't economically work to give everybody more money than they currently have. While this is basically true it wouldn't work like that under a UBI. A large part of the population would be worse off than without the UBI, they would pay more in taxes to contribute to the UBI then the UBI pays them back... Who exactly gets/pays more depends on the exact way a specific UBI would be implemented.
• Current social spending would cover the costs of UBI if you scrap all the rest. While theoretically true for a very low UBI (143 pounds/month/person*) it would also leave the poorest absolutely destitute. Those 143 pounds would need to cover everything. Housing, food, healthcare, etc.
• It would disincentive people from working/working harder/achieving more. Given that any achievable UBI would be so low that none of us would want to live of it I don't think this holds true. Also those who argue that everybody would just be lazy don't take into account the human nature in my opinion. Humans, at least many of us, want to achieve, want distinguish ourselves, want to increase our options (by having more money to do/buy stuff). Why is anyone doing more than the bare minimum hours for the bare minimum at the moment?
• Robots. Robots are tools to make workers more productive. The Steam/combustion/electric engine and our current I.T has made a lot more manual labour redundant in the past 200 years than advancements in robots will in the coming 200. (Ok, thats just me guessing, who knows what the coming 200 years will bring)

*https://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/welfare_budget_2017_4.html

 

[Garethw]

What do you do for a living?

In 20 years, in 40 years, in 60 years, I can pretty much assure you, that whatever you do, doesn't matter. Your job will be done by a machine or a computer. I doubt you're an entertainer. Are you confident that you will be in the top 1% of the top 1% of the top 1% of performers in the few administrative/creative jobs that remain in the coming decades? There is going to be a time, a lot sooner than we all think, where it isn't just dumb labor type jobs that are gone. It will be middle management. It will be everything but entertainers (actors, athletes, musicians), extremely high level administrators, and creative thinkers who design the robots and computer programs that do 99.999% of the jobs in our society.

Society on earth is going to go one of two ways in the next century. Either unrestricted capitalism wins, and we end up with Blade Runner as our future. Or some form of socialism wins, and we end up with UBI and some form of egalitarian future. Either, you won't have a job, or a UBI, and you will be living and dying in the gutter of some polluted shithole, or you will have a UBI and you will do what you want.

That's not sci-fi. That is what is going to happen. You're a real estate agent? Uh, nope. That job won't exist. You're a truck driver? Nope that job won't exist. You're a mechanic? Nope that job won't exist. You're a teacher? Probably won't exist. You're an insurance agent? Adjuster? Nope Nope <insert job here> Nope. All done by a computer program or a machine. Unless you're writing code, designing software, writing books, dunking on dudes from the three point line, or acting, nope nope nope. Your job is going to go by by. It's not if, it's when.

So what then? What would future you do, and or think, if he was facing the reality that a computer program written by a 16 year old is now going to make all the decisions you make, or a machine made by some corporation is going to do whatever labor you do, and it's going to do it better, faster, without sleep, with more efficiency?

I for one hope we as a society elect to go Star Trek, and not Bladerunner, but that's just me. I'm not a Koch brother and I'm certainly not a billionaire! If I was, my opinion might be different, as I lived in my sky tower, pissing on the rest of society from 2 miles up, above the pollution and filth of all the disgusting common people, tut tut!

That won’t ever happen mate. In your scenario 99% of the population would be out of work, homeless and absolutely fecked. The economy would shrink and countries would crumble.

 

[NK86]

Yes, I'd love to do something I enjoy rather than working to make ends meet.

Wouldn't we all? Though the idea is interesting, don't see how it can be implemented in a country like India where the fiscal deficit is pretty huge as things stand and where political parties prey on the caste card to get votes.

 

[Varun]

Wouldn't we all? Though the idea is interesting, don't see how it can be implemented in a country like India where the fiscal deficit is pretty huge as things stand and where political parties prey on the caste card to get votes.

Yeah, its not going to happen here anytime in the near future

 

[afrocentricity]

Whether y'all think UBI will happen. You have to accept that something will have to be done, so some alternate ideas would be nice?
Unless of course, your position is head in the sand....

I think a lot of young skeptics will be in for a shock, but what's new? There's always a section that get caught out ignoring warning signs. Out of those some have very little choice, some are ignorant and some just think they know better.

Its not really how likely is it. Its moreso something needs to happen, is this it?

We've known about climate change for how long now? How well are we doing at tackling it?

 

[Revan]

Whether y'all thing UBI will happen. You have to accept that something will have to be done, so some alternate ideas would be nice?
Unless of course, your position is head in the sand....

I think that at least these ideas should be implemented if we go fully automated:

1) Universal Basic Income - everyone gets enough to live comfortably (house, food, medicine), but doesn't get enough to have a luxury life, so there is some simulation to work, explore ideas etc. A lot of people (including some very rich ones like Elon Musk totally support the idea).
2) Mandatory University Degree (and master/PhD recommended) - if the only remaining jobs will be the highly skilled jobs then it makes perfect sense that most of people should work in highly skilled jobs, so a better education would be necessary. I think that pretty much everyone at this stage supports this idea, college degree is becoming de facto high school, and I wouldn't be surprised if the number of people with a masters degree is becoming as high as the number of people with an undergraduate degree was 20-30 years ago (in percentage).
3) Reducing the number of working hours. Larry Page has already mentioned it as a step in the future.
4) Work what you want. People getting payed for working whatever they want. Google for example has the 80%-20% rule, when the employers of Google are required to work 20% on their own ideas (not the projects of Google), which of course if successful become IP of Google, and Google have benefited heavily from this. It is documented that people work better if they work on their own ideas, things that they like. So getting payed, for doing whatever you like instead of whatever your manager says to you, can easily give a larger contribution to human society than some boring job.
4b) As an alternative to this, there could be the proxy jobs, when people invent some totally useless jobs in order to give jobs to people. If most of people don't work there can be all types of problems from social unrest, to open rebellion, to depression. A shitty job is probably better than no jobs. I think that some communist states (Albania for example) were doing these before. I am much more in favor of the other approach.
5) Simulating the useless but beautiful jobs. I mean things like art and philosophy.
6) An upper number on how wealthy someone can be. Let's be fair, with 10B, you can have yacht and airplanes, and feck whoever you want, and do everything you want. The only need to have 100B is in the words of Philip Price, to be the most powerful person in every room, which is a very psycho thing to do. Especially, cause wealth isn't infinite, and for whatever dollar you don't need your taking, someone who needs it won't have it.

Obviously, there could be other things that can complement those ideas.

Alternatives:

Cull/sterilize population and let the top 0.01% become the Lord of ashes. Robotics and Machine Learning combined can potentially destroy any population unrest, overthrow democracy and so on. Whoever control them, become the Lord of nothing.

A totally dictatorial system when companies rule everything and there are two castes of people: the ultra rich and the poor. This has done before in sci-fi.

If the world remains democratic (even if it is a fake democracy like we have it now), it would be extremely difficult for the last two scenarios to happen. Most of people being poor, means that whoever promises them to give free stuff by taxing the rich people, would actually win the elections.

I genuinely think that if humanity goes into a more civilized and illuminated era, we will be talking about this inequality we are creating in the same way of how we talk about slavery. And all the bad things we do, like plastic continents, global warming and so on, which benefit mostly just to a few ultra rich people will be seen in a similar way as medieval.

 

[afrocentricity]

I think that at least these ideas should be implemented if we go fully automated:

1) Universal Basic Income - everyone gets enough to live comfortably (house, food, medicine), but doesn't get enough to have a luxury life, so there is some simulation to work, explore ideas etc. A lot of people (including some very rich ones like Elon Musk totally support the idea).
2) Mandatory University Degree (and master/PhD recommended) - if the only remaining jobs will be the highly skilled jobs then it makes perfect sense that most of people should work in highly skilled jobs, so a better education would be necessary. I think that pretty much everyone at this stage supports this idea, college degree is becoming de facto high school, and I wouldn't be surprised if the number of people with a masters degree is becoming as high as the number of people with an undergraduate degree was 20-30 years ago (in percentage).
3) Reducing the number of working hours. Larry Page has already mentioned it as a step in the future.
4) Work what you want. People getting payed for working whatever they want. Google for example has the 80%-20% rule, when the employers of Google are required to work 20% on their own ideas (not the projects of Google), which of course if successful become IP of Google, and Google have benefited heavily from this. It is documented that people work better if they work on their own ideas, things that they like. So getting payed, for doing whatever you like instead of whatever your manager says to you, can easily give a larger contribution to human society than some boring job.
4b) As an alternative to this, there could be the proxy jobs, when people invent some totally useless jobs in order to give jobs to people. If most of people don't work there can be all types of problems from social unrest, to open rebellion, to depression. A shitty job is probably better than no jobs. I think that some communist states (Albania for example) were doing these before. I am much more in favor of the other approach.
5) Simulating the useless but beautiful jobs. I mean things like art and philosophy.
6) An upper number on how wealthy someone can be. Let's be fair, with 10B, you can have yacht and airplanes, and feck whoever you want, and do everything you want. The only need to have 100B is in the words of Philip Price, to be the most powerful person in every room, which is a very psycho thing to do. Especially, cause wealth isn't infinite, and for whatever dollar you don't need your taking, someone who needs it won't have it.

Obviously, there could be other things that can complement those ideas.

Alternatives:

Cull/sterilize population and let the top 0.01% become the Lord of ashes. Robotics and Machine Learning combined can potentially destroy any population unrest, overthrow democracy and so on. Whoever control them, become the Lord of nothing.

A totally dictatorial system when companies rule everything and there are two castes of people: the ultra rich and the poor. This has done before in sci-fi.

If the world remains democratic (even if it is a fake democracy like we have it now), it would be extremely difficult for the last two scenarios to happen. Most of people being poor, means that whoever promises them to give free stuff by taxing the rich people, would actually win the elections.

I genuinely think that if humanity goes into a more civilized and illuminated era, we will be talking about this inequality we are creating in the same way of how we talk about slavery. And all the bad things we do, like plastic continents, global warming and so on, which benefit mostly just to a few ultra rich people will be seen in a similar way as medieval.

Good post. I draw the line at capping how much wealth a person can obtain, I'm more for taxation on that point, but everything else I pretty much agree with.

Think of the amount of research that could get done, more people doing it, better tech (Inc. ai), better funding...

 

[Unmutual]

Welfare spending would go bye bye. No means testing, no job centers and most SS jobs eliminated. Everyone would get a set amount for UBI. Maybe a smaller amount for kids, and a larger amount for one adult living alone. People that work would pay more tax so anyone above a certain salary would pay all their UBI back in tax.

This isnt quite true unfortunately. A UBI system that didnt take account of both geographic location and personal circumstance would be grossly unfair. A disabled 55 year old living in West London and a non-disabled 21 year old living in Salford have vastly different costs of living.

As soon as you accept that you need to check on people's personal circumstances and vary their payments accordingly, all the complexity reappears and the need for administation and proof of circumstances reappears too.

 

[PedroMendez]

A discussion would be a lot more productive if anyone would state why UBI is superior to current welfare systems and what problems/flaws are going to be addressed by changing things. One doesn't need UBI to simply expand the scope/size of welfare payments (or any other transfer payments). Another dominant theme of this discussion is unemployment due to automatization. Yet it gets ignored, that the data simply doesn't support that this assumption. 90% of whats written here is based on these two ideas, while both miss the point.

More convincing arguments are:

1) "push factors are bad" (usually a moral argument)
In the end the discussion ends up about the question if incentives to get people to work are necessary and morally acceptable.

2) inefficiency of the current system:
Countries could save administrative costs. While anyone would agree that wasting money is bad, its quite debatable if states could save significant amounts of resources with it. My knowledge about the current research is, that the amount of money that most country could save is rather small (compared to overall welfare spending)

3) paternalism of the current system ("poor people deserve to make their own choices")
its a bit like 1) just in reverse. Many want to force people to use their money for specific things. Its a bit like with people who refuses to give beggars money, because they would spend some amount of it on booze.


A realistic form of UBI wouldn't be particularly revolutionary. Under the assumption that a countries wouldn't increase their budget while keeping some key welfare programs running, the result would be somewhat similar to what most European countries already have. A special case that would/could create problems is low-skilled migration. Yet reasonable legislation could solve this.

 

[Marcelinho87]

Lets contribute by clearing up confusion then and try to create a common understanding of what we are talking about here? I'll try by addressing some of the ones I ran across:
(bolded part is what I view as misconception)

• It can't economically work to give everybody more money than they currently have. While this is basically true it wouldn't work like that under a UBI. A large part of the population would be worse off than without the UBI, they would pay more in taxes to contribute to the UBI then the UBI pays them back... Who exactly gets/pays more depends on the exact way a specific UBI would be implemented.
• Current social spending would cover the costs of UBI if you scrap all the rest. While theoretically true for a very low UBI (143 pounds/month/person*) it would also leave the poorest absolutely destitute. Those 143 pounds would need to cover everything. Housing, food, healthcare, etc.
• It would disincentive people from working/working harder/achieving more. Given that any achievable UBI would be so low that none of us would want to live of it I don't think this holds true. Also those who argue that everybody would just be lazy don't take into account the human nature in my opinion. Humans, at least many of us, want to achieve, want distinguish ourselves, want to increase our options (by having more money to do/buy stuff). Why is anyone doing more than the bare minimum hours for the bare minimum at the moment?
• Robots. Robots are tools to make workers more productive. The Steam/combustion/electric engine and our current I.T has made a lot more manual labour redundant in the past 200 years than advancements in robots will in the coming 200. (Ok, thats just me guessing, who knows what the coming 200 years will bring)

*https://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/welfare_budget_2017_4.html

All good points except the automation one, the automation we are developing now is like nothing seen before.

Back then automation made things easier for humans, now it will replace them entirely.

Where I work, we have gone form manually bringing picked items to packers with a machine that now outputs more than 10x what we were capable of before automation.... That is not aiding, that is replacing.

A warehouse of 2000 pickers and 1000 packers will be replaced with 3 machines and a maintanance team. 3000 staff down to 10 in the blink of an eye. That is ONE warehouse.... there is thousands.

That is just the warehouse sector... Think automated driving so logistics companies would go forward without human drivers and loads of other jobs will follow suit.

 

[Sky1981]

On the topic of automatisation it wont happen fully.

The world will be at war long before it and a new world order will emerge, that... or a decimation of the worlds population so big that it balances things out

 

[Unmutual]

A discussion would be a lot more productive if anyone would state why UBI is superior to current welfare systems and what problems/flaws are going to be addressed by changing things. One doesn't need UBI to simply expand the scope/size of welfare payments (or any other transfer payments). Another dominant theme of this discussion is unemployment due to automatization. Yet it gets ignored, that the data simply doesn't support that this assumption. 90% of whats written here is based on these two ideas, while both miss the point.

More convincing arguments are:

1) "push factors are bad" (usually a moral argument)
In the end the discussion ends up about the question if incentives to get people to work are necessary and morally acceptable.

2) inefficiency of the current system:
Countries could save administrative costs. While anyone would agree that wasting money is bad, its quite debatable if states could save significant amounts of resources with it. My knowledge about the current research is, that the amount of money that most country could save is rather small (compared to overall welfare spending)

3) paternalism of the current system ("poor people deserve to make their own choices")
its a bit like 1) just in reverse. Many want to force people to use their money for specific things. Its a bit like with people who refuses to give beggars money, because they would spend some amount of it on booze.

A realistic form of UBI wouldn't be particularly revolutionary. Under the assumption that a countries wouldn't increase their budget while keeping some key welfare programs running, the result would be somewhat similar to what most European countries already have. A special case that would/could create problems is low-skilled migration. Yet reasonable legislation could solve this.

This is probably correct, indeed, there's a suggestion it could cost more in the UK. Even though you may feel like the Government knows a lot about you, it really doesn't. That's because we don't have a centralized database to register people's identity & track their circumstances. Instead you provide a minimal amount of information at such times as you need something from them, and only to a specific department, such as unemployment benefits or a new passport.

However UBI would require a centralized database of every eligible citizen, and be able to hold enough information about them to verify their identity, prove their entitlement and track them as they go about their lives. A £5-10Kpa sum would be quite the target for fraudsters, so it would have to be at least as robust as existing claims for benefit. Quite apart from the privacy nightmare this would be, the administrative burden would be enourmous. Imagine every single person in the country being asked to prove their identity, and each identity needing verification. Then look at how the Government got on with Universal Credit or the NHS Patient Records system, much smaller systems, and you can't be confident it would work well or cheaply.

 

[Javi]

However UBI would require a centralized database of every eligible citizen, and be able to hold enough information about them to verify their identity, prove their entitlement and track them as they go about their lives. A £5-10Kpa sum would be quite the target for fraudsters, so it would have to be at least as robust as existing claims for benefit. Quite apart from the privacy nightmare this would be, the administrative burden would be enourmous. Imagine every single person in the country being asked to prove their identity, and each identity needing verification. Then look at how the Government got on with Universal Credit or the NHS Patient Records system, much smaller systems, and you can't be confident it would work well or cheaply.

Means testing ie people having to prove with various documents that they are looking for work, have no assets, are eligible for unemployment money etc. is somehow a lesser burden than linking every permanent resident with a bank account and why should they not only want the 'minimal amount of information'? And where is the privacy nightmare in this, when the govt. has the knowledge residents-bank accounts anyway from taxing them? There are various legitimate arguments against UBI but the administrative burden isn't one.

 

[Unmutual]

Means testing ie people having to prove with various documents that they are looking for work, have no assets, are eligible for unemployment money etc. is somehow a lesser burden than linking every permanent resident with a bank account and why should they not only want the 'minimal amount of information'?

There are about 4M people not in work claiming some sort of benefit, and most just temporarily. About 65M people would be eligible for UBI, and it would be forever. So yes, the burden would be higher.

And where is the privacy nightmare in this, when the govt. has the knowledge residents-bank accounts anyway from taxing them?

Its actually your employer who knows how much you get paid and tells HMRC how much tax you should pay, either that or you self-declare. HMRC have little idea, unless someone rats on you, they get you with a spot check or they get an alert from another department that something seems off. The risk of punitive action generally dissuades people, but its not hard to get away with tax fraud in this country - everyone from builders getting paid cash in hand to bankers in the city are at it.

Also, if you don't think a national identity register is a problem, then that's fine, its just a matter of taste. But in pro-privacy circles its generally seen as a very bad idea.

 

[Javi]

There are about 4M people not in work claiming some sort of benefit, and most just temporarily. About 65M people would be eligible for UBI, and it would be forever. So yes, the burden would be higher.

Its actually your employer who knows how much you get paid and tells HMRC how much tax you should pay, either that or you self-declare. HMRC have little idea, unless someone rats on you, they get you with a spot check or they get an alert from another department that something seems off. The risk of punitive action generally dissuades people, but its not hard to get away with tax fraud in this country - everyone from builders getting paid cash in hand to bankers in the city are at it.

Also, if you don't think a national identity register is a problem, then that's fine, its just a matter of taste. But in pro-privacy circles its generally seen as a very bad idea.

That's 4M people you have to individually advise what to hand in, check etc. That's clearly not the same as to establish a one time national database. I'd say that in Continental Europe a national identity register is pretty common and there is no real hate against that from pro-privacy circles and I haven't read anything against UBI from this corner either. Making the system more efficient is actually a reason for UBI and it's not just me that is saying that, it's a pretty much a universally recognized aspect of the concept. Let's just agree to disagree though since I'm not bothered to do the digging regarding this aspect.

 

[Javi]

A discussion would be a lot more productive if anyone would state why UBI is superior to current welfare systems and what problems/flaws are going to be addressed by changing things. One doesn't need UBI to simply expand the scope/size of welfare payments (or any other transfer payments). Another dominant theme of this discussion is unemployment due to automatization. Yet it gets ignored, that the data simply doesn't support that this assumption. 90% of whats written here is based on these two ideas, while both miss the point.

More convincing arguments are:

1) "push factors are bad" (usually a moral argument)
In the end the discussion ends up about the question if incentives to get people to work are necessary and morally acceptable.

2) inefficiency of the current system:
Countries could save administrative costs. While anyone would agree that wasting money is bad, its quite debatable if states could save significant amounts of resources with it. My knowledge about the current research is, that the amount of money that most country could save is rather small (compared to overall welfare spending)

3) paternalism of the current system ("poor people deserve to make their own choices")
its a bit like 1) just in reverse. Many want to force people to use their money for specific things. Its a bit like with people who refuses to give beggars money, because they would spend some amount of it on booze.


A realistic form of UBI wouldn't be particularly revolutionary. Under the assumption that a countries wouldn't increase their budget while keeping some key welfare programs running, the result would be somewhat similar to what most European countries already have. A special case that would/could create problems is low-skilled migration. Yet reasonable legislation could solve this.

Good points.

What would you say to the following line of reasoning: the fact that people have to work to pay bills etc. (it's not a 'do or die' question obvs. but a 'do or get marginalized' one) is skewing the negotiation between employer and employee against the latter esp. in the low-skilled labour sector because he has to work and is thus desperate for a job allowing the employer to take advantage of that, e.g. in net salary. This imbalance is unjust. UBI eliminates the coercion to work and creates a more just labour market.

 

[PedroMendez]

That's 4M people you have to individually advise what to hand in, check etc. That's clearly not the same as to establish a one time national database. I'd say that in Continental Europe a national identity register is pretty common and there is no real hate against that from pro-privacy circles and I haven't read anything against UBI from this corner either. Making the system more efficient is actually a reason for UBI and it's not just me that is saying that, it's a pretty much a universally recognized aspect of the concept. Let's just agree to disagree though since I'm not bothered to do the digging regarding this aspect.

its certainly doable and it would save some money. The question that isn't answered is how much it would save. In my opinion most evidence points in the direction that the savings would be pretty small (compared to the overall spending on welfare). In the grand scheme of things, this is a fairly minor point (at least until I have seen any well researched evidence that the savings are significant). The reason why every supporter of the UBI is making this argument is, because nobody could possibly be against more efficiency. Its also an argument that both left-winger supporter of UBI and liberal supporter of UBI can agree on.

Good points.

What would you say to the following line of reasoning: the fact that people have to work to pay bills etc. (it's not a 'do or die' question obvs. but a 'do or get marginalized' one) is skewing the negotiation between employer and employee against the latter esp. in the low-skilled labour sector because he has to work and is thus desperate for a job allowing the employer to take advantage of that, e.g. in net salary. This imbalance is unjust. UBI eliminates the coercion to work and creates a more just labour market.

There are many different points to address in this line of thinking. Its starts with what a "fair salary" is. I think Labor theory of value is nonsense (which is the mainstream opinion that primarily (neo)marxists disagree with). A fair salary is one that allocates resources efficiently, because that creates max. wealth. Governments try to address the problem of low-wages (for full-time employees, that can't progress in their job in reasonable time). I agree that this is a thing worth doing, but there is no perfect solution. Any solution - including UBI - is also having negative consequences, that need to be balanced. Its actually debatable if UBI in-itself would address the problem at all.
What I am trying to say: This argument gets really technical, depends a lot on the specific framework and isn't really connected to UBI.


-------------------


Most of the people seem to use UBI as proxy to advance their agenda. Small government supporter see it as tool to limit welfare spending (at least those who support it) and people on the left usually see it as tool to increase welfare spending. Yet the size of welfare spending shouldn't depend on UBI.

 

[Javi]

There are many different points to address in this line of thinking. Its starts with what a "fair salary" is. I think Labor theory of value is nonsense (which is the mainstream opinion that primarily (neo)marxists disagree with). A fair salary is one that allocates resources efficiently, because that creates max. wealth. Governments try to address the problem of low-wages (for full-time employees, that can't progress in their job in reasonable time). I agree that this is a thing worth doing, but there is no perfect solution. Any solution - including UBI - is also having negative consequences, that need to be balanced. Its actually debatable if UBI in-itself would address the problem at all.
What I am trying to say: This argument gets really technical, depends a lot on the specific framework and isn't really connected to UBI.

A fair salary is by my layman terms the result of a negotiation between two free man, the employer and the employee which I thought is in accordance to liberal economics (ie freedom of contract always create a 'just' result if the process is fair). The problem with his is that these two people, although somewhat 'free', are not negotiating on equal footing. I agree that it gets technical but I fail to see how it is not connected to UBI since it would pretty much turn the labour market upside down.

 

[Unmutual]

That's 4M people you have to individually advise what to hand in, check etc. That's clearly not the same as to establish a one time national database. I'd say that in Continental Europe a national identity register is pretty common and there is no real hate against that from pro-privacy circles and I haven't read anything against UBI from this corner either. Making the system more efficient is actually a reason for UBI and it's not just me that is saying that, it's a pretty much a universally recognized aspect of the concept. Let's just agree to disagree though since I'm not bothered to do the digging regarding this aspect.

People do say that, but that doesn't mean much. UBI debates often ignore the practicalities in favour of high level talk about robots, the future of work or human rights but these are at least as important. Its the same way people blithely say that we'd simply increase tax to pay for UBI, ignoring the herculean task this would be given the vested interests in power in most western countries. Or that we'd just pay people a flat rate for simplicities' sake, when that would be grossly unfair. The best ideas are the ones that work practically as well as conceptually, and I dont see that in UBI.