Universal Basic Income

However wretched and inadequate present systems may be, the assumption that basic income must or even could be an improvement on the status quo has to be tested by considering a number of factors. Historically, income support has been provided because those in political power concluded that outright abandonment of those not in the workforce would create unacceptably high levels of unrest and social dislocation. In the far from dead tradition of the English Poor Laws, income support has been provided at levels that were low enough to maintain a supply of the worst paid workers, in forms that were as punitive and degrading as possible. Again, the neoliberal years have seen these features intensified in what we must concede has been a highly effective drive to create a climate of desperation and a plentiful supply of low paid and precarious workers.

If austerity driven governments and institutions of global capitalism are today looking favourably at basic income, it’s not because they want to move towards greater equality, reverse the neoliberal impact and enhance workers’ bargaining power. They realize that a regressive model of basic income can be put in place that provides an inadequate, means tested payment to the poorest people outside of the workforce but that is primarily directed to the lowest paid workers. This would be, in effect, a subsidy to employers, paid for out of the tax revenues and it would be financed by cuts to broader public services. Such a model would lend itself to disregarding the particular needs of disabled people and, as a “citizen’s income,” could readily be denied to many immigrants, especially those left undocumented. Under such a system, you would shop through the rubble of the social infrastructure with your meagre basic income. The kind of pilot projects and other initiatives that are emerging offer severe warnings in this regard (we include some links that provide information on several of these)*.

However, some suggest that while regressive models could be developed and may pose a danger, a progressive and even “emancipatory” form of basic income is possible and realistic as a goal. Often, this is linked to the idea of preparing for a “workless future” in which vast numbers of technologically displaced workers can be provided for. The notion is that a universal payment would be provided unconditionally and that it would be adequate enough so that paid work, if it were an option, would be a matter of choice rather than necessity. While there are a few who suggest this could be won through large scale social action, advocates for a progressive basic income more often seem to assume that capitalist support and acceptance by the state can be won by way of a vigorous lobbying effort.

In our view, a truly adequate and redistributive, let aside transformative, basic income is not possible within the confines of the current economic system. Firstly, the present balance of forces in society, after decades of neoliberalism, does not lend itself to the conclusion that a sweeping measure of social reform, that would reverse this whole agenda, is immediately likely. Beyond this, however, an income support system that removed economic coercion in a way that progressive basic income advocates suggest, would be more than turning back the neoliberal tide. It would actually mean that the state was providing the working class with an unlimited strike fund. It would undermine the very basis for the capitalist job market. It would constitute social transformation, a revolutionary change that is, to say the least, beyond the capacity of any possible social policy enactment.
Click to expand...

http://ocap.ca/the-neoliberal-danger-of-basic-income/
 
But surely if we are better off the cost of living shoots up ? Therefore not better off . Another slight of hand me thinks. I got an email of British Gas today. It said we have great news for you. My rate for the gas is going down but the rate for my meter rental is going so going on last years consumption ...... I will pay 80 quid a year more.

Twats !!!
 
esmufc07 said:
Interesting watch. He starts talking about UBI about ten minutes in.

Click to expand...


He makes some interesting points but his core argument is that the UBI is basically a dividend for the lower end of society based on the idea that all wealthy corporations utilize the state in order to make their money, which may partially be true in some instances but less true or completely untrue in others. I would want to see some sort of tangible application where it has been successful before saying its a great idea.
 
Last edited:
Raoul said:
He makes some interesting points but his core argument is that the UBI is basically a dividend for the lower end of society based on the idea that all wealthy corporations utilize the state in order to make their money, which may partially be true in some instances but less or true or completely untrue in others. I would want to see some sort of tangible application where it has been successful before saying its a great idea.
Click to expand...
Same here I'd like to see somewhere introduce it to see how well it works, or doesn't.

Does remind me a bit of the introduction of minimum wage in the UK though. Right wing politicians and business leaders were vehemently against it, and predicted mass unemployment, and to be honest it just seemed commonsense that would be the case. Yet now even the Tories are for it.
 
It not fitting current economic norms seems a fairly silly criticism. The current economic norms are fecked and blatantly unsustainable, which is the entire point of introducing something like this.
 
712 said:
Same here I'd like to see somewhere introduce it to see how well it works, or doesn't.

Does remind me a bit of the introduction of minimum wage in the UK though. Right wing politicians and business leaders were vehemently against it, and predicted mass unemployment, and to be honest it just seemed commonsense that would be the case. Yet now even the Tories are for it.
Click to expand...

caid said:
It not fitting current economic norms seems a fairly silly criticism. The current economic norms are fecked and blatantly unsustainable, which is the entire point of introducing something like this.
Click to expand...

UBI by itself it can easily destroy the job market, unlike the minimum wage which retains the same principles but adds a floor.
I just don't see how a true (generous) UBI can work (keeping the system the same).
 
berbatrick said:
UBI by itself it can easily destroy the job market, unlike the minimum wage which retains the same principles but adds a floor.
I just don't see how a true (generous) UBI can work (keeping the system the same).
Click to expand...

Charles Murray is promoting his own version of it that removes benefits (by attempting to get people receiving UBI to buy their own).
 
Raoul said:
Charles Murray is promoting his own version of it that removes benefits (by attempting to get people receiving UBI to buy their own).
Click to expand...

Yes, and that is exactly what will emerge. Negative income tax is an idea with a long history in the right.

Repeating what I posted earlier:

In the far from dead tradition of the English Poor Laws, income support has been provided at levels that were low enough to maintain a supply of the worst paid workers, in forms that were as punitive and degrading as possible. Again, the neoliberal years have seen these features intensified in what we must concede has been a highly effective drive to create a climate of desperation and a plentiful supply of low paid and precarious workers.

If austerity driven governments and institutions of global capitalism are today looking favourably at basic income, it’s not because they want to move towards greater equality, reverse the neoliberal impact and enhance workers’ bargaining power. They realize that a regressive model of basic income can be put in place that provides an inadequate, means tested payment to the poorest people outside of the workforce but that is primarily directed to the lowest paid workers. This would be, in effect, a subsidy to employers, paid for out of the tax revenues and it would be financed by cuts to broader public services.
Click to expand...
 
@berbatrick it's true UBI can be used for social welfare dumping too. But it doesn't have to. The concept isn't useless because of that but must be promoted with the add-on that it's meant to substantially increase wealth distribution.

Could you elaborate on why it would destroy the job market?
 
Javi said:
@berbatrick it's true UBI can be used for social welfare dumping too. But it doesn't have to. The concept isn't useless because of that but must be promoted with the add-on that it's meant to substantially increase wealth distribution.

Could you elaborate on why it would destroy the job market?
Click to expand...

A lot of the power employers have is that they're (collectively) the only game in town*. Living in welfare isn't comfortable or sustainable for long, so you find some employment, and you accept some bad things about the job (maybe extra hours or lower pay or unsafe conditions or a bad boss or 24/7 work-via-email or whatever) because the alternative isn't palatable.

If there was a real substantial UBI, that power of the employer is lost. This will probably be good in many ways (it will speed up automation of some jobs I think, and people will no longer have to tolerate all those shitty things about their jobs).
But I think it will basically mean capital flight away from the country implementing UBI. This country will have not just a much higher tax rate (to pay for the UBI) but also find employees who will be much more expensive and harder to keep than elsewhere. So where possible companies will leave.

There are a lot of companies, particularly within Silicon Valley, advocating for a UBI, and Zuckerburg for example mentioned the Alaska permanent oil fund. That pays $1600 per YEAR. It doesn't even need high taxes or anything else that is politically difficult, but it's still kept at this low amount. Obviously I don't think the actual UBI will be that low, but I can't imagine it will be much higher than the poverty line (12k/year). I can't imagine why employers would want to give away something more generous than that, and given that they largely control govt policy...

For comparison: universal healthcare is cheaper, its effects on the job market (de-linking insurance to employment) are less dramatic, and it has been successfully implemented in western Europe, and is popular among he public. Yet it has been successfully opposed by US insurance and pharma lobbies, not just by campaign funding but also advertisements, fear-mongering, etc. Think of the huge number of lobbies about to lose their power if a genuine UBI becomes reality.

I could be totally wrong, dramatic reforms like the NHS have happened before, and I think Nordic countries have welfare/labour laws much much more stringent than the US and haven't collapsed.

(Of course all of this is about the west, I can't begin to imagine such a thing in poor countries)


edit - lol my 12k figure was a guess, and 5 minutes later I see this:
> [..] makes the case for implementing a universal basic income: $1,000 a month for every American adult, no strings attached.
https://www.yang2020.com/
 
Last edited:
The biggest argument for a NIT (+ ubi) is, that currently the marginal tax rate for unemployed people with low productivity is extremely high (in many cases arguably over 100%). That's morally unjustifiable and economic insanity.
 
Raoul said:
What specific parts of it do you think wont work and why ?
Click to expand...
I've had detailed discussions before. I'm still against the concept.

1. Should be a benefit and not a right.

2. If you want to help the needful, do it. No point including everyone else just for the sake of it.

3. I totally disagree with paying tax and getting back as UBI for middle class. Unnecessary and complicated when they don't have to be involved at all.

4. No added benefit than existing schemes except for ego purposes.

And most importantly,

5. Doesn't solve the problem of getting people not dependant on society.
 
Edgar Allan Pillow said:
I've had detailed discussions before. I'm still against the concept.

1. Should be a benefit and not a right.

2. If you want to help the needful, do it. No point including everyone else just for the sake of it.

3. I totally disagree with paying tax and getting back as UBI for middle class. Unnecessary and complicated when they don't have to be involved at all.

4. No added benefit than existing schemes except for ego purposes.
Click to expand...

Would you be for it if it was only for the poor ?
 
Edgar Allan Pillow said:
Yes. But then it's not 'universal'.

I added a fifth point..which I consider most important.
Click to expand...

I get what you are saying in your 5th point, but aren't people generally dependent on society any way ? For example, advocates of free health care in the US, free state level education etc would be examples of citizens having their health and economic interests bound to state help ?
 
Raoul said:
I get what you are saying in your 5th point, but aren't people generally dependent on society any way ? For example, advocates of free health care in the US, free state level education etc would be examples of citizens having their health and economic interests bound to state help ?
Click to expand...

The objective is to be for people to have less dependency on society. Anything else is an exercise in futility.

There obviously are a set of people who need permanent (old , disability, veterans etc?) and some on temporary (jobless etc) who need support and it's duty of society to provide that. Anything else (UBI) is nonsense.

The focus to be on upskilling and making people self enabled. The concept of 'charity' though Noble is not practical at a broader sense and should be kept to minimum.
 
Edgar Allan Pillow said:
The objective is to be for people to have less dependency on society. Anything else is an exercise in futility.

There obviously are a set of people who need permanent (old , disability, veterans etc?) and some on temporary (jobless etc) who need support and it's duty of society to provide that. Anything else (UBI) is nonsense.

The focus to be on upskilling and making people self enabled. The concept of 'charity' though Noble is not practical at a broader sense and should be kept to minimum.
Click to expand...

Generally agree it should be constrained to people who are below a certain income level, retirees, disabled etc. That would also reduce the cost substantially.
 
Edgar Allan Pillow said:
The objective is to be for people to have less dependency on society. Anything else is an exercise in futility.

There obviously are a set of people who need permanent (old , disability, veterans etc?) and some on temporary (jobless etc) who need support and it's duty of society to provide that. Anything else (UBI) is nonsense.

The focus to be on upskilling and making people self enabled. The concept of 'charity' though Noble is not practical at a broader sense and should be kept to minimum.
Click to expand...

I agree on a lot of points but the idea that you can upskill people or remove their dependence on society going forward just isn't going to happen. Ai and automation are going to be exponentially more productive than any human in the overwhelming majority of modern jobs. We'll continue to have entrepreneurs and inventors but most people are just quite unremarkable and their economic value in 20 years time will be virtually zero. You can just leave it as is and you wind up with unemployment figures in the 40+%'s all of them just above the poverty line. I've said previously in one of these threads why i dont think thats a great plan, I wont harp on about it again.
People need to get used to the idea that large parts of western democracies populations aren't going to have a job and are going to need to be provided for in the near future.
 
caid said:
I agree on a lot of points but the idea that you can upskill people or remove their dependence on society going forward just isn't going to happen. Ai and automation are going to be exponentially more productive than any human in the overwhelming majority of modern jobs. We'll continue to have entrepreneurs and inventors but most people are just quite unremarkable and their economic value in 20 years time will be virtually zero. You can just leave it as is and you wind up with unemployment figures in the 40+%'s all of them just above the poverty line. I've said previously in one of these threads why i dont think thats a great plan, I wont harp on about it again.
People need to get used to the idea that large parts of western democracies populations aren't going to have a job and are going to need to be provided for in the near future.
Click to expand...

There may be certain segments of society who are left without a job as more automation kicks in but that's a different thing than giving a UBI to everyone isn't it. There are massive swaths who will remain gainfully employed and won't need it.
 
caid said:
I agree on a lot of points but the idea that you can upskill people or remove their dependence on society going forward just isn't going to happen. Ai and automation are going to be exponentially more productive than any human in the overwhelming majority of modern jobs. We'll continue to have entrepreneurs and inventors but most people are just quite unremarkable and their economic value in 20 years time will be virtually zero. You can just leave it as is and you wind up with unemployment figures in the 40+%'s all of them just above the poverty line. I've said previously in one of these threads why i dont think thats a great plan, I wont harp on about it again.
People need to get used to the idea that large parts of western democracies populations aren't going to have a job and are going to need to be provided for in the near future.
Click to expand...

These are just test runs. UBI doesn't really make sense now. However, we need to test it out. As you said, 20 years, 50 years, unless you're exceptional, and in a very specific and small area where jobs will exist, you're not going to have a job. Entertainment, design, or administration/leadership.
 
Eboue said:
I read it this morning and it didn't really explain why it fell flat, just that they chose not to expand it.
Click to expand...

They have not publicly said why, just that it no longer has government support. All that seems to have come out is that Finland's trial (unlike others) was focused on getting people into work instead of simply giving a handout and was not achieving that.
 
caid said:
I agree on a lot of points but the idea that you can upskill people or remove their dependence on society going forward just isn't going to happen. Ai and automation are going to be exponentially more productive than any human in the overwhelming majority of modern jobs. We'll continue to have entrepreneurs and inventors but most people are just quite unremarkable and their economic value in 20 years time will be virtually zero. You can just leave it as is and you wind up with unemployment figures in the 40+%'s all of them just above the poverty line. I've said previously in one of these threads why i dont think thats a great plan, I wont harp on about it again.
People need to get used to the idea that large parts of western democracies populations aren't going to have a job and are going to need to be provided for in the near future.
Click to expand...

Possibly. But then as you say if only a minor chunk are employed in future, who'll be paying taxes and funding the UBI?
 
Edgar Allan Pillow said:
Possibly. But then as you say if only a minor chunk are employed in future, who'll be paying taxes and funding the UBI?
Click to expand...

One of the advantages of UBI that tends to be ignored is that it provides a massive economic stimulus. That money will go pouring back into the economy and should eventually come back to the exchequeor through corporation taxes and through business expanding and creating more jobs. There's going to come a point though where governments need to start taxing business a lot more highly to compensate for the drop in income taxes.
 
Kentonio said:
One of the advantages of UBI that tends to be ignored is that it provides a massive economic stimulus. That money will go pouring back into the economy and should eventually come back to the exchequeor through corporation taxes and through business expanding and creating more jobs. There's going to come a point though where governments need to start taxing business a lot more highly to compensate for the drop in income taxes.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but that sounds like a Trump Tax Plan speech. Tax cuts will play for itself, reduce deficit and improve economy. :lol:

"There is no spoon"
 
Edgar Allan Pillow said:
Sorry, but that sounds like a Trump Tax Plan speech. Tax cuts will play for itself, reduce deficit and improve economy. :lol:

"There is no spoon"
Click to expand...

I’m not suggesting it fully pays for itself, but it certainly would have strong positive effects on the economy. Which is going to become especially important if automation leads to mass unemployment. Hard to have a vibrant economy when half the country can’t afford to buy products and services.
 
Kentonio said:
One of the advantages of UBI that tends to be ignored is that it provides a massive economic stimulus. That money will go pouring back into the economy and should eventually come back to the exchequeor through corporation taxes and through business expanding and creating more jobs. There's going to come a point though where governments need to start taxing business a lot more highly to compensate for the drop in income taxes.
Click to expand...

:lol:
 
Kentonio said:
I’m not suggesting it fully pays for itself, but it certainly would have strong positive effects on the economy. Which is going to become especially important if automation leads to mass unemployment. Hard to have a vibrant economy when half the country can’t afford to buy products and services.
Click to expand...

Hard to have a vibrant economy when half the population is unemployed! Economy flourishes when people spend more than the basics (food shelter etc). UBI at best would only provide for the basics. As you say, if you start taxing companies more, would that negate whatever growth you expect? Surely you can't expect companies to flourish if taxes are increased.
 
Edgar Allan Pillow said:
Hard to have a vibrant economy when half the population is unemployed! Economy flourishes when people spend more than the basics (food shelter etc). UBI at best would only provide for the basics. As you say, if you start taxing companies more, would that negate whatever growth you expect? Surely you can't expect companies to flourish if taxes are increased.
Click to expand...

I'd expect a massive growth in people earning money via part time or self employed mini-jobs, which could build up on top of UBI to compensate somewhat for the lack of full time employment opportunities.

As for companies failing to flourish, if they're benefiting from replacing employment costs with automation, then either they gain a new tax burden or else they end up with a massive free cost saving which the state ends up carrying through either UBI or welfare payments. It doesn't seem unreasonable to push a lot of those costs back where they came from.
 
Kentonio said:
Did you have anything useful to add, or do we just laugh at people we disagree with now?
Click to expand...

We laugh at laughable posts all the time here.

Can you provide any tangible examples where this has been implemented that has resulted in a "massive economic stimulus" ?
 
Edgar Allan Pillow said:
Possibly. But then as you say if only a minor chunk are employed in future, who'll be paying taxes and funding the UBI?
Click to expand...

I'm not really in support of UBI. I presume Income tax is going to more or less collapse and the only people creating any money will be corporations, so thats what will be paying for it (along with everything else).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.