I don’t mind the building work, it’s better paid but most weeks I’m hitting over 60 hours with the two jobs, I know a lot of people work more than that so I can’t complain really but I feel that I’m spread very thin, and it’s hard putting money away as I have dependents. Like I said earlier I’m painfully unaware regarding solutions etc but
Universal Basic Income
- Thread starter esmufc07
- Start date
I don’t mind the building work, it’s better paid but most weeks I’m hitting over 60 hours with the two jobs, I know a lot of people work more than that so I can’t complain really but I feel that I’m spread very thin, and it’s hard putting money away as I have dependents. Like I said earlier I’m painfully unaware regarding solutions etc but
no they really did, gideon rebranded the minimum wage as the living wage by referring to a future minimum wage (set to come circa 2020) which coincided with the 2015 living wage as the living wage, pretending inflation isn't a thing
Right, I missed that. My point still stands about the original, and current, Living Wage though. I don't know quite how it will pan out because that will undoubtedly rise with inflation, so we might have two!
it's already blown past £9 in London and some other parts of the SE and will be higher in the rest of the country by next year
here's the foundations current figures:
Thanks Silva.
Sorry to butt in, but as someone on disability I’ve found that the current and past government mentality of focusing on those that are “work shy” is where all the problems start. They talk about “making sure people get the right help” but it’s bullshit. It’s about making it as hard as possible to qualify. The government even tried to exclude mental health from pip which thankfully the courts said was unlawful.
Things like this need to have sole focus on what they are trying to do, not on the people you feel don’t deserve it. Because as the government has shown when you focus on the people you don’t want to have it, the families of the people that need it get a “fit for work” letter on the morning the of funeral of the guy who died of heart attack at their assessment.
Focus on helping first, get that squared away to the point where its bullet proof then start looking at how it’s being abused and how it can tackled. I’d rather see 100 people scam the system that one person with a disability told they have nothing wrong with them by faux medical professional. I know I’ve focused on disability but my opinion applies to UBI and things like it as well.
Perfectly valid response. Walk before you can run approach
The UK is already hugely casualised with zero hour contracts and the like. The gig economy has and will accelerate this. Some may engage with the gig economy because it suits their lifestyle but many will do so out of neccesity.
Automation, augmented reality and similar technology will increasingly replace or reduce the number of people required and the next decade will see this start to snowball. We need to prepare.
Record employment and unemployment figures are also misleading. Most developed nations also already have huge hidden unemployment and under-employment - workers who want/need more work - and this is only going to get worse. Here in Australia at least 10% of the population is in one of these 2 categories which are excluded from unemployment figures and the UK will be very similar I'd guess.
I think that it is, at least potentially a really good idea, but the hard bit is how do we transition from what we have now to a situation where everyone gets the UBI and income tax rates go up to pay for it.
Even if tax only goes up for the employed by the amount of the UBI it will be both a hard sell and a difficult transition especially given how extreme the right have become and are becoming.
Even if tax only goes up for the employed by the amount of the UBI it will be both a hard sell and a difficult transition especially given how extreme the right have become and are becoming.
It doesn't matter tbh, the rich will never let something like this happen.
Especially when so many of us so easily vote against our own self interests.
In real life there won't be a vote though, it'll never happen.
Yeah I’ve never understood the obsession with the focus on benefit scroungers It’s obviously a problem, but honestly? Far More money is lost per annum from tax evasion than the people falsely claiming welfare.
It’s this mentality people have at the expense of everything else, where all they seem to want is people doing worse than them. It’s a massive fallacy to base such a broad ideology over. There’s a really good piece in the guardian about this same issue but I can’t link it from my phone.
Tax wouldn’t go up for the majority, most people would net more from the UBI, it’s a measure to redistribute the increasing capital surplus from automation increasing and job reductions, as well as reallocating the savings from our current welfare system by doing away with the red tape.
Net tax might not go up after you deduct the UBI but still a hard sell. The right will be out in force saying it is a free ride for druggies, wasters, single mothers and immigrants.
The transition will be hard. I don't really know what that will look like.
UBI has a history in right wing politics, they'll just use UBI as a way to cut welfare.
That isn't really UBI then. Not in the context of an underemployed workforce.
It would have to be set at a figure where you wouldn't starve although how you would deal with the disparate cost of housing/rent in different places and other welfare and disability needs could undermine the concept.
Still not sure there’s a compelling argument for UBI vs other forms of welfare in the Uk, whether by other direct cash payments or via expanded services. What benefits are there to UBI vs a negative income tax, a (fixed) Universal Credit system or indeed simply making historic welfare systems more responsive and generous?
The only argument seems to be its simplicity, and even that doesn’t stand up to much scrutiny when you consider the real world implementation. I think the best you can say is that a move towards less conditionality in the benefits system is a good thing, and a conversation about UBI may help with that. But I don’t think it can go much beyond stimulating that conversation.
The only argument seems to be its simplicity, and even that doesn’t stand up to much scrutiny when you consider the real world implementation. I think the best you can say is that a move towards less conditionality in the benefits system is a good thing, and a conversation about UBI may help with that. But I don’t think it can go much beyond stimulating that conversation.
Personally I don’t think it would work. This is because there are a large portion of people below the poverty line because they are terrible with money. Simply handing them more money isn’t going to resolve their issues.
They need better education in school about finances. I know this won’t resolve all the problems but it’s a start.
They need better education in school about finances. I know this won’t resolve all the problems but it’s a start.
Coming into this thread late so this has probably been answered by somebody much cleverer and better informed by me. However I doubt a universal income could work in reality.
The amount of money you would need to hand out would be huge. Where does it come from? In the UK they are already struggling to pay for free health care, benefits, schooling etc. There is no more money in the pot.
The amount of money you would need to hand out would be huge. Where does it come from? In the UK they are already struggling to pay for free health care, benefits, schooling etc. There is no more money in the pot.
That's a rather a massive assertion that I don't think has any real supporting evidence for it. In fact I think the facts show the opposite. I think the reason so many are around the poverty line doesn't really have anything to do with how terrible with money they are. You'll find a plethora of wealthy scions who are atrocious with money and have no concept of earning money or working their way up.
The main issue is that the US system is brutally unforgiving for any mistake a poor person makes and its extremely easy for poor people to get into negative feedback loops and vicious circles with just one bad event or one mistake.
Whereas the wealthier you are, the more you can afford to make mistake after mistake or be lazy as feck for years and still have opportunity after opportunity when you get older that the non-elite never have. Look at how awful Bush II was in business but he kept getting new chances at the highest level because his family connections and thats not even half as bad as some examples I've seen. Or how many times Trump screwed up and went bankrupt Poor people very rarely get that many opportunities and connections if they fail the first time.
Last edited:
Yeah so many misconceptions. The constant demonisation of the poor doesn't help of course...
Just like now, from Machines. The pot is full of money, it's just not been correctly redistributed.
Eventually (well, already happening), machines, automation, etc, will make us pretty much useless in terms of wealth creation.
2 options.
We all humans enjoy the riches created by machines. This scenario would mean the existence of something equal to a UBI.
Or
The few machine owners decide they don't want to share the wealth with everybody, but only a few. That would mean the social and economic inequality keeps increasing at fast rates. Who knows what's that gonna look like, but I'm sure as hell it will have a lot of walls (almost as if some countries are already preparing for that scenario).
Which one is gonna happen, no idea sincerely. Rooting for option 1.
Last edited:
I can’t speak for the situation in the US but from my own experiences many people who I know struggle because of their decisions with money. They get a credit card when their already overdrawn. They book a holiday when they can’t afford it. They have sky, the latest iPhone on contract and then sit there moaning they don’t have enough money.
That won’t change simply by giving them more money to spend, they will continue to use that money for luxuries rather than essentials.
As for your comments about the rich I completely agree with you but that’s not going to change anytime soon.
Ok but you can't extrapolate that to everybody can you?
Yes I think you can. You obviously disagree. There are too many people in society that think it’s their right to have what they want. If they can’t get what they want it’s easier to blame 1) other people 2) the government than look at themselves and understand why they are in that situation.
And before you ask I’m not from a privileged background, merely brought up to work hard, live within your means and not expect everything to be handed to you. I don’t see why my taxes should go to a proportion of society who don’t do that.
Everything that is wrong with society in one post.
Please elaborate?
I have read your previous post and appreciate you receive disability allowance. I have no problem with helping people out who truly need it but there are far more people taking advantage of the entire system. Throwing more money at that doesn’t accomplish anything. Just the same as the NHS.
I could go to any council estate in the country and it will be the same thing. A large proportion will be generations of the same families in the same position. They don’t want to move on from that lifestyle, it’s their way of life and they are happy with that. Simply giving them more money won’t change that situation that’s my point.
Maybe instead of writing posts in the future you should just put links to daily mail articles
. If you think those council estates are bad from the outside, how do you think people that live in them feel? Life has never been as simple as “work hard, and you’ll get there”. It worked out for you, that’s great. It hasn’t worked out for others that worked just as hard and harder and they don’t deserve to be treated like they are lazy or stupid because life went wrong for them. You’ve taken your experiences with people you know and applied them to everyone. That’s the kind of thinking that leads to demented Irishmen wandering the streets with coshes. If I said everyone was a thief because I know lots of people who are thieves, does that sound like logical thinking? Or does it sound like my limited experience with people has been skewed by those in my circle?
What youre saying is the same thing that was and still is being said to disabled people. We are all thieves, we are all living in fancy castles, driving luxury German cars and the poor tax payers are footing the bill. And even those that believe we are actually sick and disabled don’t think we should be getting cars, or phones or food that doesn’t come in plain white packaging. What’s the quality of life a disabled person is entitled to? And by the same logic what’s the quality of life that a poor person is entitled to? if UBI became a thing, why would you care what other people were doing? Because your extra £2 tax money would helping fund it? There will always be people that abuse things, that’s no reason to not attempt to make things better for our society.
There’s a lot to be said for a persons quality of life playing a part in who they are. Over time, UBI could help so many people out of poverty and could help people to have self worth so that maybe they don’t get themselves into situations that the daily mail and its readers are so quick to judge them on. And as a knock on effect our entire country can move forward into a golden era where we don’t treat people we don’t know as scum. I am of course dreaming, there will always be those that need the poor to be poor so they can feel superior.
Fraud claimants are a few percent of total recipients, and the NHS spending (plus UK pvt spending) per capita is less than the equivalent in the US, France, Germany, Belgium, Netherlands, Austria, Norway, Switzerland, Sweden, Denmark, and Norway.
I agree with the two options and whilst I agree that the spread of money could always be better managed, I don't think there is enough to go around (In the public sector and for welfare). As you say, there is enough money all together, including money owned by the rich. However, why would or should the rich give away their assets?
Unless the machines are owned by a government that is not corrupt then there is no chance of private business men sharing the wealth, why would they? The likelihood of not having a corrupt government is also unlikely. Unfortunately, I see option one being the only outcome.
These are all just my opinions and I'm not an economics expert or anything so I'm very open to having my mind changed.
It's simple you tax automation...
So, this is kind of the crux of the matter just to inform you a bit, as of now we largely live in a capitalist society. Now under a UBI it’s not about the rich having their current assets redistributed in this scenario, although I’d be happy to walk you through the arguments for socialism from a moral and societal perspective at another time.
So In essence what we all think of as profit is in fact the surplus created from the combination of labour and capital. It doesn’t take a genius to work out what happens when labour is taken out of the equation and replaced by machines owned by the capitalist. The surplus is increased for the capitalist because automation is cheaper than wages, but here’s the problem because those would be consumers are now out of work it doesn’t matter that the goods are cheaper because they have no income to spend, so it’s actually bad for both the capitalist and the consumer who is now out of a job because there is no demand. Capitalism requires a base line level of money for the working class for the system to function, if it drops too low you get revolutions and mass unrest.
In a future where machines are doing the grunt work, it’s imperitive from all perspectives that the increased surplus from automation is redistributed amoungst the people. Otherwise the whole system collapses.
It’s not as simple as “we can’t take stuff from rich people and give it too poorer people because reasons”, it’s if we don’t do that then rich people have nobody to sell to.
Maybe instead of writing posts in the future you should just put links to daily mail articles
You’ve taken your experiences with people you know and applied them to everyone. That’s the kind of thinking that leads to demented Irishmen wandering the streets with coshes. If I said everyone was a thief because I know lots of people who are thieves, does that sound like logical thinking? Or does it sound like my limited experience with people has been skewed by those in my circle?
What youre saying is the same thing that was and still is being said to disabled people. We are all thieves, we are all living in fancy castles, driving luxury German cars and the poor tax payers are footing the bill. And even those that believe we are actually sick and disabled don’t think we should be getting cars, or phones or food that doesn’t come in plain white packaging. What’s the quality of life a disabled person is entitled to? And by the same logic what’s the quality of life that a poor person is entitled to? if UBI became a thing, why would you care what other people were doing? Because your extra £2 tax money would helping fund it? There will always be people that abuse things, that’s no reason to not attempt to make things better for our society.
There’s a lot to be said for a persons quality of life playing a part in who they are. Over time, UBI could help so many people out of poverty and could help people to have self worth so that maybe they don’t get themselves into situations that the daily mail and its readers are so quick to judge them on. And as a knock on effect our entire country can move forward into a golden era where we don’t treat people we don’t know as scum. I am of course dreaming, there will always be those that need the poor to be poor so they can feel superior.
Please don't call me a Daily Mail reader just because I have a different opinion to you. What I have put in bold, you are putting words into my mouth as I haven't suggested any of that. As for quality of life, why should someone on benefits be better off than someone working? By that logic everyone would just be happy being on benefits and nobody would want to work.
Stop generalising, it's already been put to you that the "benefit scroungers" you single out are a miniscule subset of benefit recipients, or do you have a problem with everyone on benefits? As for the question you asked, how many people on benefits do you know that are better off than people that work? Better off with respect to income and quality of life?
Also it's funny seeing you react to somebody assuming you fit a stereotype, while watching you doing the same with others....
