OK apologies for being uneducated on the matter but it seems that maybe enacting a decent social security net first would be a more pressing matter for the UK, not UBI.
Universal Basic Income
- Thread starter esmufc07
- Start date
OK apologies for being uneducated on the matter but it seems that maybe enacting a decent social security net first would be a more pressing matter for the UK, not UBI.
Pretty much, the benefits to society could be really big, of course there probably are ways it can be exploited etc so you have to be careful.
Which has its own obvious problems.
What is ignorant about it? The expectation that in a country with the material wealth of the UK there is social security policy in place for people to have enough money to fecking eat?
UBI is a much better version of a social security net, one that requires less policing and one that has far greater benefits to society as a whole.
Also its not just the UK that needs this.
Would nations be able to afford it?
We have this discussion every now and then in Norway, and it all comes down to cost which would be very high since the living costs in Norway are ridiculous.
We have this discussion every now and then in Norway, and it all comes down to cost which would be very high since the living costs in Norway are ridiculous.
I believe they did it in Canada somewhere with great success
NI will go up £12 per annum
Agreed but I imagine it to need more political capital. Having food banks and stuff is unacceptable short term. I know that it's not only a discussion re UK but global, I was talking about just the UK though.
Another example, a country with the material wealth like the US, yet they don't have a proper healthcare policy in place for people to able to get well when sick?
1st world countries have become places where greed is rife and most systems are incredibly broken.
Strangely the Scandinavian model that they despise so much over there (cuz communism) is the one that works the best.
But those are isolated examples and we're talking about a universal policy. Also, technological advancement doesn't happen everywhere, at the same rate. Migration problems will only get bigger.
Yes, because poverty exists everywhere.
Poverty is defined as receiving approximately 60% below the average household salary.
Therefore if you’re receiving welfare, you’re more likely to live in poverty, by its very definition.
Would there be any kind of means testing?
i.e. someone worth millions who already takes down hundreds of thousands each year wouldn't benefit from it, and taking those people out of the equation would enable a higher level of UBI for those it would really help.
i.e. someone worth millions who already takes down hundreds of thousands each year wouldn't benefit from it, and taking those people out of the equation would enable a higher level of UBI for those it would really help.
That's ludicrous too but the US is a special place and I take it nobody will be starving and nobody will be turned down with a life threatening condition in a hospital, still people die because of it and it's very bad, I agree.
Again not true, means tested social security measures requires a lot of policing and administration costs. I can't remember the exact country, one of the Scandinavian ones, possibly Finland. Ran a trial for UBI which actually showed it reduced their overall costs (or had the potential to), not to mention that if it then allows businesses to cut mundane jobs and increased profitability then that would also mean increased taxable revenues.
Nah. Clues in the name.
£233.
For 60 million folk to have a UBI of £5k would cost the exchequer £300bn. I guess Milliband was adding 14 billion to the sum saved through the drastic reduction of other benefits - it still seems low.
I think one of the main benefits is to get rid of the needs for means testing and policing, or at least lessen it. The fact that someone earns millions shouldn't matter since they also contribute more to the system as a whole than someone who is not working.
EDIT: Yes Universals means its for everyone.
I actually think sharing the proceeds of the GDP of a nation with its inhabitants so they can all benefit from it makes a lot of sense.
Nah. Clues in the name.
No. Google what Universal means
alright smart arses, but the point remains it would surely be better?Same here. Luckily we don't have someone as bat shit crazy as Angela "wir schaffen das" Merkel, or the lunatics in power in Sweden.
'Trouble is, Elv, the Tories habitually redefine ordinary words; for example, 'independence' means 'even though you have no arms and legs, you're fit for work'.No. Google what Universal means
Fair point.
Finland didn't test UBI. What they did only applied to unemployed people and the goal was to reduce unemployment. This only worked because of the circumstances of their welfare programs, which make being unemployed better than starting a business or a low-paid job, in many cases. The result would've been different in different countries.
I wasn't talking about poverty. Poverty is bad agreed but not having the means to feed yourself imo is extreme poverty and there is a human rights obligation for the government to at least give them enough money to eat. Personally I thought that the UK did have legislation in place for that, which apparently there isn't, that was ignorance from my part and I apologise for that. I still fail to see how I am wrong in expecting the 6th or 7th biggest economy of the world to provide their citizens with the means to not have to starve/rely on food banks.
Opposite of UBI damnit!
I read about it when looking into UBI. I thought it was a trail to test the idea of UBI:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/oct/31/finland-universal-basic-income
With political capital I meant it's easier (as in make it happen) to redistribute less money vs. more money in todays political landscape. You still think it's not true? UBI certainely is not cheaper than current social security (but much more efficient) even less so when there barely is social security which it looks like is the case in the UK. Don't get me wrong I am hugely in favor of UBI.
No they didn't.
For as long as prices are kept in check
Shut up Ed, the tory corp tax cuts increased net corp tax receipts.
I think UBI is probably inevitable, probably 100 years way though. The experiments taking places seem to be a waste of time unfortunately as the sample sizes are so low, it simply doesn't qualify as 'universal'. Until a country commits it to everyone, we aren't going to see its true effects. The Finnish thing is just a lottery win for 2,000 people, shaped as some sort of publicity stunt, lucky bastards.
No this is on top of what you make already
Nobody knows. It is still a new topic and not much research on it. Might be a good idea, but the right and proper implementation might be an issue. It is also bot for every country i would i imagine. As of know, only speculation and some first steps is what we have. Think we will have a better understanding of it in the coming years/decades when more research and small scale results will be available
Are you accounting for the costs savings made by getting rid of means tested benefits and all the admin and policing that comes with it? Not to say the 14Bn is correct as it seems low btw
Think UBI is not given to everyone. Articles I read says given out once you are aged 24. And you have the rich I.e. people earning over 70k who get it but taxed back from them.
It wouldn't be 60 million. 18+ reduces the number significantly, unless people are proposing children also receive this payment (which might be a good idea, if it goes into a bank account they and their parents can't access until they come of age).
Also it should be based on income thresholds. Millionaires shouldn't receive it.
From this page a very rough figure closer to truth would be that there is 219bn that can be directed into the 300bn fund (if we go by @Ekkie Thump's numbers) leaving a gap of 80bn.