Universal Basic Income

Javi said:
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.
Click to expand...

I think that is true to an extent, However I think if someone was coming with a truly progressive plan like UBI I think you would find that it had a lot of support. As long as people see the benefits.

As for UBI being cheaper or not, again I think the way we look at the cost of something has to account for knock on effects. I think there is certainly a case for something like UBI actually boosting the economy long term. However one of the problems of today is politics is that the long terms effects are never really taking into account.
 
User 72192 said:
Don't want to derail this thread, but I have to admit that we're doing very fine atm in Germany and that has heavily to do with Angela Merkel, she's really not pure evil. She's done a remarkable job all things considered, although not everything is perfect but the recent surplus of 44 billion $ in 2017 speaks for itself. We will obviously have loads of problems in the next years with migration & related (cultural) issues but I don't think we will suffer that much from it. This debate is mostly based on sentiments, I know noone who's life has actually been affected in a measurable negative way (although I have to admit there are lots of criminal issues with migrants here in Germany, but this is a general problem since decades and has not too much to do with the recent migration). My personal problem is the lack of proper German speaking people in the city I currently live in and I am very sad that even many Germans can't speak correct German anymore. It's a loss of identity for me. I hope that the German language will be heavily supported and financially promoted in the next years. I hate the american/english influence on our daily way of speaking.
Click to expand...

It is as much about the cost as anything else. We have something like 40000 Somalians in Norway, 6/10 of the males are on benefits, 8/10 of the women.

It isn't sustainable, has nothing to do with political standpoint, it is just the facts.

Anyways, let's not derail the thread as you say.
 
I've said before many times that Britain could pretty easily afford £3k a year UBI for those non-students over 18 years of age and under retirement age.
  • Drop the Personal Income Tax allowance from £11.5k to £1k (most earners pay an extra £2.1k income tax.
  • Drop to Personal National Insurance allowance from £8160 to £1k (most earners pay an extra £860)
  • Cut the drop seekers allowance entirely and sack all the job center staff
  • Cut disability benefits slightly
That would mean those groups (earning over £11k a year, looking for work, not working and on disability benefits) don't have any major change. Stay at home mums would easily be the largest group of people to gain anything, as they suddenly take in an extra £3k a year.

Of course £3k a year isn't enough to live on, although it might tide a few people over. The point isn't that £3k is an end point, but a starting one.
 
Javi said:
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.
Click to expand...

If you’re surprised about the UK, wait till you hear about America, you’re in for a treat
 
Javi said:
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.
Click to expand...

That gap would be a lot less if you only count the adults (which is about 75% I think). So maybe Ed's numbers aren't so crazy.
 
Tarrou said:
That gap would be a lot less if you only count the adults (which is about 75% I think). So maybe Ed's numbers aren't so crazy.
Click to expand...

Yeah but this is a bad idea since kids need money too.
 
Javi said:
Yeah but that is a bad idea since kids need money too.
Click to expand...

Kids are dependant on their parents, even in todays model. I think that is fair. Likely UBI would have to account for families with children though. But it would be less for each kids since they don't need to pay bills, rent, etc etc
 
I never truely understood the counter-argument of rapid inflation regarding the idea of giving everyone free money. Can't a government legally ensure that prices stay fixed?
 
Cassidy said:
Kids are dependant on their parents, even in todays model. I think that is fair. Likely UBI would have to account for families with children though. But it would be less for each kids since they don't need to pay bills, rent, etc etc
Click to expand...

Yep agreed. Something like a ratio of 1 to 5, still you have to account for them.
 
VorZakone said:
I never truely understood the counter-argument of rapid inflation regarding the idea of giving everyone free money. Can't a government legally ensure that prices stay fixed?
Click to expand...

They could by fecking up the economy big time.
 
I just can't imagine a nation whose (effective) leaders, both hereditary and commercial, have a history of exploitation agreeing to give money for nothing to a public they traditionally disdain. Added to that is their fear of idle masses rising against them (hence past governments' and monarchies' unease about demobbed soldiers).

'Rip-off Britain' a land where social progress occurs because of anything other than crisis (war, plague etc etc) or political expediency? No chance.
 
Lets say UBI only applies to people aged between 20 and 69.

That's currently around 40 million people.

At £5k per head that's £200bn. From @Javi's link (and excluding pensions) the current welfare budget is around £152bn.

For comparisons sake Jobseeker's allowance for a single person would come to around £3800 per year.
 
VorZakone said:
I never truely understood the counter-argument of rapid inflation regarding the idea of giving everyone free money. Can't a government legally ensure that prices stay fixed?
Click to expand...

No... absolutely not.
 
SteveJ said:
I just can't imagine a nation whose (effective) leaders, both hereditary and commercial, have a history of exploitation agreeing to give money for nothing to a public they traditionally disdain. Added to that is their fear of idle masses rising against them (hence past governments' and monarchies' unease about demobbed soldiers).

'Rip-off Britain' a land where social progress occurs because of anything other than crisis (war, plague etc etc) or political expediency? No chance.
Click to expand...

Its a shame really, can't imagine it either. Unless it makes complete financial sense for the commercial leaders to do this, which is why I see it happening in the future when they want to use technology to replace manual labor
 
Ekkie Thump said:
Lets say UBI only applies to people aged between 20 and 69.

That's currently around 40 million people.

At £5k per head that's £200bn. From @Javi's link (and excluding pensions) the current welfare budget is around £152bn.

For comparisons sake Jobseeker's allowance for a single person would come to around £3800 per year.
Click to expand...

Just makes no sense to me to exclude pensions, this thing is universal and including pensions actually makes it cheaper. Also what you cannot do is take the money from disability benefits because these people are still going to need the money. For instance somebody who cannot get out of bed alone will still need assistance for that and UBI will never be enough to cover that.
 
Javi said:
Just makes no sense to me to exclude pensions, this thing is universal and including pensions actually makes it cheaper. Also what you cannot do is take the money from disability benefits because these people are still going to need the money. For instance somebody who cannot get out of bed alone will still need assistance for that and UBI will never be enough to cover that.
Click to expand...

Why does including pensions make it cheaper?
 
Ekkie Thump said:
Lets say UBI only applies to people aged between 20 and 69.

That's currently around 40 million people.

At £5k per head that's £200bn. From @Javi's link (and excluding pensions) the current welfare budget is around £152bn.

For comparisons sake Jobseeker's allowance for a single person would come to around £3800 per year.
Click to expand...
rcoobc said:
I've said before many times that Britain could pretty easily afford £3k a year UBI for those non-students over 18 years of age and under retirement age.
  • Drop the Personal Income Tax allowance from £11.5k to £1k (most earners pay an extra £2.1k income tax.
  • Drop to Personal National Insurance allowance from £8160 to £1k (most earners pay an extra £860)
  • Cut the drop seekers allowance entirely and sack all the job center staff
  • Cut disability benefits slightly
That would mean those groups (earning over £11k a year, looking for work, not working and on disability benefits) don't have any major change. Stay at home mums would easily be the largest group of people to gain anything, as they suddenly take in an extra £3k a year.

Of course £3k a year isn't enough to live on, although it might tide a few people over. The point isn't that £3k is an end point, but a starting one.
Click to expand...
Drop the personal allowance and you've funded 80% of it
 
Tarrou said:
Why does including pensions make it cheaper?
Click to expand...

I'm just going by his numbers. With pensioneers he calculated for 300bn, without it's 200bn. Pensions are 111bn so there is 11bn saved.
 
Javi said:
Just makes no sense to me to exclude pensions, this thing is universal and including pensions actually makes it cheaper. Also what you cannot do is take the money from disability benefits because these people are still going to need the money. For instance somebody who cannot get out of bed alone will still need assistance for that and UBI will never be enough to cover that.
Click to expand...

I agree with you entirely on disability benefits. Many posters were of the opinion that UBI might be restricted to those of working age so I just went with that.

If we were to include pensions then the basic state pension already nets a person £6,400 per year. The savings from pensioners would come straight from the pensioner's pocket.
 
VorZakone said:
I never truely understood the counter-argument of rapid inflation regarding the idea of giving everyone free money. Can't a government legally ensure that prices stay fixed?
Click to expand...
Short answer is: No they can't be. Wherever it is attempted the fixed price is either too high or too low. If it's too high no one can afford it, and it will be sold at market prices on the black (unregulated) market, if it's too low demand will far outstrip supply and it will officially be sold out all the time while again being sold at market prices on the black market.

The price regulates demand/supply even where the state tries to forbid it from doing so.
 
I've read up on it and have tried thinking it through a number of times but it still sounds like one of the nuttiest ideas I've heard. If you offer a minimum wage slave a little below what she is earning right now to drop the soul crushing drudgery then surely she will, at which point the whole bottom of the pyramid is going to collapse right? Because the only reason those poor paying jobs are being done is because some poor bastard is trying to stay afloat.

I struggle to see how we go from a system built on the principle of the rich standing on the windpipe of the poor to a system of free money for all.

If I started recieving the figures being suggested in this thread tomorrow, then I would just about retire. So yes I would love for it to prove me wrong.
 
I look forward to tidying Lady Farquar's rose garden* as part of my contractually-obliged civic duty, in order to gain that big UBI food voucher.


*This isn't a sexual euphemism. I hope not, anyway.
 
dumbo said:
I've read up on it and have tried thinking it through a number of times but it still sounds like one of the nuttiest ideas I've heard. If you offer a minimum wage slave a little below what she is earning right now to drop the soul crushing drudgery then surely she will, at which point the whole bottom of the pyramid is going to collapse right? Because the only reason those poor paying jobs are being done is because some poor bastard is trying to stay afloat.
Click to expand...
That's one of the great things about it, we would have to pay those who do stuff like garbage collection etc. decent wages because we couldn't afford not to (i.e it wouldn't be done otherwise).

I've thought about it a lot and am not sure if I think it could work. It would probably need to be at a global scale for it to work... hence I can't see it happen in the foreseeable future.
 
Ekkie Thump said:
Lets say UBI only applies to people aged between 20 and 69.

That's currently around 40 million people.

At £5k per head that's £200bn. From @Javi's link (and excluding pensions) the current welfare budget is around £152bn.

For comparisons sake Jobseeker's allowance for a single person would come to around £3800 per year.
Click to expand...

Depends what you're classing as 'welfare' when discussing what we spend. The welfare 'state' (health, education etc.) comes in at £486bn. Out of this, welfare 'payments' such as social security and tax credits come in at £216bn.

http://obr.uk/forecasts-in-depth/brief-guides-and-explainers/an-obr-guide-to-welfare-spending/
 
User 72192 said:
I'm for it, the related benefits could heavily outweigh the costs/dangers. Just imagine how much happier and therefor healthier people would be (especially the lower income households). Obviously my own country (Germany) would need a functioning migration system before this could be successfully implemented. The amount of people coming here for solely financial reasons is too high already.
Click to expand...
Germany like most of EU has very bad demographics (an aging population), which makes it necessary a huge number of migration workers. Germany is accepting a large number of foreign workers exactly for this reason.
 
BIGbadBOO4 said:
I personally think it' a fantastic idea, research shows that it reduces mental health issues and increases personal well being.
Click to expand...
If its only been on trial in Finland for a year how could there be any meaningful data around the effects it has, positive or otherwise. Serious question...
 
Revan said:
Germany like most of US has very bad demographics (an aging population), which makes it necessary a huge number of migration workers. Germany is accepting a large number of foreign workers exactly for this reason.
Click to expand...
This is Trumpesque nonsense. Which "Germany" do you mean with this? The German government? German industry? The German population?

(Besides the fact that the US demographics is nowhere as bad as Germany's)
 
Abizzz said:
That's one of the great things about it, we would have to pay those who do stuff like garbage collection etc. decent wages because we couldn't afford not to (i.e it wouldn't be done otherwise).

I've thought about it a lot and am not sure if I think it could work. It would probably need to be at a global scale for it to work... hence I can't see it happen in the foreseeable future.
Click to expand...
Trying to think through the knock on affects is tough. It's a nice thought that employers might have to start paying fair, living wages. I just wonder about the supermarkets and amazons and veg pickers and other jjb slavery roles having to pay decent money and how this might affect prices.

I'm certainly no economist. Edit: and I think it should be effect, I'm tired.
 
Revan said:
Germany like most of EU has very bad demographics (an aging population), which makes it necessary a huge number of migration workers. Germany is accepting a large number of foreign workers exactly for this reason.
Click to expand...

Thing is the influx that they started with their open door policy gave them immigrants from mainly the MENA countries, with little or no relevant education. Add to this that the job market will get more specialized, automated and demand higher education and they really didn't do themselves any favours.
 
Abizzz said:
That's one of the great things about it, we would have to pay those who do stuff like garbage collection etc. decent wages because we couldn't afford not to (i.e it wouldn't be done otherwise).

I've thought about it a lot and am not sure if I think it could work. It would probably need to be at a global scale for it to work... hence I can't see it happen in the foreseeable future.
Click to expand...

Paying a larger wage to binmen etc is not a great thing though. If the binmens wages increase to say £20 an hour my council tax will have to increase from £220 a month to £300 to cover it. The binmens wage increase will be offset by an increase to their council tax so they wouldn’t be better off.

Paying supermarket shelf stackers a substantially larger wage to give them the incentive to work there will just mean that the price of groceries will have to massively increase to cover the wage increases.

The extra money has to come from somewhere, and in the end it will be all of us paying for it.
 
Garethw said:
Paying a larger wage to binmen etc is not a great thing though. If the binmens wages increase to say £20 an hour my council tax will have to increase from £220 a month to £300 to cover it. The binmens wage increase will be offset by an increase to their council tax so they wouldn’t be better off.

Paying supermarket shelf stackers a substantially larger wage to give them the incentive to work there will just mean that the price of groceries will have to massively increase to cover the wage increases.

The extra money has to come from somewhere, and in the end it will be all of us paying for it.
Click to expand...

It’s not that simple though. That binman or shelf stacker is also going to be using the extra money they have to buy goods and services, increasing demand and pouring lots of extra cash back into the economy and into the coffers of the state through taxes.

I have no idea how someone could even begin to analyze the potential effects of something this revolutionary and vast.
 
Kentonio said:
It’s not that simple though. That binman or shelf stacker is also going to be using the extra money they have to buy goods and services, increasing demand and pouring lots of extra cash back into the economy and into the coffers of the state through taxes.

I have no idea how someone could even begin to analyze the potential effects of something this revolutionary and vast.
Click to expand...

I get what you are saying my friend, but council tax would have to increase for everyone including the bin men. The increase in basic wage would be countered by the council tax increase and therefore they wouldn’t be any better off.
 
Garethw said:
Paying a larger wage to binmen etc is not a great thing though. If the binmens wages increase to say £20 an hour my council tax will have to increase from £220 a month to £300 to cover it. The binmens wage increase will be offset by an increase to their council tax so they wouldn’t be better off.

Paying supermarket shelf stackers a substantially larger wage to give them the incentive to work there will just mean that the price of groceries will have to massively increase to cover the wage increases.

The extra money has to come from somewhere, and in the end it will be all of us paying for it.
Click to expand...
Spot on. The effects you describe would lead to a redistribution of wealth on a significant but not disastrous (purely my opinion of course) level. Anything requiring direct labor would become more expensive, everything else less (in relative terms). The little socialist in me likes that aspect of it :D.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.