It’s a recipe for disaster. Things will get more expensive and any thriving middle or upper middle class will just cripple to the new lower class mean.
$1600 will be worth less as well
Universal Basic Income
- Thread starter esmufc07
- Start date
It’s a recipe for disaster. Things will get more expensive and any thriving middle or upper middle class will just cripple to the new lower class mean.
$1600 will be worth less as well
Yes I guess so - but is it really that much? Surely not
didn't realise wages were so shit in the UK now
I'm too used to Australia prices
UK gdp per capita is similar to Italy I think. Economically the country has been struggling a lot.
And you might be tempted to go half time on your current job which could be damaging as well
It shouldn't cause any direct inflation (which is what you're describing), but I can see it causing indirect inflation because corporations are cnuts. Same difference though.
So inflation is controlled by having lots of homeless people? I really hope not.
As I said - I'm a noob
You would though. Anyone would.
If most people were in a similar situation to yourself, you'd see quite a big boost to the economy. A rise in disposable income means more is spent, which in turn has an overall positive effect on the economy. You'd see an increase in jobs, wages, and infrastructure (in an ideal scenario).
The worst thing would be people accumulating this extra wealth and it just sits in a bank account collecting interest etc.
That isn't how UBI works surely? Those like you (presumably) and me, would get about the same in UBI as the extra income tax that we would pay.
Not in my opinion. For me the rise in wages would need to be astronomical to entice me back in.
There really isn't much difference in lifestyle between being on 25K or 35K a year in my opinion.
I'm aware of how much shit I will likely get for this post. I'm also aware that for some people that money would help hugely and in this hypothetical scenario, it would get them back to work.
I don't think it'd be taxable
What
The basic idea is that everyone get a (very) basic income from the government. Income tax goes up so the employed are broadly earning the same as before. Nobody gets nothing and we save the extra cost in not having massive government mechanisms assessing meabs tested social payments.
There is the same incentive to work as now as few will be willing or able to live on UBI alone. At least in theory.
The employed would pay more tax on their employment income so they wouldn't be better off than before.
If the state continues to provide fee housing/healthcare/education etc then the incentive to work would surely go down from where it is now, if the unemployed get a huge bump in their monthly income.
Ah you mean it would he subsidised by increasing income tax rates.
I think the idea is that it would be a tax free amount.
I believe that is the basic model. Those on decent employed income would get UBI income and pay broadly the same extra income tax.
interesting when people on the right complain about UBI being a disincentive to work and and contribute, and yet say nothing about a group of people who live quite comfortably off passive income from mainly inherited wealth which is protected from taxation via webs of trusts / off shore schemes.
The article suggests that it wouldn't be means tested (if implemented, big if I know) but the overall idea being there'd be no tax to pay on it.
It would be generated from upping corporation tax.
They wouldn't get a huge bump although hopefully a bit of a bump and as those at the lower end economically spend everything they get it multiples through the economy really well. Those with voluntary spending are the ones who can reduce inflation with reduced spending.
The whole point is that everyone gets it without any means testing. And income tax increases so the employed are about the same off.
I don't get your point.
If it's not means tested, it's essentially saying anyone, irrespective of income, would be eligible.
If it's tax free, there's no increase in income tax.
That's what I'm saying.
But whatever UBI is supposed to address can be addressed in more direct ways.
The same money invested on health education food shelter etc makes more sense to me
That's what successive governments say they do but never really do. And also, this gives people more autonomy and agency to their respective situation.
For example, a single mum of 2-3 would rather have £1,600 a month in her pocket as opposed to a new hospital in her neighbourhood (or things of that nature).
I’m really struggling with how this could be a good idea, to be honest. At smaller levels, I could see it. But at this amount, I cannot see how it’d ever be remotely sustainable.
That would create ridiculous levels of bitterness among people who are working.
I know things are bad but come on. If you need £1600 a month just for basic living then maybe it's time to change your lifestyle. It would cost the country £64 billion a month. Where are they going to find that kind of money? Raising taxes?
My mum was a manager in the care business and her biggest headaches was trying to get people to do overtime as they where always short staffed. Full time contracts where declined on the grounds that they earn just as much doing half the hours because of the benefits they were on. The same as overtime because the extra hours would put them over the limit.
So yeah. A lot more than a few would take the money. You're just kidding yourself here.
So what they are saying is that every month, on top of my wages, I'd get £1600 for nothing?
Bring it on.
In reality, I'd expect most things, like food, cars, fuel, holidays for instance, to rocket in price. They will all want their piece of that £1600 a month.
Bring it on.
In reality, I'd expect most things, like food, cars, fuel, holidays for instance, to rocket in price. They will all want their piece of that £1600 a month.
Frankly in the long run I could see a scenario where this increases, not decreases, inequality.
It’s that airfryer of his!
Or all those lights to grow that cannabis
Thanks for explaining
Not at all. Everyone get UBI. Income tax rates are increased so the employed lose as much in income tax as they gain in UBI. That can be achieved in a number of ways e.g. UBI is exempt but there is no tax free threshold and or increase the marginal tax rates. Simply paying everyone UBI without raising taxes (corporate and/or income and/or VAT) is never going to be affordable and I've never seen it suggested.
From <£400/month to £1600/month is definitely a huge bump.
Ok utilities is the wrong word. My monthly bills for both myself and my partner and I currently pay all of them as she is on maternity.
Mortgage, Council tax, Energy, TV/Broadband, Car, Life insurance, pet insurance, mobile contract and paying off our new boiler.
No it wouldn't. The level of UBI would be so low that it would be almost impossible to live on, just as it is to live on social security now. The difference is we wouldn't be victimising people or paying hundreds of millions of pounds a year to do the means testing.
I'm amazed people think £1600 is a decent amount of money to live on a month and that people who are on it should have a bunch of disposable income.
The average rent price is about £600-750 for a one bedroom flat depending on if you live in or out of the city. Then taking energy bills, food, internet bill, tv licence, council tax, potential car etc. into the mix and you're not left with a lot at the end of it. It's not much of a life. I think it's a decent figure in terms of thinking about the 'basic' needed in the UK to live.
The average rent price is about £600-750 for a one bedroom flat depending on if you live in or out of the city. Then taking energy bills, food, internet bill, tv licence, council tax, potential car etc. into the mix and you're not left with a lot at the end of it. It's not much of a life. I think it's a decent figure in terms of thinking about the 'basic' needed in the UK to live.
But I don’t think this works. To my mind, it increases inequality in the long run. Those who are poorest are further disincentivised to seek a better life because to them, £1.6k will seem like a significant amount of money. In turn, governments will equally be disincentivised to fix inequality and put money in the right places. For those already working, some will and probably most won’t change their habits. But some might go part time. Some might quit altogether (less of an issue at younger ages, but there’s a good chance that those close to retirement age may be more incentivised to retire earlier). Overall, this will have significant impact both on the demand and supply side of the economy in hugely complex ways. Frankly it’d be extremely difficult to predict what’ll happen, and this trial is utterly redundant in that regard.
Nobody can live on $100 pounds a week. It is impossible. UBI would replace all social payments including rent assistance.