Universal Basic Income

The assumption that this paradigm shift of malignant greed morphing into a benign justice is just around the corner (and has been for years) seems increasingly fanciful. We live in a world today that sees the rich and powerful content to destroy the ground they walk on and feck their kids into a future of hell, all in the quest for greater personal riches. How is it that these lot are expected to suddenly have a change of heart and start spreading money out to (also) the poorest in society?
Yeah, the prevailing winds in Europe and North America in terms of fiscal policy are certainly blowing to the right currently, plus this is obviously also a subject that would get demolished in rampant populism. So I don't see this standing any kind of serious chance in political discussion for a while. As someone else said, though, you could hope for a serious roll-out in a European Nordic country (not another one of those unrepresentative test), and then have the (hopefully positive) results serve as an example in other countries.

Not that places like the UK or the US would ever take note, but other countries might, and here in Canada individual provinces might do something as well (although most welfare programs are run federally).
I think the issue with UBI at this stage is that, if the rollout of AI has the devastating impact on jobs that many predict, then something like UBI will be needed in order to counter the massive job losses etc. Without that, with unemployment at unprecedented levels, civil unrest would be the next step without some form of intervention.

So not implementing something like this would not be in their interest.
Actually, right now, the issue is rather that aging is leading to a lack of available workforce for all the jobs available. It will probably be a while before automization turns that around into a huge shortage of jobs.
So what we need is the UBI party, no Tories, Lib Dems or Laborites need apply
Actually, the first political proponent (or the first high-profile one, anyway) of UBI was a conversative - cause for him, it's a way to cut away a jungle of government regulations while meeting the same target (and maybe meeting it even better). But then he probably has also been the only conversative to support the idea...
 
Perhaps. Personally I think that the roll out will be gradual enough and in the hands of so few and a few so powerful that any unrest will be easily quelled. You only have to look at the current Tory part or the Nazi party in the 30s to see that even extremly harmful and minority ideaologies can insidiously grow right up to ruination.

UBI could be a tool that solves problems of inequality and automation. UBI could just as easily be implemented to increase inequality.

As of now I would have much more faith in a party that is committed to policies that would strengthen the welfare state, than one who wants to replace it with a UBI.

I think that's the key. How it is implemented makes a massive difference in whether this is a good thing or a bad thing. For the US at least, I think there would need to be some pre-conditions met before this could be implemented to really reduce inequality such as a will to implement improvements on the progression taxation so the highest income brackets actually do pay the highest rates in taxes. So, no exceptions for unearned vs earned income or different tax rates for making money on investments. Someone like myself or many here should never be paying a higher percentage of income in taxes than Mitt Romney or Donald Trump due to loopholes and what is essentially welfare for investment income.
 
Responses to this always just underline how much people hate other people
Yeah, people go on and on about finances, economic challenges, how would it work regarding taxes, etc. but the real obstacle would be people not wanting to help others because they're selfish, "they don't want to work", "it's communism", etc.
 
Yeah, the prevailing winds in Europe and North America in terms of fiscal policy are certainly blowing to the right currently, plus this is obviously also a subject that would get demolished in rampant populism. So I don't see this standing any kind of serious chance in political discussion for a while. As someone else said, though, you could hope for a serious roll-out in a European Nordic country (not another one of those unrepresentative test), and then have the (hopefully positive) results serve as an example in other countries.

Not that places like the UK or the US would ever take note, but other countries might, and here in Canada individual provinces might do something as well (although most welfare programs are run federally).

Actually, right now, the issue is rather that aging is leading to a lack of available workforce for all the jobs available. It will probably be a while before automization turns that around into a huge shortage of jobs.

Actually, the first political proponent (or the first high-profile one, anyway) of UBI was a conversative - cause for him, it's a way to cut away a jungle of government regulations while meeting the same target (and maybe meeting it even better). But then he probably has also been the only conversative to support the idea...
Who was the first because the basic idea was first proposed in the 1700's, I assume you mean more recently
 
Yeah, people go on and on about finances, economic challenges, how would it work regarding taxes, etc. but the real obstacle would be people not wanting to help others because they're selfish, "they don't want to work", "it's communism", etc.

I don't know if it's unique to Britain, but yeah, this attitude is pervasive.

Same as the tabloid/TV obsession with "benefit scroungers" - most people seem like they'd rather be fecked over by those richer than them every day of their lives rather than see someone poorer than them getting a penny for nothing.
 
I think that's the key. How it is implemented makes a massive difference in whether this is a good thing or a bad thing. For the US at least, I think there would need to be some pre-conditions met before this could be implemented to really reduce inequality such as a will to implement improvements on the progression taxation so the highest income brackets actually do pay the highest rates in taxes. So, no exceptions for unearned vs earned income or different tax rates for making money on investments. Someone like myself or many here should never be paying a higher percentage of income in taxes than Mitt Romney or Donald Trump due to loopholes and what is essentially welfare for investment income.
Ironically some of the seriously rich, folks like Warren Buffet & Bill Gates have been saying the same thing about investment taxes for years
 
I don't know if it's unique to Britain, but yeah, this attitude is pervasive.

Same as the tabloid/TV obsession with "benefit scroungers" - most people seem like they'd rather be fecked over by those richer than them every day of their lives rather than see someone poorer than them getting a penny for nothing.
It's even more pervasive in the US TBH
 
Yeah, people go on and on about finances, economic challenges, how would it work regarding taxes, etc. but the real obstacle would be people not wanting to help others because they're selfish, "they don't want to work", "it's communism", etc.

“The free money that everyone gets is unfair because even the people I don’t like get it”
 
Who was the first because the basic idea was first proposed in the 1700's, I assume you mean more recently
Ah, sorry - I mean in current political discussions. It's obviously an older idea, and must have had some support earlier in Canada as well given it was tested extensively in the city of Dauphin in Manitoba from 1974-1978. That one had very positive results btw, as summarized inside this article:
CBC Article on UBI said:
In Canada, Manitoba ran a pilot project called Mincome from 1974 to 1978 in the rural community of Dauphin. The idea was to test whether a no-strings attached wage would actually help the working poor by supplementing their income, or end up deterring them from working altogether.

[Health economist Evelyn Forget, a professor in the department of health sciences at the University of Manitoba in Winnipeg,] studied the outcomes of that project and found that participants were less likely to be hospitalized and more likely to continue their education. She said for the most part, basic income did not discourage people from working. One of the groups who worked less were new mothers who, in the 1970s in Manitoba, would have only been entitled to a few weeks of parental leave.

The other group that was disincentivized to work by basic income was young, unattached males. Forget discovered the reason those young men, often in their teens, were less likely to work was because basic income meant their families could afford to let them stay in school. Instead of dropping out to earn wages, they were able to get their high school diplomas.
As the article also points out, currently, the Canadian Green and NDP (Labour) parties support a kind of UBI, while the Liberals (probably similar to the UK's LibDems) do not in their platform but have a lot of support for it among party members.
 
Ah, sorry - I mean in current political discussions. It's obviously an older idea, and must have had some support earlier in Canada as well given it was tested extensively in the city of Dauphin in Manitoba from 1974-1978. That one had very positive results btw, as summarized inside this article:

As the article also points out, currently, the Canadian Green and NDP (Labour) parties support a kind of UBI, while the Liberals (probably similar to the UK's LibDems) do not in their platform but have a lot of support for it among party members.
TBH I'd never heard of it until Andrew Yang made it his pitch in his run for President
 
Ironically some of the seriously rich, folks like Warren Buffet & Bill Gates have been saying the same thing about investment taxes for years

I have worked in UK and US personal tax for 6 years. It absolutely baffles me why both countries have lower (quite markedly in some cases) rates of tax on capital gains and dividends. This income is actually unearned so if anything should be the target of more aggressive tax. I know the real reason why it has never been properly addressed (politicians themselves are more likely to have/be in the pockets of those who have significant investment income), but it would be towards the top of my list of things I would change first if I ever became PM.
 
Universal Basic Income Threatens Capitalism, Hence the Reaction to it.

 
So who's eligible for this supposed windfall? People who have x amount of years living in the UK? Anyone registered in the country? If it's the latter then a good Xmas present to yourself would be a lifejacket as the weight of everyone trying to get into the island would probably sink it.
Yeah alright Suella
 
Even Sanders was against it, in so far as he thought it was unrealistic.
Yet Sander's was all for universal healthcare in the US which he must know is also unrealistic
 
Yet Sander's was all for universal healthcare in the US which he must know is also unrealistic

Its far more realistic than UBI, which isn't even being used in left leaning European countries. So for it to ever happen in the US is pretty unlikely, especially given how the two political parties are tribally at war with one another.
 
Ironically some of the seriously rich, folks like Warren Buffet & Bill Gates have been saying the same thing about investment taxes for years

Yeah, I know people that would be adversely affected by a change but they still support it as well. The problem is the massive lobby and money behind pressuring Congress on changes such as this.
 
I am sure this has been answered before but wouldn't all companies/businesses just increase their prices to account for UBI and cause further inflation.
 
I am sure this has been answered before but wouldn't all companies/businesses just increase their prices to account for UBI and cause further inflation.
The market still gets to decide the prices. What you are describing is a cartel if every business decides to group together and agree to put prices up otherwise they will still be competing with each other for peoples business.

As I said earlier in this thread, it could have the opposite effect to an extent and help drive the economy. If businesses have more trade they can buy / manufacture / import in larger quantities and find savings that way.
 
I have worked in UK and US personal tax for 6 years. It absolutely baffles me why both countries have lower (quite markedly in some cases) rates of tax on capital gains and dividends. This income is actually unearned so if anything should be the target of more aggressive tax. I know the real reason why it has never been properly addressed (politicians themselves are more likely to have/be in the pockets of those who have significant investment income), but it would be towards the top of my list of things I would change first if I ever became PM.

With the UK's increased corporation tax level the 45% rate of income tax is lower than the top rate of tax on dividends.
 
With the UK's increased corporation tax level the 45% rate of income tax is lower than the top rate of tax on dividends.

That is to avoid/stop people paying themselves via dividend rather than salary as you know. You also do not pay NIC on dividends (directly anyway). The capital gains tax rate at 20% (sometimes lower if BADR applicable) and, the worst, 28% for carried interest returns are still 25% and 17% lower than the highest income tax rate. When you consider it is the people with the most money that normally fall foul of these rates, and receiving huge amounts, it exacerbates the difference.
 
So who's eligible for this supposed windfall? People who have x amount of years living in the UK? Anyone registered in the country? If it's the latter then a good Xmas present to yourself would be a lifejacket as the weight of everyone trying to get into the island would probably sink it.

What windfall?
 
“The free money that everyone gets is unfair because even the people I don’t like get it”

Harder to identify the poor if everyone gets it. Who would we hate then? We'd probably have to concentrate of foreigners and POC.

idxmkwks7za81.jpg
 
Not that places like the UK or the US would ever take note.

The Welsh government are currently trialling a basic income pilot at the moment, with those leaving care being the focus. It’s about £20k a year, paid out for 2 years. I think it’s limited to 500 individuals unfortunately, but the Welsh government are interested in the concept. Scotland are currently undertaking feasibility checks for a 2030 minimum income guarantee, but I’m not sure how that’s progressed.

There’s currently a small UBI trial going on in England, but I think that’s headed by an independent think tank and not the actual government.

Yeah alright Suella

10/10
 
I'm bad at economics so probably a dumb question

But won't a UBI just makes things more expensive?
 
The Welsh government are currently trialling a basic income pilot at the moment, with those leaving care being the focus. It’s about £20k a year, paid out for 2 years. I think it’s limited to 500 individuals unfortunately, but the Welsh government are interested in the concept. Scotland are currently undertaking feasibility checks for a 2030 minimum income guarantee, but I’m not sure how that’s progressed.

There’s currently a small UBI trial going on in England, but I think that’s headed by an independent think tank and not the actual government.
Yeah, I thought of that after posting: Scotland and Wales might actually be interested! But yes, the tiny trial in England isn't done by the government.
I'm bad at economics so probably a dumb question

But won't a UBI just makes things more expensive?
Why would it? Because the poorest would have enough money to pay for their normal groceries, mortgage, and utilities bills? (If the money even goes that far.) That really wouldn't launch an inflation spiral.
 
Yeah, I thought of that after posting: Scotland and Wales might actually be interested! But yes, the tiny trial in England isn't done by the government..

embarrassingly I didn’t actually realise when I posted that benefits are solely a Westminster thing, so it doesn’t actually mean much what the Welsh government actually think! I guess with it being limited to care leavers there wasn’t much hope of this trial taking the place by storm and being swept in anyway. Still with my experience and involvement with the foster care system itd be great to at least lead to something there as a small first step
 
embarrassingly I didn’t actually realise when I posted that benefits are solely a Westminster thing, so it doesn’t actually mean much what the Welsh government actually think! I guess with it being limited to care leavers there wasn’t much hope of this trial taking the place by storm and being swept in anyway. Still with my experience and involvement with the foster care system itd be great to at least lead to something there as a small first step
On the other hand, if Wales decide to create a UBI program, Westminster would probably be happy to cancel benefits programs in Wales. That would only work if Wales got the savings though (it would need the cash for the UBI program), which is probably where things would get more complicated.
 
On the other hand, if Wales decide to create a UBI program, Westminster would probably be happy to cancel benefits programs in Wales. That would only work if Wales got the savings though (it would need the cash for the UBI program), which is probably where things would get more complicated.
Benefits cash wouldn't be enough to pay for UBI though, so Wales would have to raise or introduce what taxes it could, and then why would anyone run a business in Cardiff when it could do so in Gloucester?

I am very much in favour of UBI, but it's going to be a challenge for the UK as a whole to introduce it and remain competitive, I don't see how Wales on it's own could do it. Good luck to them if they can though, and I hope the rest of us can too.
 
Definition of windfall.

. a piece of unexpected good fortune, especially financial gain.

You don't think this applies here?

No. A UBI wouldn't be unexpected or a gain for almost everyone. A few who currently fall through the gaps and don't get social payments might gain. Others on social payments may gain a bit depending on what sum of UBI is given but the employed would likely be on exactly the same as tax would increase by the same amount as the UBI.
 
No. A UBI wouldn't be unexpected or a gain for almost everyone. A few who currently fall through the gaps and don't get social payments might gain. Others on social payments may gain a bit depending on what sum of UBI is given but the employed would likely be on exactly the same as tax would increase by the same amount as the UBI.
I've seen you reference your last paragraph before and tbh I can't get my head around it. People pay taxes on what they earn. If you earn an extra £1600 you're obviously not going to be paying £1600 in taxes. In laymans terms, just how are the employed not going to be better off if UBI does come into effect?
 
I've seen you reference your last paragraph before and tbh I can't get my head around it. People pay taxes on what they earn. If you earn an extra £1600 you're obviously not going to be paying £1600 in taxes. In laymans terms, just how are the employed not going to be better off if UBI does come into effect?
It might be right to say that at it's simplest the employed would gain less, they would gain £1600 less 20% if on basic tax, or less 40% if on higher tax.

That's assuming it is taxable at all, and also assuming it doesn't have a separate tax scale altogether. There are many ways it could be done.
 
I've seen you reference your last paragraph before and tbh I can't get my head around it. People pay taxes on what they earn. If you earn an extra £1600 you're obviously not going to be paying £1600 in taxes. In laymans terms, just how are the employed not going to be better off if UBI does come into effect?

By paying a higher % on all the rest of your income.
 
I've seen you reference your last paragraph before and tbh I can't get my head around it. People pay taxes on what they earn. If you earn an extra £1600 you're obviously not going to be paying £1600 in taxes. In laymans terms, just how are the employed not going to be better off if UBI does come into effect?
The employed will be paying about the same extra tax as they will get in UBI.

Everyone gets a subsistence level sum and marginal tax rates are adjusted.