This sounds pretty realistic except I was of the understanding that NI contributions go towards pensions which are specifically excluded from your UBI. Completely ending JSA would result in a reduction of about £14 per week for those over 24. Not that most claimants do so for an entire year but it would undoubtedly cause cash flow issues without some sort of alternative short term funding in place.
Universal Basic Income
- Thread starter esmufc07
- Start date
This sounds pretty realistic except I was of the understanding that NI contributions go towards pensions which are specifically excluded from your UBI. Completely ending JSA would result in a reduction of about £14 per week for those over 24. Not that most claimants do so for an entire year but it would undoubtedly cause cash flow issues without some sort of alternative short term funding in place.
That’s the thing though, there would be a back and forth on almost everything, that’s why I think it’s almost impossible to predict the final outcome economically. It would certainly improve a vast number of lives though, which makes the humanist in me think it could well be worth trying. Especially as we desperately need a solution to the future jobs issue, and so far this looks like the only feasible one I’ve seen proposed. I’d suggest it’s much better to try it early so we can find out the flaws and try and fix them, rather than wait until we have no choice left.
NI contributions go towards pensions in a very... Obfuscated manner.
If you earn over £8.2k a year approx, you complete your NI contributions for that year, regardless of whether you "contribute" anymore. I.e. someone paying £20k in national insurance gets the same benefits as someone paying £1 (as fsf as i know, correct if I'm wrong).
We could have a debate over national insurance in general. Those who don't earn a complete state pension will likely get more in other benefits when they can't afford to live on their income anyway.
I treat it as a secondary income tax with no real benefit.
At what age would the payments start and end ?
Taken from here- http://crookedtimber.org/2012/07/01/let-it-bleed-libertarianism-and-the-workplace/
A complete non-starter if the figure is accurate.
Edit - I did the maths. It's exactly accurate (21% from 2012 numbers).
Last edited:
Would make more sense to fix the current NHS funding situation, then maybe welfare incomes and maybe some fantasy UBI can come later.
No chance of any of that whilst the Tories rule the country.
I get ~20% for 2016.
I don't think anything along the lines of 1k/month is feasible. My inner socialist was hoping for maybe 1/3 of that (that however no questions asked).
We did? Where? I think I heard it was done in small town Ontario, but I'm not sure, nor did I hear about the results...
With regard to the idea, why not just lower the cost of living instead of handing out free money. Doesn't the need for a basic income tacitly acknowledge that the system we have designed is slowly destroying our society?
haha free money?! what's next? Obviously everyone is going to be 'for' it - but err who's paying for it?
Such an odd idea.
Such an odd idea.
Usually not the people suggesting or wanting it.
How is it an odd idea, exactly? Are you against the current benefits system?
Well that is conclusive. Hey would you like free money......."sure yes, can I have seconds please". And they only got 62% of people polling yes. Hmmmmm I wonder what percentage of the population actually pay more tax than they take out in benefits? Going to be bloody close to 38% is my guess.
They did some calculations on it in Norway, and even with our oil fund it just doesn't add up.
You can't hand out money to people just for being a citizen and tax the few to do it.
You can't hand out money to people just for being a citizen and tax the few to do it.
I don't think you can, you'd just have to test it and see the consequences, which begs the question - why should it even be tested? I'd be wary of anyone saying it's definitely a good or bad idea as of now, more so the former.
Switzerland referendum is mentioned there. They voted No with about 77-23 split.
Well that is conclusive. Hey would you like free money......."sure yes, can I have seconds please". And they only got 62% of people polling yes. Hmmmmm I wonder what percentage of the population actually pay more tax than they take out in benefits? Going to be bloody close to 38% is my guess.
Because the current system is a proven failure?
Is it? Compared to what?
Well that is conclusive. Hey would you like free money......."sure yes, can I have seconds please". And they only got 62% of people polling yes. Hmmmmm I wonder what percentage of the population actually pay more tax than they take out in benefits? Going to be bloody close to 38% is my guess.
No poll is conclusive, but you said the people for this idea are the ones usually not suggesting or wanting it. That's clearly false.
We already spend £216bn on welfare payments alone in the UK. There's c.40m people of 'working age'. If we take the Finnish model and give every single one of those people £475/month, the total cost/year would be £228bn, so it is only a marginal increase. It can easily be paid for through a modest increase in corporation tax and tackling tax avoidance/evasion.
This notion that it would cost an abundance more than we are currently paying is false. Obviously these are very rough figures and some of the benefits would have to remain (housing benefit for example).
You do know there are rather a lot of people getting a hell of a lot more than £475 a month under the current system. Current government spending on welfare assistance is significant in teh UK when you look at all teh departments and areas funded.
You do know there are rather a lot of people getting a hell of a lot more than £475 a month under the current system. Current government spending on welfare assistance is significant in teh UK when you look at all teh departments and areas funded.
Yeah I edited my post. Obviously I'm not in a position to work out the full costings of such a scheme. And I doubt it is going to happen anytime soon. I just think it would be much better than the system we currently have, and I see it as a natural evolution of the welfare state. Modest increases in income tax, the reversal of corporation tax and the tackling of tax evasion schemes would probably net you around £150bn/year if not more.
If the numbers stack up it might be viable. Taxing the really wealthy more and plugging tax loopholes then pumping that money into the NHS and education should be the priority.
I won't disagree with that.
This I can somewhat understand.
The universal credit thing I still can’t get my head around at all. Would it totally replace the welfare system? Would people be ok with that (I am guessing the majority of folks on benefits would actually get more than the universal income amount).
Definitely for, I deserve equal money it's not fair that people get paid more.
Would this replace other social welfare?
So if everyone got a Universal Basic Income, does that mean everyone now has to pay for private health insurance?
If this is a benefit on top of the benefits already provided where does the extra funding come from?
So if everyone got a Universal Basic Income, does that mean everyone now has to pay for private health insurance?
If this is a benefit on top of the benefits already provided where does the extra funding come from?
It basically just means that I get paid the exact same amount as you do which I 100% support. The future is now, we need to push for this ASAP
I think it doesn't touch healthcare in a country like the UK. It would make all the other welfare payments redundant (except disability benefits) which is where people take the money from.
Automation might become a real problem. If worst case scenario happens, it is as a big problem as global warming IMO. Universal Basic Income has been mentioned as the only solution to that, so far. So, if people really think that automation will replace the absolute majority of jobs, it makes sense to test the only solution to the problem.
I think that the solution should be taxing robots (well, the companies which use robots) and so in that way get the money for basic income. We are probably a couple of decades to go to that point though.
I agree that automation is a big thing to consider, especially in the driving/operator sector and it needs to be respected but I also think that we are quite adaptable too. Different industries will spring up and it's not like every person who is at risk will lose their job together at once. UBI is a drastic measure and I don't really think there is much evidence that it's needed as of yet.
What’s the point in investing heavily in education when there’s no jobs at the end of it?
I'd imagine AI is a bigger threat than automation.
Automation and general labour saving technology have been around for centuries.
We've never created something that thinks ... better (?) than us though.
Its hard to say what effect or significance imagination has too.
Could an ai be programmed to preemptively design and build products or services which theres a gap in the market for?
Kind of a tangent but i wonder would it even be a good idea to let an ai have that level of initiative? Or could we stop it if its exponentially smarter than us?
Automation and general labour saving technology have been around for centuries.
We've never created something that thinks ... better (?) than us though.
Its hard to say what effect or significance imagination has too.
Could an ai be programmed to preemptively design and build products or services which theres a gap in the market for?
Kind of a tangent but i wonder would it even be a good idea to let an ai have that level of initiative? Or could we stop it if its exponentially smarter than us?
I don't think it's physically possible for us to invent something more complicated and intelligent than the human brain.
There are jobs in some industries. Pretty daft relying on foreign nurses and computer people when you could educate your own workforce.
You could definitely be right and there'll always be something missing with computer intelligence.
But i think more and more tasks will be handled by an ai.
Basic tasks like adding, subtracting and most calculations have been handled by computers for a long time.
Things like driving are going that direction with ai's in their test stage already performing better than humans.
They might never have the imagination or the drive to test and improve and perfect things as humans have.
But they dont need to to make a lot of people redundant.
It is neither free money nor an odd idea. It will also save a fortune in the currently convoluted and hugely administrative way we collect and distribute tax and social benefits. And we have to do something as in a generation's time anywhere near full employment will be impossible and social disintegration will occur unless we change well ahead of time.
Since when was the only point of education getting a job?
Who pays rent for those on housing benefit?