Could a Universal Basic Income, help solve the Governments deficit problems?

Utrecht in Netherlands also had a UBI of around €980 a month. I've not seen any reports about the how the trials progressed. I suppose most information would be Dutch.

I believe that some areas of Germany were also planning to experiment with €1.200 a month.
 
The other thing I should add is that if all these trials are conducted on a section of the country (doesn't matter which), I don't see that as being representative. The whole thing that makes UBI unique, and the reason why I don't think it's a good idea, is that everyone gets it. If you give 200 people a lump of cash, then they'll be better off. If you give everyone in the whole country the lump of cash, all you've done is cause inflation. Now, I've heard people say that that's fixed by progressive taxation so that only poor people are actually benefitting, in which case I'm not sure what the improvement is over benefits which we already have (and which maybe need tweaking to work better in certain scenarios, but that doesn't mean that we need a whole new system with a shiny new brand which does basically the same thing).
 
It just seems like a fairy tale

No one has implemented it successfully as far as I'm aware.

Let's say it's 13k a year.

After this you get taxed.

13k a year tax free for me and my partner? That would mean I don't have to work
Can pay all the bills and have enough left over to have a little bit of luxury.
More important, I'd have 37 hours extra a week free time. Which might be a poison chalice. What would motivate me?


I think that's too much. Would it just push house prices up and such things so it would just be lost?

Its a weird one. Sounds like a utopia. No work for anyone.

How would it play out? How many people would just quit work? I'd be tempted. Very tempted. I'd certainly find part time work.
I think too many people would be like me.

It would have to be low enough to make me struggle. But survive. And that point is different for everyone.

800 a month each...that would be bare bones for me and my partner
1100..easy life
 
413x said:
It just seems like a fairy tale

No one has implemented it successfully as far as I'm aware.

Let's say it's 13k a year.

After this you get taxed.

13k a year tax free for me and my partner? That would mean I don't have to work
Can pay all the bills and have enough left over to have a little bit of luxury.
More important, I'd have 37 hours extra a week free time. Which might be a poison chalice. What would motivate me?


I think that's too much. Would it just push house prices up and such things so it would just be lost?

Its a weird one. Sounds like a utopia. No work for anyone.

How would it play out? How many people would just quit work? I'd be tempted. Very tempted. I'd certainly find part time work.
I think too many people would be like me.

It would have to be low enough to make me struggle. But survive. And that point is different for everyone.

800 a month each...that would be bare bones for me and my partner
1100..easy life
Click to expand...

It's just never going to work with £1100 per month for the UK. It costs £870b a year, UK's entire tax revenue per year is about £650b. Even if you cut all existing benefits, that's just £200b a year. So you still need to find an extra £670b a year, double the current rate of tax revenues. Doubling taxes won't mean doubling the tax revenue, it's just impossible to do that.

Maybe £200 per month (costing £150b a year) could be self-sustaining by introducing a new tax and cutting some benefits. But these huge proposals of thousands per month, or at minimum wage, or other crazy amounts, there's just no mathematical way to do this in this country.
 
HACO said:
It's just never going to work with £1100 per month for the UK. It costs £870b a year, UK's entire tax revenue per year is about £650b. Even if you cut all existing benefits, that's just £200b a year. So you still need to find an extra £670b a year, double the current rate of tax revenues. Doubling taxes won't mean doubling the tax revenue, it's just impossible to do that.

Maybe £200 per month (costing £150b a year) could be self-sustaining by introducing a new tax. But these huge proposals of thousands per month, or at minimum wage, or other crazy amounts, there's just no mathematical way to do this in this country.
Click to expand...

Yeah so really. We can't have UBI.
it will be income support. A little boost for people. But not something that's going to keep you going while you look for a job.
 
413x said:
Yeah so really. We can't have UBI.
it will be income support. A little boost for people. But not something that's going to keep you going while you look for a job.
Click to expand...

It will be there so that you cut through your emergency fund at a slightly slower rate.
 
R.P.L said:
Right, so as I mentioned previously it's just rebranded unemployment benefits.
Click to expand...

I'm shocked that people expected it to be any different to be honest. It's a more universal benefits program, with people who have an income pay the benefits back through taxes, making the benefits system more efficient. It never was about giving people an incentive to avoid work and be able to live a reasonable life.
 
HACO said:
I'm shocked that people expected it to be any different to be honest. It's a more universal benefits program, with people who have an income pay the benefits back through taxes, making the benefits system more efficient. It never was about giving people an incentive to avoid work and be able to live a reasonable life.
Click to expand...

Right, which kind of makes me wonder why it's such a hot topic.

EDIT: Well obviously I know that the media will make a hot topic out of anything these days to earn a few bucks.
 
HACO said:
I'm shocked that people expected it to be any different to be honest. It's a more universal benefits program, with people who have an income pay the benefits back through taxes, making the benefits system more efficient. It never was about giving people an incentive to avoid work and be able to live a reasonable life.
Click to expand...

I think people genuinely believe it could be some utopia
 
Is it not the fact that for relatively small change for higher earners, it could partially redistribute wealth in the economy, one of the issues highlighted at the moment where the gap between people that are considered rich or poor is widening.

Say it was rolled out at £200 a person, and is only to those who don't receive a pension.

75% of the UK population are over 20, so that's approx 50m, and there is approx 10m over 68, so 40m people paid an extra £2400 a year is only 96bn. With 27.7m brits in employment, that's 3.5k additional tax required per worker on average. A considerable 11.6% tax increase across the board would cover it I think, so anyone earning less than 21k is better off. Anyone on an average salary of 30k, is 3.6% worse off. In reality it probably needs tiered to the higher earners, but still a difficult ask/balance for many.
 
Last edited:
DireEmblem said:
Is it not the fact that for relatively small change for higher earners, it could partially redistribute wealth in the economy, one of the issues highlighted at the moment where the gap between people that are considered rich or poor is widening.
Click to expand...

You can't redistribute wealth by taxing earnings. When you talk about wealthy people, income is a small part of their world. You should tax wealth if the aim is to redistribute wealth (like many sane countries - even the US - do in the form of property or land value taxes).
 
R.P.L said:
The other thing I should add is that if all these trials are conducted on a section of the country (doesn't matter which), I don't see that as being representative. The whole thing that makes UBI unique, and the reason why I don't think it's a good idea, is that everyone gets it. If you give 200 people a lump of cash, then they'll be better off. If you give everyone in the whole country the lump of cash, all you've done is cause inflation. Now, I've heard people say that that's fixed by progressive taxation so that only poor people are actually benefitting, in which case I'm not sure what the improvement is over benefits which we already have (and which maybe need tweaking to work better in certain scenarios, but that doesn't mean that we need a whole new system with a shiny new brand which does basically the same thing).
Click to expand...


The benefits are a bureaucratic nightmare, incredibly inefficient, subject to fraud, and don't distribute resources optimally to those that need it. Essentially those that need increased financial support often wont receive any or sufficient amounts.

A UBI is a much more efficient method of distribution which is literally universal. The important part is the UBI has to be sufficient to cover all existing benefits requirements.


The upside is that more people will have more money to spend on the economy, growing GDP. They also live happier and healthier lives, thus are more productive.
 
HACO said:
You can't redistribute wealth by taxing earnings. When you talk about wealthy people, income is a small part of their world. You should tax wealth if the aim is to redistribute wealth (like many sane countries - even the US - do in the form of property or land value taxes).
Click to expand...


It is shocking the UK doesn't have a wealth tax. As you say the US does. Even in so called tax heaven Switzerland you have property taxes and then wealth taxes on all assets.

This is a much more effective way of taxing the ultra wealthy
 
D.P. said:
It is shocking the UK doesn't have a wealth tax. As you say the US does. Even in so called tax heaven Switzerland you have property taxes and then wealth taxes on all assets.

This is a much more effective way of taxing the ultra wealthy
Click to expand...

Its not working for the US then, they have shocking inequality and the top 1% hold an ever increasing slice of the pie.
 
D.P. said:
The benefits are a bureaucratic nightmare, incredibly inefficient, subject to fraud, and don't distribute resources optimally to those that need it. Essentially those that need increased financial support often wont receive any or sufficient amounts.

A UBI is a much more efficient method of distribution which is literally universal. The important part is the UBI has to be sufficient to cover all existing benefits requirements.


The upside is that more people will have more money to spend on the economy, growing GDP. They also live happier and healthier lives, thus are more productive.
Click to expand...

It won't work in the way that you think it will, but I've already explained why I'm not in favour so won't bother to again.
 
DireEmblem said:
Is it not the fact that for relatively small change for higher earners, it could partially redistribute wealth in the economy, one of the issues highlighted at the moment where the gap between people that are considered rich or poor is widening.

Say it was rolled out at £200 a person, and is only to those who don't receive a pension.

75% of the UK population are over 20, so that's approx 50m, and there is approx 10m over 68, so 40m people paid an extra £2400 a year is only 96bn. With 27.7m brits in employment, that's 3.5k additional tax required per worker on average. A considerable 11.6% tax increase across the board would cover it I think, so anyone earning less than 21k is better off. Anyone on an average salary of 30k, is 3.6% worse off. In reality it probably needs tiered to the higher earners, but still a difficult ask/balance for many.
Click to expand...

Squeezing the middle is always effective as they can’t just decide to non-dom somewhere else and poke two fingers up to the country that wants 75% of their earnings. Of course, making it possible for semi-skilled workers to get the same income for staying home is what I like to call a Very Bad Idea.
 
Terminal_Boy said:
Squeezing the middle is always effective as they can’t just decide to non-dom somewhere else and poke two fingers up to the country that wants 75% of their earnings. Of course, making it possible for semi-skilled workers to get the same income for staying home is what I like to call a Very Bad Idea.
Click to expand...

But they won't have the same income, people earning money will earn more.

Regardless if I had to place a bet on what comes first, revolution or reducing inequality? I bet on the former.
 
Last edited:
Who pays for UBI? Nothing is free, someone has to pay for it.

It might not even be a taxation but by printing more money, in which case we all pay as this dilutes the monetary value through inflation.
With 'free money' people are incentivised to shirk work, voluntary unemployment increases and gdp decreases.
Devaluing currency, losing gdp productivity means having to increase UBI to maintain purchasing value for essential goods, which then inflates further in a feedback loop, chasing the dragon of hyperinflation which becomes a statistical inevitablity.

We are disadvantaged against non UBI nations and more jobs are lost, meaning more reliance on the UBI. Do we increase it again?
Does the UBI now get lobbied to cover average food and rent, now that the country is spiraling?
If everyone has the equivelant of free rent, then does rent price remain static? No.

Lobby for more rent controls to stop this, but now mortgages are up as house values increase due to the spiraling inflation.
Oh no. Foreclosures, rent is cheap through artifical control but you get evicted anyway as the landlord is choked.
Foreign money buys property as those outside our pool have more means now.

UBI is a nice idea, for star trek when we have infinite energy supply and replicators.

UBI in our world is just communism of the bad kind, a feedback loop that destabilises everything and leads to black markets and crime.
it's something only possible through artificial controls and that's a warning sign.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom