Poll: Exit Poll: UK General Election 2017 - Results discussion and OcUK Exit Poll - Closing 8th July
- Thread starter JohnnyG
- Start date
- Status
Soldato
- Joined
- 5 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 2,584
- Location
- God's own country
Personally I find Farron and Sturgeon absolutely abominable but that doesn't make it FACT. I think May has proven herself to be poor, I was disappointed when Leadsom didn't win the Leadership contest, but I still think she is a damn sight better than Corbyn bent over with Sturgeon taking him from behind while he licks Farrons crucifix.
I can live with it in the short term until she is replaced with someone more palatable. The simple fact is Loveable Grandpa Jeremy has some horrible friends he needs to feed, and his spending plans are laughable.
EDIT: lol
I can live with it in the short term until she is replaced with someone more palatable. The simple fact is Loveable Grandpa Jeremy has some horrible friends he needs to feed, and his spending plans are laughable.
EDIT: lol
Interesting self reflection, for people who are not psychology students, what do you believe you just did and how does that relate to unqualified internet diagnosis and self aggrandising posts?
@Rroff just be aware this could go back and forth for several posts now... he may even turn into Paxman again
Soldato
- Joined
- 5 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 2,584
- Location
- God's own country
LMFAO (and we all know how urine poor Paxman is)
I'm done there is absolutely no reason for me to respond again.
It's like she thinks if she pretends nothing's wrong and she has a massive majority then she'll wake up one morning with one.
Apparently he's a proponent of Universal Basic Income, an idea which seems to be largely discredited, from what I can tell (read: what I can Google).
I did try thinking about it, but discovered I'm nowhere near smart enough to see how it could possibly work.
Basically, as far as I can tell, this is what would happen:
Introduce UBI set to NMW (or living wage).
1. People quit their jobs, if their jobs are low-paid and menial. This includes factory workers, people emptying bins, etc.
2. Wages for these jobs increase drastically because we need them to be done.
2a. Alternatively, all these workers are migrants workers who do not receive UBI.
2b. Alternatively, services are withdrawn (bins are removed).
3. Prices increase for products affected by wage increases. This includes food production.
4. Employers rush to automate as much as possible to reduce wages (a good thing, esp for menial jobs).
5. Those on UBI find that due to increased prices, they are struggling again.
6. Tax!!! Where do we get the billions to pay UBI in the first place? Where do we get it when people stop working?
Now I'm sure John McDonnell has thought about this much longer than I haveAnd perhaps the system would find some kind of balancing point.
But I'm not sure how you would begin to model this system when it so drastically changes the fundamentals of our society. Whoever successfully decouples income from labour probably deserves the Nobel prize
On the contrary there are a number of countries starting to trial UBI right now. It appears to be gaining traction over the last couple of years.
What you're missing in that list is that people may quit their jobs, but they may also stay on and make their UBI but also their wages/salary on top their UBI - so they make more money.
Many of the people you mention (minimum wage workers) will be getting multiple benefits on top of their wages already (for example tax credits, child benefit etc) so doing away with those (or at least some) will save a not insignificant sum in organizational costs, sort of like the universal credit system was trying to do.
Depending on how it's set up you could also include it in any tax calculations, so anyone on or near the 40% bracket would pay half of it back in tax.
It may not work, it may work well, there are many different ways to implement it and it's never really been tried before which is why there are trials going on right now.
if you're referring to the Finland trial then you should note that the level they were setting it at would barely cover housing benefit in some parts of London - It may be feasible to implement but I think a lot of Londoners would be rather upset, especially as they'd perhaps end up being forced to move well away from central or perhaps even outside the M25 depending on the level it is set at
@dowie
Actually I was mainly thinking of the trial just about to start in Ontario, with an eye to the likes of Finland.
Their level is set at 3/4 of the poverty level, so also pretty low, but they also state one of the things they are looking into is what sort of level it should be set at. If you want to live in London then you'd better get a job to supplement it (another reason to keep that minimum wage job), or it needs to be implemented with an eye to the current housing benefits system.
Lots of possible issues, which is why trials are important to understand if it'll actually work or not.
I believe Holland and Kenya are also looking into it at the moment too.
I'm not advocating either way, it's an interesting option and certainly has its benefits, especially if set in conjunction with a higher tax rate (so your UBI pays for essentials and wages/salary goes on luxuries), but it could be too far too soon as well.
Actually I was mainly thinking of the trial just about to start in Ontario, with an eye to the likes of Finland.
Their level is set at 3/4 of the poverty level, so also pretty low, but they also state one of the things they are looking into is what sort of level it should be set at. If you want to live in London then you'd better get a job to supplement it (another reason to keep that minimum wage job), or it needs to be implemented with an eye to the current housing benefits system.
Lots of possible issues, which is why trials are important to understand if it'll actually work or not.
I believe Holland and Kenya are also looking into it at the moment too.
I'm not advocating either way, it's an interesting option and certainly has its benefits, especially if set in conjunction with a higher tax rate (so your UBI pays for essentials and wages/salary goes on luxuries), but it could be too far too soon as well.
Switzerland is also starting a trail AFAIK.
UBI has widespread support from most economists. Its a very efficient system that promotes working and thus increases productivity. The problem with things like unemployment benefits and JSA is that people see it as free money and would rather not bother working. If instead everyone had a UBI then the value fo the salary increases measurably because they will have much more money available. It is also much more efficient than taxing them and then giving their tax money back to them in benefits.
Switzerland had a referendum in 2016, whereupon 70%+ voted against UBI.
Can't find any evidence of a trial in Switzerland. There's potentially going to be one in Scotland tho!
Out of interest do you know how those economists propose to deal with inner city areas or other places with higher rents - do they propose varying the level of this universal income or perhaps adding a supplement to it? The living expenses of someone in zone 1 in London would be massively different to those of someone on some sink estate in say Newcastle.
Curious, as I've read the opposite. Like this example:
https://www.fastcompany.com/3068196...ic-about-the-idea-of-a-universal-basic-income
It is a complex issue and is a massive change to a fundamentally new type of taxation and economic system which is why some economists are unsure fo the benefits because they lack many of the necessary quantitative modelling tools.
Unworkable: no, its been shown to be workable in practice at small scales. It can be made to work at a national level but such a big change is hard to achieve. There is nothing fundamentally unworkable about it.
Expensive: Well that is kind of obvious, the real question is how much savings can it generate form simplifying current taxation, tax credits and benefits system, how an taxes be raised sufficiently to cover costs, and what benefit does it have to society. The latter point is the biggest question. What price do you put on lower crime, increased happiness, more productive workers, better social cohesion, narrower economic dive? Unemployment benefit and and child tax credits are expensive, so are state pensions and national health care. Should we do with out them due to cost?
Stopping people form working is mostly going to come down to what level the UBI is at, what existing unemployment benefits there are, salaries for actually working. Sure if you set the UBI at 30K a year, minimum wage is 3 pounds an hour and it gets taxed at 70% then no one would work and it would implode. If you set the UBI at 5K, minimum wage was 20 quid and nothing was taxed until you earned 20K a year then people would be very motivated to work. So it is important to find that balance and make the numbers balance.
I don;t think it is anything that will work short term but long term I see now way around it. With automation millions of people will lose their jobs in the next decades. Anyone from taxi drivers to doctors, programmers to factory workers will face being obsolete due to the endless march of technology. The first autonomous rucks are already on he road, first autonomous tax cars already exist and serving people. I view UBI as basically inevitable at some point.
Soldato
- Joined
- 5 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 2,584
- Location
- God's own country
Removed: FT link needs a subscription
Last edited:
3 page views and you're locked out for the month is it not?
- Status