How are we affording all this welfare?

[Caracus2k]

Universal income will solve things. It gets rid of the benefits system for a start and rids HMRC of a **** load of admin.

It won't get rid of the benefits system because some people will still need additional support.

People with chronic disabilities , familes with lots of kids etc

What it requires is a shift in mentality. Taxes should be mostly levied on companies, not individuals or consumption. That money is redistributed through services and an income that allows people the freedom not to work.

In a global market buisnesses can't and won't pick up the eye watering bills for paying for any meaningful level of UBI. They will move elsewhere or pass on any costs in increased prices to consumers.

I did the sums a few years ago on these forums and even a modest level of UBI would result in the states spending swelling massively and cause massive additional problems outside of its UBI's immediate costs.

Minimum wage for an adult over 25 is, currently £7.83 that equates to an annual salary of £16,286.40 for a full time worker....

If you wanted to pay that to the 81.1‰ if the population that are adults (2016 figures) (that's circa 53.7 million people) that would mean annual payments of circa 874.5 billion pounds annually.. ...


Total goverment spending in 2016 on everything, including existing welfare was 762.3 billion

And of course Ubi could not 'universally' replace all existing welfare either as extra payments would still be required for families with lots of children and certain disabled people for example.....

UBI would overnight double governmental spending requiring massive, unprecedented changes to taxation.

It would have course cause a whole host of other issues .... Including but not limited to

1) increasing immigration of those seeking UBI

2) increasing emigration of higher paid/skilled workers who would have to pay considerably higher taxes to support UBI payments

3) incentivising people to stay away from regular employment with a bit a bit of work in the 'untaxed' part of the economy being preferable

and 4) causing massive problems with inflation by ensuring that UBI remained enough to be considered a 'basic income' ...

not a panacea by any means, but it's part of a different way of allocating resources and distributing wealth away from the very wealthy.

Societies have tried 'different ways of allocating resources and wealth' before.

They failed, consistently. Market systems which include people selling their labour and expertise on the market are the only systems that work for actually having the chance of advancing society as a whole.

Of course, It's unlikely to happen because people are conditioned to see the economy as something where they put time in and receive wages out.

Unless robots can pretty much carry out all economic activity, replacing humans as they do so, then it would be disastrous to decouple effort/work put into a job and the wages received as a result....


Its like the old saying about how socialist economies were disfunctional....

'they pretend to pay us and we pretend to work'

Of course if robots can run the economy on their own then almost all humans become surplus to requirement. Which makes it unlikely that thoose controlling the robots (be it an AI, human or some combination thereof ) would want to have billions of humans living idle lifestyles at the expebse of the output of their robots with little or nothing given in return.

 

[Twinz]

Within reason, I don't see why the likes of Bezos should be worth nearly $200B while he treats his workers like **** and underpays them. He may have taken on all the risk, but that doesn't mean he can take all of the rewards as ultimately without his employees he's not worth anything. As long as people are being paid fairly, then the tax should be equitable.

Your answer would seem to be "no" then. "Within reason" and "fairly" are both conveniently mushy and subjective. When left to raw democracy where a simple majority decides what's "fair" and "reasonable", it's just two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner.

If you believe that a minority group has less of a right to their money, then advocating separate and unequal taxation of that group probably makes sense to you.

 

[FoxEye]

Unfortunately it all boils down to people being selfish, and therefore greedy.

Nobody works to enrich others, but to enrich themselves (although people at the bottom end up enriching their employers more than themselves).

Nobody works to keep society ticking along. Nobody works to feed the nation, to clothe the nation, to heal the sick.

Everybody works for the mighty dollar. Right? Right?

Hence when you start with that (assumption? truth?) then nothing other than some kind of capitalism with market forces can work.

Because everybody wants as much as they get can out, in return for putting as little as possible in.

Humans are just lousy and completely irrational, unable to work together for the greater good. Not now, not in history, not ever.

 

[Trusty]

Unfortunately it all boils down to people being selfish, and therefore greedy.

Nobody works to enrich others, but to enrich themselves (although people at the bottom end up enriching their employers more than themselves).

Nobody works to keep society ticking along. Nobody works to feed the nation, to clothe the nation, to heal the sick.

Everybody works for the mighty dollar. Right? Right?

Hence when you start with that (assumption? truth?) then nothing other than some kind of capitalism with market forces can work.

Because everybody wants as much as they get can out, in return for putting as little as possible in.

Humans are just lousy and completely irrational, unable to work together for the greater good. Not now, not in history, not ever.

Well its fortunate you're not in charge then..

 

[StriderX]

Your answer would seem to be "no" then. "Within reason" and "fairly" are both conveniently mushy and subjective. When left to raw democracy where a simple majority decides what's "fair" and "reasonable", it's just two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner.

If you believe that a minority group has less of a right to their money, then advocating separate and unequal taxation of that group probably makes sense to you.

Life is inherently relative so making a system of absolutes isn't exactly helpful. I don't care that there are people with more money, so long as that money is faithfully earned and the people who helped them earn it are reasonably recompensed for their efforts.

I don't see the problem with this statement. The problem is that it's meant for an ideal situation and we're so close to monopoly supply that I can't just pretend otherwise while merely hoping that it works out, as it won't. That's not even bringing into the discussion the effect rampant automation might have, which will just solidify the situation.

We're living in a constant existential risk of hegemonic corporate powers, controlled by fewer and fewer persons with whom there is no social contract and every attack on the legitimacy of their statist rivals provides for a vacuum that they'll slip into if given the chance. Probably somewhat ridiculous, but I honestly don't see much getting in the way of it right now.

 

[jsmoke]

bit.[/

Unfortunately it all boils down to people being selfish, and therefore greedy.

Nobody works to enrich others, but to enrich themselves (although people at the bottom end up enriching their employers more than themselves).

Nobody works to keep society ticking along. Nobody works to feed the nation, to clothe the nation, to heal the sick.

Everybody works for the mighty dollar. Right? Right?

Hence when you start with that (assumption? truth?) then nothing other than some kind of capitalism with market forces can work.

Because everybody wants as much as they get can out, in return for putting as little as possible in.

Humans are just lousy and completely irrational, unable to work together for the greater good. Not now, not in history, not ever.

Good answer, refreshing to get an answer like this, yeh we are selfish as hell.

 

[mmj_uk]

Unfortunately, walking round a warehouse and picking stuff off a shelf is not difficult work, anyone can do it. That's why it doesn't command a higher wage, its simply market forces.

That's not true you have to be very physically fit so not everyone can do it and the targets are set insanely high and the wages average because there is a surplus of workers to choose from because we've had unlimited immigration. If ever there is a time where a company like Amazon are struggling to fill warehouse jobs then wages will go up rather sharpish and targets won't be so unrealistic. The market forces have been that companies treat employees badly because they will have no difficulty replacing them.

 

[FoxEye]

That's not true you have to be very physically fit so not everyone can do it and the targets are set insanely high and the wages average because there is a surplus of workers to choose from because we've had unlimited immigration. If ever there is a time where a company like Amazon are struggling to fill warehouse jobs then wages will go up rather sharpish and targets won't be so unrealistic. The market forces have been that companies treat employees badly because they will have no difficulty replacing them.

And because employers don't care about their staff. They are just cogs in a machine.

Shareholders don't even care about the company or its clients, let alone its employees. They just want returns.

Nobody gives a crap about anything other than how much money a course of action can generate. And if that means treating other people like dirt, because it's profitable to do so, then full steam ahead!

 

[Trusty]

That's not true you have to be very physically fit so not everyone can do it and the targets are set insanely high and the wages average because there is a surplus of workers to choose from because we've had unlimited immigration. If ever there is a time where a company like Amazon are struggling to fill warehouse jobs then wages will go up rather sharpish and targets won't be so unrealistic. The market forces have been that companies treat employees badly because they will have no difficulty replacing them.

Yea, i understand all that. The idea was rather about the mental side, anyone can pick something off a shelf, not everyone can be a brain surgeon.

 

[Trusty]

Nobody gives a crap about anything other than how much money a course of action can generate. And if that means treating other people like dirt, because it's profitable to do so, then full steam ahead!

If someone doesn't treat you right, you are free to find an employer that will..

 

[FoxEye]

If someone doesn't treat you right, you are free to find an employer that will..

They are treating them "right". The system says that treating your employees "right" means keeping them if they are hard to replace, and accepting churn if they are not.

Treating them humanely is not part of the equation, which is purely financial.

 

[Trusty]

They are treating them "right". The system says that treating your employees "right" means keeping them if they are hard to replace, and accepting churn if they are not.

Treating them humanely is not part of the equation, which is purely financial.

You talk as if these people are being cattle prodded to work or something.

Its not that bad, jesus

 

[Twinz]

Life is inherently relative so making a system of absolutes isn't exactly helpful. I don't care that there are people with more money, so long as that money is faithfully earned and the people who helped them earn it are reasonably recompensed for their efforts.

I don't see the problem with this statement.

Who is the arbiter of "Faithfully earned" and "reasonably compensated"? You?

Please.

Does everyone have the same right to their money or not?

 

[FoxEye]

Who is the arbiter of "Faithfully earned" and "reasonably compensated"? You?

Please.

Does everyone have the same right to their money or not?

Well, when people who provide essential services struggle to make ends meat, because there are many, many others who could do their job, then we probably do have an issue.

But it's as much an issue of society as a whole not valuing the essential services that these people provide.

Care home staff and delivery drivers both being essential, both being fairly poorly paid. And increasingly "self employed", ie taking all the risk, paying their own petrol, using their own vehicle, etc, etc.

What happens when pay and conditions for these people is squeezed and squeezed?

Does the delivery charge go down? Hahahaha, noooooooo.

Instead someone else further up the management ladder gets a nice fat bonus, whilst the job spec for those below becomes increasingly exploitative.

A good yardstick would be to ask yourself, "Would I be happy doing the job these people do on the terms they are given by their employer?"

At some point you can't just keep saying, "They should get another job, then."

Because they are providing essential services, that *somebody* needs to do.

 

[Twinz]

You talk as if these people are being cattle prodded to work or something.

Its not that bad, jesus

I hate it when people express "sympathy" for grown men and women by implying that they lack the ability to make their own life decisions.

It looks an awful lot like condescension.

 

[Twinz]

A good yardstick would be to ask yourself, "Would I be happy doing the job these people do on the terms they are given by their employer?"

Individual men and women (freaking adults, damnit) decide what they are willing to do and for what compensation.

It's presumptuous and arrogant to figuratively barge into the negotiating room and start dictating who will do what and for how much. Get out. They are adults. Go negotiate your own terms and let them handle their business.

 

[FoxEye]

Individual men and women (freaking adults, damnit) decide what they are willing to do and for what compensation.

It's presumptuous and arrogant to figuratively barge into the negotiating room and start dictating who will do what and for how much. Get out. They are adults. Go negotiate your own terms and let them handle their business.

Negotiate? What negotiation do you think is going on? Do you think people have decided to become "self employed" over the last decade because they prefer taking on the risk that the employer formerly accepted? That they prefer not having a pension or sick pay? That they wanted to be "self employed"?

Or do you think it's because that's the way the industry is going (all of it) and there is nothing but to accept and have a job, or decline and not have a job?

Regardless, if you believe everybody negotiates their pay and conditions then you have absolutely no idea about working near or at the bottom, mate.

e: You do realise that having a job is only *optional* for the rich kids who inherited Daddy's fortune, yeah... for everyone else, it's absolutely required. And if you are expendable/replaceable, there isn't a whole lot (any) negotiation going on. You'll be on min wage, you'll be "self-employed", you'll provide your own equipment, and you'll like it.

 

[Twinz]

Negotiate? What negotiation do you think is going on?

Even if it's as simple as "How much is your starting salary?" Adults choose to accept the offer or keep looking.

They are adults, not helpless little children for you to look after.

 

[Trusty]

e: You do realise that having a job is only *optional* for the rich kids who inherited Daddy's fortune, yeah... for everyone else, it's absolutely required. And if you are expendable/replaceable, there isn't a whole lot (any) negotiation going on. You'll be on min wage, you'll be "self-employed", you'll provide your own equipment, and you'll like it.

Something like 75% of the millionaires created every year are self made.

Clearly its possible, if you spot a gap in the market, have ambition, decent intelligence and bit of luck.

 

[Sythe79]

Minimum wage for an adult over 25 is, currently £7.83 that equates to an annual salary of £16,286.40 for a full time worker....

If you wanted to pay that to the 81.1‰ if the population that are adults (2016 figures) (that's circa 53.7 million people) that would mean annual payments of circa 874.5 billion pounds annually.. ...


Total goverment spending in 2016 on everything, including existing welfare was 762.3 billion

And of course Ubi could not 'universally' replace all existing welfare either as extra payments would still be required for families with lots of children and certain disabled people for example.....

UBI would overnight double governmental spending requiring massive, unprecedented changes to taxation.

It would have course cause a whole host of other issues .... Including but not limited to

1) increasing immigration of those seeking UBI

2) increasing emigration of higher paid/skilled workers who would have to pay considerably higher taxes to support UBI payments

3) incentivising people to stay away from regular employment with a bit a bit of work in the 'untaxed' part of the economy being preferable

and 4) causing massive problems with inflation by ensuring that UBI remained enough to be considered a 'basic income' ...



Nice cherry picking of the points to support you're point of view

1. not even the most lefty of UBI supporter thinks it should be 16k a year, even 12k would be on the high side
2. the whole point is that IS it, no other benefits, reducing admin costs
3. You would need to be a GB citizen to claim UBI, which leads to...
4. Working regulations would be relaxed, you could conceivably get rid of minimum wage laws and employment protection all together, low skilled immigration would be reduced too....... in theory, a Britsh low skilled worker is subsidised by UBI while imported labour is not
5. Taxation is simplified too, no more tax codes, you pay tax on everything you earn.

Of course there are problems with it, there are problems with the current system too the main one we face now which is extracting tax from none PAYE wealth, but that's not a new problem.

The biggest problem is a change in attitude of what work and what we as hopefully a first world nation going forward actually are, better to be prepared with a system that somewhat works for us than not to, because the changes are coming economically whether we like it or not, and a lot of people in so called safe white collar jobs are going to feel it too, not just the lower class plebs that can be ignored.