Universal basic income to be trialled

[413x]

If this was a trial under Labour or the SNP then it would be much easier to attack. As it stands, you're actually being compelled to understand it.

The biggest takeaway for me is that this just highlights the power the right wing press hold in this country - and how selective they are at wielding it.

This must be funded by huge tax increases?
I mean huge.
I cannot understand how you can tax the wealthy that much to make it worth doing those jobs.

What would the tax rate need to be? 50 percent across the board?
50pc for any income. 70 percent for income above X?

It sounds too good to be true. Actually, thinking about it, if there was no inflation (there would be) I think I'd quit work. I could easily live on that much.

What I'd probably do is retire at 40 rather than 55.

 

[Deleted member 77746]

understand the word NEED in that sentence.

We all need 50K a year.

 

[200sols]

To be fair, one of the main arguments for UBI that I can get behind as an accountant is that alongside it you do a very significant simplification of the tax system.
You should be able to ditch a hell of a lot of tax tinkering that has been done, stuff like £1k allowance on interest, multiple income tax bands, etc etc
Merging all income and investment taxation into a simple flat rate, including eg contractors would be far easier to support if the basics of living were already covered and the impact of no allowance and a high rate from the first £1 would not be poverty inducing for the poorest.

Alas as ever I feel governments would not be able to manage this and that we would have many people howling about the high tax rate.

I always think the tax system is deliberately difficult. Those at the bottom and middle suck it up and those at the top pay someone else to avoid it.

 

[Hawk Tuah]

You must be a millionaire are you? or one of these people on 100K a year like the rest of the ocuk forum users?

Probably on JSA.

 

[Mrwong]

We all need 50K a year.

The need refers to the underlying issues in that context. Not to the need of individual circumstances.

 

[danlightbulb]

This must be funded by huge tax increases?
I mean huge.
I cannot understand how you can tax the wealthy that much to make it worth doing those jobs.

What would the tax rate need to be? 50 percent across the board?
50pc for any income. 70 percent for income above X?

It sounds too good to be true. Actually, thinking about it, if there was no inflation (there would be) I think I'd quit work. I could easily live on that much.

What I'd probably do is retire at 40 rather than 55.

Yep, it simply can't work in my eyes.

If I was given at extra £1600 a month and there was no inflation caused from it, I could use it to pay back my mortgage in only about 8 years. I mean, happy days but it will never happen.

 

[413x]

Not working is not good for one's physical and mental health. People need something to do in life. Can't see it being a good idea to incentivise not working.

Surely after a while the inflation this would cause would just put everyone back to square one anyway.

Trial is pointless too, give a tiny number of people an extra £1600 a month and see what happens? I can tell you exactly what will happen, those people will step their living standards up a bit and feel more secure in life, for a while.

I agree trial is pointless.

If you gave everyone loads of free money.. Surely many would just put it into a bigger house. Isn't that what happened in covid?

You'd send house prices rocketing. But at the same time people might not need to own a house.. Unless rent went up by same amount because landlords could charge 1900 more per person.

This won't be apparent with a trial.



It sounds like if you were on the housing ladder already... It would be amazing. You would pay your mortgage off in half the time.
We have a 200k mortgage.
If we put our 3800 into mortgage, we could pay off an additional 40k a year!
It would be paid off in 4 years instead of 20.


Would go from retiring in 20 years to retiring in 4!

 

[Chuk_Chuk]

I don't see how this doesn't lead to pretty bad inflation. (Ignoring the where does the money come from argument)

People won't want to work because a good chunk of their needs are covered. Places need workers or they cannot operate, so they raise their wages to entice them.
To cover the wage increase, they increase the cost of their products and services.
The spending power for UBI is diminished as things are more expensive compared to when it was initially implemented.
People protest and UBI amount is increased.
Return to start.

Or UBI is not increased therefore making it redundant.

 

[Mrwong]

I always think the tax system is deliberately difficult. Those at the bottom and middle suck it up and those at the top pay someone else to avoid it.

You have no idea how bad it really is.

 

[Dirk Diggler]

This must be funded by huge tax increases?
I mean huge.
I cannot understand how you can tax the wealthy that much to make it worth doing those jobs.

What would the tax rate need to be? 50 percent across the board?
50pc for any income. 70 percent for income above X?

It sounds too good to be true. Actually, thinking about it, if there was no inflation (there would be) I think I'd quit work. I could easily live on that much.

What I'd probably do is retire at 40 rather than 55.

I think it's better to deal in facts rather than emotional speculation. Considering who the government are, I think it's hugely unlikely to be funded by income tax increases - unless you've read that somewhere, in which case apologies for the assumption.

 

[Deleted member 77746]

You have no idea how bad it really is.

Are you actually in the UK?

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

I always think the tax system is deliberately difficult. Those at the bottom and middle suck it up and those at the top pay someone else to avoid it.

I would disagree on the fact its deliberate its just that politicians struggle to form tax policies that are not overly damaging to one party, so they then tinker with them and end up creating the loopholes that accountants and tax advisors work within.

Its why the passed the law that if your performing some things that could be deemed to be naughty you have to actually tell them.

The worst is probably VAT IMO. The whole of VAT needs reviewing and fixing its a set of laws built up over so long now its frankly so muddled and daft its just not fit for purpose.

 

[413x]

Yeah. Just thought about it for 5 minutes. That's what I'd do.
Buy the house I wanted before prices went lol. Then work my same job. Put the extra into being mortgage free and retire in 5-6 years vs 20-25.


Wouldn't so many do the same? The work force would fall apart and they're wouldn't be enough to pay UBI?

 

[Mrwong]

I agree trial is pointless.

If you gave everyone loads of free money.. Surely many would just put it into a bigger house. Isn't that what happened in covid?

You'd send house prices rocketing. But at the same time people might not need to own a house.. Unless rent went up by same amount because landlords could charge 1900 more per person.

This won't be apparent with a trial.



It sounds like if you were on the housing ladder already... It would be amazing. You would pay your mortgage off in half the time.
We have a 200k mortgage.
If we put our 3800 into mortgage, we could pay off an additional 40k a year!
It would be paid off in 4 years instead of 20.


Would go from retiring in 20 years to retiring in 4!

You would benefit from the initial change , prices would rocket and those that didn’t buy before that point would even be more worse off that before that event.

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

Yep, it simply can't work in my eyes.

If I was given at extra £1600 a month and there was no inflation caused from it, I could use it to pay back my mortgage in only about 8 years. I mean, happy days but it will never happen.

You do realise you would also pay more tax right?

 

[200sols]

lmao.

Example - A store has sales of 100k-150K a year on all products. They have 6x staff to cover each month including holidays, sickness etc.

You expect these people to be on 50K a year in wages?

Need a better example. This one sucks.

You have no idea how bad it really is.

I need you to educate me please.

 

[SPG]

I wonder how much the benefits currently costs us. Not in terms of the money to the person, but the entire supporting infrastructure for it, has to be savings somewhere on that front.

Still if Labour did introduce it the Tory scum would only start taxing it 8 years later

 

[bigmike20vt]

I think the risk the UBI introduces is making a mockery of the lower paid jobs in society. I.e. You can sit at home all day and earn 20k a year versus someone who goes to stack shelves for 21k a year - you know what most people will choose.

Yes I know the obvious answer is to pay these jobs more, but that just won't happen in a capitalist society.

I'd be more for a "top-up" of wages. For example if the UBI was set at 25k a year then the shop worker earning 21k would get an additional 4k. At least this way it would still encourage people to be in work, and provide them with a little bit more income.

i may be getting it wrong but i thought the point was you get your 1.6k per month and then you are allowed to work on top. the shelf stacker will be on double the income of the person who stays at home all day.

not convinced it would work myself, i could imagine it causing massive inflation etc but i would love to be wrong...... a universal income on top of my pension would mean i could live in luxury when i retire, hell i would probably retire even earlier

 

[Deleted member 77746]

Need a better example. This one sucks.

I don't think it needs any more explanation. If a company can't pay wages then it goes bust. Majority of companies aren't making enough income. Only the mid-big companies are.

 

[alec]

Buy the house I wanted before prices went lol.
Wouldn't so many do the same?

Brilliant
Another hapless government idea that will drive house prices up even more