Universal basic income to be trialled

[Mrwong]

The money is available, as demonstrated when it all appeared in a hurry when there was an opportunity to funnel it to 'VIP lane' procurement contracts.

People keep voting for a party that is idealogically committed to the destruction of public services, that's why they are in the state they are, and why we're stuck in a spiral of low growth, low productivity, and an increasingly sick population.

The tax money is there but not for the little people.
The state money is being diverted to the rich via these schemes.

I would personally put in place something as once you become an mp you can no longer work in the private sector.

If you do then all your assets will be taken by the state.

Something like the above.

 

[robgmun]

Hum, what i would do if i got this? I'd probably carry on working but retire about 10 years earlier i reckon.

But yeah it's a terrible idea. Massive inflation would make this idea worthless

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

I imagine the UBI benefit will be claimed back if you earn over 19.2k by taxing the first 19.2k of employee pay at 100%.

I don't think so. I think your more likely to have a consolidated income (which includes all incomes as one) and that is taxed at say 45% on every £1 above the UBI level.

 

[Ayahuasca]

The trial is a bit of a tricky one, as for those in it, there will obviously be benefits to having an extra £1600 per month in the current climate. As others have mentioned, it's what happens when everyone, or at least the majority of the population, gets UBI that we need to understand.

It's definitely going to be needed at some point when pretty much every industry is massively automated, but that's still a generation or two away. I'm relatively young and I don't think there'll be a point in my lifetime where I don't need to work to support a decent standard of living.

That's without going into all the different ways in which it could be introduced. UBI is just the blanket term, different countries and even different governments within those will have their own ideas of what it consists of.

 

[Semple]

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.

I came across this study which suggests it could be funded by getting rid of corporate subsidies and tax breaks.

The Cost of a Full Basic Income for the United Kingdom Would be £67 billion per year (3.4% of GDP) | BIEN — Basic Income Earth Network

Although this study looks to suggest UBI would be very targeted.

What I'd be interested in, at which point would someone break even between receiving UBI and having to pay that back out in taxation.

For example 50 million adults in the UK at 20k a year would cost a trillion quid a year.
- Removal of state pension would reduce this by 115bn
- Removal of all benefits would reduce this by 80bn
- Removal of anyone in the 40/45% tax bracket would reduce this by a further 130bn

That would leave about 675bn left to fund it. Which in my eyes means targeting those in the 20% tax bracket. Which at a guess would probably mean anyone earning over 30k would end up paying the majority of it back through tax.

I guess the point I'm getting at is there's going to be a salary bracket where the amount being paid overall isn't going to be worthwhile compared to a lower paid job or no paid job.

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

I think some people are getting a bit carried away on the impacts of this.
Well worth looking at where its been introduced in trials before.

Most people had some improvement in quality of life but its not going to be world changing for the majority.

The very poor were better off
the low to middle slightly better off
Middle about the same
Higher middle about the same
Very rich worse off.

The main benefit for the majority was the ability to feel less stressed about income. Eg losing a job.

It would take time to play out. But say someone earning £50k a year ended up £5 better off thats never going to be life changing. Anyone who thinks they would be £19k better off just isn't getting how it would work in practice



Edit, odd that was supposed to be quoting Raymond!
Yes part of the risk comes in that if its not well balanced than it could be inflationary.
Even if its "perfectly balanced" its likely to cause a small amount of at the start inflation since those most worst off would see an uplift in their position. (It should in theory be GDP expanding)

 

[D.P.]

Surely it's a 1 way ticket for massive inflation? and pretty quickly £1600 won't be what we consider £1600 anymore in value. It would devalue the currency.

No, because UBI is more of a redistribution of wealth rather than printing money. Secondly, raw material costs and non-labour costs remain constant which for most products is the majority of costs.

There will likely be some inflation, but it would be relatively modest compared to the productivity increase and the relative income increase of the majority.

 

[413x]

I think some people are getting a bit carried away on the impacts of this.
Well worth looking at where its been introduced in trials before.

Most people had some improvement in quality of life but its not going to be world changing for the majority.

The very poor were better off
the low to middle slightly better off
Middle about the same
Higher middle about the same
Very rich worse off.

The main benefit for the majority was the ability to feel less stressed about income. Eg losing a job.

It would take time to play out. But say someone earning £50k a year ended up £5 better off thats never going to be life changing. Anyone who thinks they would be £19k better off just isn't getting how it would work in practice



Edit, odd that was supposed to be quoting Raymond!
Yes part of the risk comes in that if its not well balanced than it could be inflationary.
Even if its "perfectly balanced" its likely to cause a small amount of at the start inflation since those most worst off would see an uplift in their position. (It should in theory be GDP expanding)

This makes more sense.
So is the UBI taxed like normal?
So you wouldn't get 1900 a month (or whatever) tax free?

I had assumed 1900 was what you'd effectively pocket. Otherwise it's not giving everyone 1900. And it's a headline grabber

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

No, because UBI is more of a redistribution of wealth rather than printing money. Secondly, raw material costs and non-labour costs remain constant which for most products is the majority of costs.

There will likely be some inflation, but it would be relatively modest compared to the productivity increase and the relative income increase of the majority.

Yes indeed. Although the implementation requires careful balancing.

If we face a future with less jobs then working less hours because you will pay a high % tax on what you earn will assist in getting people to work say 20 hours per week. IE nigh on job share type levels.
No point working "full time" since the tax would mean your grinding hard for less benefit, but working half time in order to give yourself a better life would make sense.

 

[Semple]

I think some people are getting a bit carried away on the impacts of this.
Well worth looking at where its been introduced in trials before.

Most people had some improvement in quality of life but its not going to be world changing for the majority.

The very poor were better off
the low to middle slightly better off
Middle about the same
Higher middle about the same
Very rich worse off.

The main benefit for the majority was the ability to feel less stressed about income. Eg losing a job.

It would take time to play out. But say someone earning £50k a year ended up £5 better off thats never going to be life changing. Anyone who thinks they would be £19k better off just isn't getting how it would work in practice

I think that's what I was trying to get at with my post. For unemployed or minimum wage then it's a massive difference. But for someone who's a little bit above minimum wage, would get some UBI but would then end up paying more tax. But it's quantifying the difference between those two in more than just financial terms - if the net difference between those two is only a few K overall then people will undoubtedly say I'll take the lower paid role due to minimal responsibility/stress etc.

It's like when you see threads on the careers board where people are asking if they should accept this new job which they've been offered an extra 3k over their current salary, but it requires an additional 2 hour daily commute. The overall net benefit is likely to be equal or actually worse despite having more gross pay.

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

This makes more sense.
So is the UBI taxed like normal?
So you wouldn't get 1900 a month (or whatever) tax free?

I had assumed 1900 was what you'd effectively pocket. Otherwise it's not giving everyone 1900. And it's a headline grabber

I think much like pensions in theory UBI would likely be taxable, but the tax threshold would match the UBI exactly.
So everything you have as income above it is taxable, and whilst UBI itself would be taxable if you had literally no income at all above it then your tax paid would be zero.

The exact level of UBI would need a lot of work and could in theory be regionalised, to match local costs of living!

 

[413x]

I think much like pensions in theory UBI would likely be taxable, but the tax threshold would match the UBI exactly.
So everything you have as income above it is taxable, and whilst UBI itself would be taxable if you had literally no income at all above it then your tax paid would be zero.

The exact level of UBI would need a lot of work and could in theory be regionalised, to match local costs of living!

In that case I'd be one of those who would be looking for a 2-3 days a week job until. Mortgage paid off. Then I'd stop working!


Surely too many people would be same as me?

 

[Chuk_Chuk]

No, because UBI is more of a redistribution of wealth rather than printing money. Secondly, raw material costs and non-labour costs remain constant which for most products is the majority of costs.

There will likely be some inflation, but it would be relatively modest compared to the productivity increase and the relative income increase of the majority.

All (probably more accurate to say most) costs eventually lead back to labour cost. Some require more hops than others.

Raw material must be mined and processed, which still involes Humans in the process.

 

[Deleted member 77746]

Surely too many people would be same as me?

Guaranteed.

 

[413x]

Its 1600 not 1900. My bad.

My partner earns (after tax) 300ish a month more than this.
She could work a day a week and probably earn her original wage.

I'd probably have to keep my job.

But what would likely happen is that previous plan. Keep working. Rattle Off that mortgage very quickly and quit.

I think this would lose too many people from workforce. Unless AI sucks up those jobs and we don't need them anyway.

 

[Ayahuasca]

It's like when you see threads on the careers board where people are asking if they should accept this new job which they've been offered an extra 3k over their current salary, but it requires an additional 2 hour daily commute. The overall net benefit is likely to be equal or actually worse despite having more gross pay.

In the short term, yes, but if the new job is a different role with more responsibility or working for a more reputable company, etc., then it's another rung up the ladder and will likely open more doors.

It's one of the biggest causes of career stagnation if you only worry about the immediate effects and not the bigger picture.

 

[JamesH85]

People talking about retiring earlier etc, you probably wouldn't be able to do any of those things, the cost of living would be levels above what you think is high now, the price of things would rocket. £40 for fish and chips

 

[Semple]

This makes more sense.
So is the UBI taxed like normal?
So you wouldn't get 1900 a month (or whatever) tax free?

I had assumed 1900 was what you'd effectively pocket. Otherwise it's not giving everyone 1900. And it's a headline grabber

Realistically the majority of people would be taxed the full amount back. I'd anticipate (without any numbers available) that anyone earning 30k would get the 20k UBI to make 50k gross, and then be taxed around 25k to leave them in the same position as they would be without any UBI.

 

[413x]

People talking about retiring earlier etc, you probably wouldn't be able to do any of those things, the cost of living would be levels above what you think is high now, the price of things would rocket. £40 for fish and chips

I mean that's what I think would happen. But others seem to say it wouldn't.

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

In that case I'd be one of those who would be looking for a 2-3 days a week job until. Mortgage paid off. Then I'd stop working!


Surely too many people would be same as me?

May not be a bad thing if the number of jobs had reduced a lot due to Ai/robotics.

One of the benefits proposed of UBI is that it supports a return to a time when it was far more within reach of people to have more time and less money stress.

Its very simple in theory, very difficult in practice.

You then get into the realms of things like jury service. IMO you should maybe be able to accept UBI or some alternate scheme, (alternate is very much like now, but with a wealth tax)
If you accept UBI then you have to give up, say 30 days a year which you may be called up to to provide for jury service, environmental activities (eg say cleaning rivers up) that sort of thing.

Its really quite radical but if we are going to see say 40% less employment required then somehow ensuring that everyone survives, whilst still providing "enough carrot" for those jobs that need to be done, and not making it too attractive to do nothing at all is a hell of a balancing act to perform.