Universal basic income

[D.P.]

Isn't that the idea, this would mean most other benefits would be scrapped.

Not always. If you do that then in general the poor get poorer and the rich get richer, which would defeat the point of UBI.

A workable UBI would still need to keep many benefits, and many means tested tax credits etc. The UBI would have to be paid for through taxation of high income earners.

 

[TallPaul1878]

I think UBI is an inevitability. As much as people may grumble and groan about one reason or another, in the long term the population is just going to increase and automation is going to reduce the need for manual workers.

I can imagine a future where all traditotrad jobs are basically automated with a smattering of human operatives to oversee the machines. All of the young people will spend their days wiping the bottoms of the ever increasing OAP population.

 

[Hagar]

I think UBI is an inevitability. As much as people may grumble and groan about one reason or another, in the long term the population is just going to increase and automation is going to reduce the need for manual workers.

I can imagine a future where all traditotrad jobs are basically automated with a smattering of human operatives to oversee the machines. All of the young people will spend their days wiping the bottoms of the ever increasing OAP population.

Reading about the French economy recently. Their approach to increased productivity appears very much geared to more automation and acceptance of a higher unemployment in unskilled sectors. Twice and in some sectors, areas, age groups up to three times the UK unemployment rate. This could very much be a future trend.

 

[TallPaul1878]

Reading about the French economy recently. Their approach to increased productivity appears very much geared to more automation and acceptance of a higher unemployment in unskilled sectors. Twice and in some sectors, areas, age groups up to three times the UK unemployment rate. This could very much be a future trend.

When you look at the rates of youth unemployment in Europe, especially continental Europe, then you are looking at a hell of a lot of young, frustrated people. People with no stake in society at all. No property, no prospects, and no real sign that they will ever be able to drag themselves out of the hole they are in. It's a powder keg.

 

[Caracus2k]

Not always. If you do that then in general the poor get poorer and the rich get richer, which would defeat the point of UBI.

A workable UBI would still need to keep many benefits, and many means tested tax credits etc. The UBI would have to be paid for through taxation of high income earners.

Proposing any meaningful level of UBI whilst retaining any other benefits to a significant degree is total fantasy...

There are over 41 million people of working age (16 - 64) in the UK according to 2016 ONS figures ....

10k per adult equates to 410 billion pounds per year....

For reference the total estimated tax take for 2018 for both local and national goverment is £744 billion.....

This has to also pay for pensions (156bn), emergency services, armed forces (45bn), education (87bn) the NHS (144bn) etc.... Etc.....

(figures in brackets are 2017 figures with total spending standing at 780 billion)

Socialists who claim UBI could be paid for by simply taxing the 'rich' more are trying to deluded you. Generating a new goverment payment liability that would account for over 50% of the total current tax take would require massive increases in taxation that would simply drive away thoose rich or skilled enough to avoid them pushing the massive tax liabilities down to more regular folk.

 

[Fubsy]

What's the estimate of what amount of that 410 billion would be returned from taxes? Savings from administration of other benefits etc?

I'm not really in favour of UBI, but see it as something that will have to happen at some point for "control" purposes over the population.

 

[Dolph]

What's the estimate of what amount of that 410 billion would be returned from taxes? Savings from administration of other benefits etc?

I'm not really in favour of UBI, but see it as something that will have to happen at some point for "control" purposes over the population.

It depends how you model it. My preferred approach produces significant change in that it collects income tax from the first pound earned, offsetting it against the benefit to produce an effective tax free band, rather than what we currently have, and replaced pretty much all other state benefits. This would increase the tax take compared to now in gross numbers, and serve to offset some of that £410bn.

I also see a ubi as much less controlling that the current approach of assessing the worthiness of claimaints.

 

[SpeedFreak]

UBI is a great way to address income disparity that arises via automation. Operational efficiency removes jobs and increases margins and therefore dividends for the more wealthy. Corporations will increasingly have to accept that their distribution of profits includes the wider society through taxation and not just their shareholders.

 

[edscdk]

You know I often hear people saying the world doesn't owe me a living but I disagree, because the land used to give us everything we needed for free, we just had to go and get it. But it transpires that a relatively small few now "own" the land and we are now expected to work for a wage instead in order to get what we need. So I do think we do deserve a form of compensation for losing the free use of the land, because no one has a valid claim to owning it in the first place. Its pretty much what Thomas Paine was saying.

There is no way you could have your western life style and opertunities if it worked that way. You don't own the land but some poor farmer does and farms it for you so you can have cheap food.

 

[GGizmo]

Two interesting articles appeared about this subject recently.

£10,000 proposed for everyone under 55
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-43078920

UK should give £10,000 to everyone under 55, says RSA
http://www.theweek.co.uk/91705/uk-should-give-10000-to-everyone-under-55-says-rsa

 

[Caracus2k]

What's the estimate of what amount of that 410 billion would be returned from taxes? Savings from administration of other benefits etc?

I'm not really in favour of UBI, but see it as something that will have to happen at some point for "control" purposes over the population.

As was stated above UBI would not (completly) get rid of the whole raft of other benefits in place as a 'one size fits all' approach would cause even more problems for some then the current system and thats before we get to how it's going to be funded.....

As such any administrative savings would likely be minimal.

You can make reference to clawing back most/all UBI from 'richer' tax payers but the 410 billion figure give an idea of the scale of payments needed compared to existing tax payments and a goverment spending.

UBI would have to be paid to everyone (at least adults of working age) in the first instance otherwise it's not 'universal'.

It would involve a huge increase of money flowing to and from the goverment. Would neccessarily cause some rather more mundane tax payers to face some massive tax hikes and would cause all sorts of further issues with immigration/ emigration.... With issues of who was eligible and when after entering the country and issues with skilled people increasingly leaving the UK due to a much more punitive tax regime

 

[CommonMan]

…if we take away the financial incentive to "make something of yourself" then why would people do it? Why put yourself through years of hard work and stress to study to become a doctor, engineer, lawyer etc. if Tina down the road gets the same financial remuneration for doing nothing? Why risk losing everything, remortgaging your house, putting your life savings into a start-up business if the most you can earn is the same as Dave who works 2 hours a day as a receptionist at the local school?

I can only answer for myself…… I did the years of study etc; I put everything into a start up business, had all the stress, and yes I was aware of people around me who had done none of these things, yet where being paid as much and more than I could pay myself. Personally I have never been bothered by what other people earn; my concern was to make enough to be able to do what I needed in order to live an interesting and reasonable life. I was always motivated to wake up because of the interest that the day offered me, not the financial gain; in short I chose to make a living out of what interested me: hence the study and the own business. Here I am now, semi retired and below the average income, nonetheless I know "I made something of myself' but for those who would use wealth as a measure of success, they would probably say I failed.
I always earned to live rather than live to earn.

I'm torn on it, to be honest, I think it has the potential to help people get started and not run themselves down in any old job just to get by, particularly if you are creative and want to run your own thing, but I can just see it being implemented really poorly by any government of ours.

My sentiments exactly.

As such any administrative savings would likely be minimal.

AS I guess most readers of this thread will be aware that the first serious proposals for UBI go back four or five decades, may be more.
The theory of UBI is not just about the provision of a guaranteed living income, it is also based on the notion that a properly designed UBI system would actually cost less than the various other many facited methods of delivering the same. Successful UBI is dependent on an effectively designed programme with an effectively designed delivery system. Given all this is in place the savings on administration would be hugely beneficial over current methodology. Unfortunately once again this theory is dependant on the quality of our Government.