Universal basic income

I remember back in the 90s we all thought we'd have a robot slave by now making us money :)

Seriously though, I think in some way we already have a basic wage because most people on benefits are in work.

There is a minimum amount the government says that a person as to have in order to live. I've seen the phrase on government documents. Anyone who is unemployed and gets benefits and is still under this value gets their money topped up to it.

I suspect that is also a similar reason some people in work get it also, as we know a lot of jobs don't pay as much as people are getting on benefits.

I think if we bring in a Universal basic income it is only making official what is already going on now under all the paperwork.
 
Dolph said:
A fair tax system takes the same percentage from all, which means those who have more, pay more.

We currently have a very unfair tax system where most of the burden falls on a small percentage of people.

My proposal fulfills your criteria, but I bet you wouldn't support it, because your other posts show you don't want a fair tax system.
Click to expand...

Fair isnt really a word that can be used when it comes to taxation. Both progressive and flat tax systems can be argued as fair from different points of view.

Most of the tax burden does indeed fall upon a small percentage of people, but most of the earnings are by that same small percentage of people. Sort that out and then maybe you could look at a flat tax system.
 
String said:
I think you hit the nail on the head there. Sort out a sensible flat rate, and close all the loop holes.
Click to expand...

If spending remains the same then a flat rate tax will disproportionately hit middle income earners whilst giving massive tax cuts to upper rate tax payers.
 
Sliver said:
In an ideal world the rich should help fund the poor. It's not an ideal world though. I'd like someone to explain to me why a billionaire has billions and keeps it. Meanwhile millions of people go hungry. I'll make an excuse for philanthropists but otherwise the rest of the rich can go **** themselves.
Click to expand...
Because if they didn't get to keep it, there would have been no incentive for them to create that wealth in the first place. No incentive to start a business, make a success of it, create loads of jobs, and ultimately produce a good or service that people want to buy.

There are some who inherited their wealth, of course, but even then, what do you imagine most of these people are doing with that wealth? Tucking it under their mattress? No, they're investing it, or starting up new businesses. Ultimately creating more wealth, creating new things, or making existing things cheaper to buy.

There should absolutely be a social safety net, of course, but it's a bad idea to fund it purely by hammering the rich with taxes. The rich usually have ways of avoiding a lot of these taxes anyway.
 
should just add a wealth tax like some other countries do.

0.11% to almost 1% in Switzerland if your assets are 10mil+
theres taxes for lower amounts to that I believe start at 500,000
then lower general taxation a bit.
probably never happen in this country though.

our whole tax system probably needs remaking from scratch
 
SlyReaper said:
Because if they didn't get to keep it, there would have been no incentive for them to create that wealth in the first place. No incentive to start a business, make a success of it, create loads of jobs, and ultimately produce a good or service that people want to buy.

There are some who inherited their wealth, of course, but even then, what do you imagine most of these people are doing with that wealth? Tucking it under their mattress? No, they're investing it, or starting up new businesses. Ultimately creating more wealth, creating new things, or making existing things cheaper to buy.
Click to expand...

They'd be keeping a significant portion of it though, more than enough to justify the work they've put in. It's not like someone earning millions a year is gonna be taxed down £100k a year, they're still earning ridiculous sums of money.
Not to mention people keep assuming that money is the only incentive that people have to come up with new ideas and innovate, it's just one of many reasons people do what they do.

Or buying extra houses to rent out and take advantage of people who cannot afford deposits. Trickle down economics benefits the rich.
 
I’m all for it but the devil is in the detail.

@Dolph and I have had more that one discussion on the subject and we’ve both agreed that to even scratch the surface, one could write a PHD thesis — so it’s never going to be easy to form a solid model on here…

As such, rather than thinking about the mechanics, I’d like to discuss the outcomes:

Trials in the US in the 60s did show a drop in people working full time but they also showed long-term benefits when it came to health and education outcomes, not just for the adults who received UBI during the trial but also for their children.

Who would have guessed that living pay check to pay check on minimum wage could have adverse affects on your health, time spent in education and your ability to be a good parent?

Also, just because there was a drop in people working full time doesn’t automatically mean they were wasters.

Going back in history, many of humanities great breakthroughs came from people who didn’t have to work to put food on the table, either because they were already wealthy or they had generous benefactors. And I’m not just taking about “products” but science, art and culture (the later two of which have been seriously devalued in recent times).

Now, I’m not suggesting that UBI will turn everyone into the next Da Vinci, and no doubt there will be those who bumble along on the bare minimum without contributing to society, but I genuinely believe outcomes as a whole would be better.
 
Caracus2k said:
Because we have tried what you suggest its called socialism with the end goal being communism. The results have been the same time and time again. The massive poweful state required for the implementation your utopian fantasies is inevitably taken over by some of the worst sociopaths and crooks and the end result is worse outcomes for almost all of the populace.

As others have pointed out a lot of billionaires are billionaires because they have been involved in new innovations that have improved the quality of life for millions. Remove the incentive for people to innovate or work harder the there peers and watch what the knock on effect to society is.
Click to expand...

Billionaires don't innovate. How did it come to your mind at all? :D :confused:
The best inventors like Nikola Tesla or Yull Brown died in starvation and extremely poor.
How does Donald Trump exactly innovate? :D Those are just financists and bankers who get rich because they know how to manipulate with money.

The future is socialism or communism, like it or not. Capitalism will fall. Either Nature will help, or people will get smarter.
 
4K8KW10 said:
The future is socialism or communism, like it or not. Capitalism will fall. Either Nature will help, or people will get smarter.
Click to expand...

I agree with you that just because someone is a million/billionaire, it doesn’t mean they are an innovator or even particularly beneficial to society. However, I think it will be a long time before we see Communism (in any guise) in the West.

A more socialist slant on our current socioeconomic system is possible but not by much and not any time soon. I can’t see us making a huge leap to the left in my lifetime.
 
4K8KW10 said:
The future is socialism or communism, like it or not. Capitalism will fall. Either Nature will help, or people will get smarter.
Click to expand...

Communism is the past, not the future, the ideology killed between 85 and 100 million people, and consigned entire countries to poverty, stagnation and horrific human rights abuses.
 
Dolph said:
Communism is the past, not the future, the ideology killed between 85 and 100 million people, and consigned entire countries to poverty, stagnation and horrific human rights abuses.
Click to expand...

It killed people because its execution was poor. Not that the ideology itself is wrong.
 
It's a vicious circle. It will never stop. You need rich and poor people to keep the circle going. It's as simple as that really.

Also it doesn't matter what systems are in place, there is always a way to get around all of them from top to bottom no matter what it's always going to be there.

"Do I really need this item"
"How can I get a better job"
"Can I reduce my bills some how but still live comfortably"
"Is my family OK"

^^ Simple questions with simple outcomes.
 
mrbell1984 said:
It's a vicious circle. It will never stop. You need rich and poor people to keep the circle going. It's as simple as that really.

Also it doesn't matter what systems are in place, there is always a way to get around all of them from top to bottom no matter what it's always going to be there.
Click to expand...
Most economists would agree that a little bit of inequality is a good thing, it motivates people to work hard and better themselves.

However, too much inequality (like the kind of levels we’re reaching now) never end well. Either society declines like the Roman empire, you get revolution like in France and Russia or it provides the basis for war like in Europe 100 years ago.

One would like to think that technology and education would stop us repeating history but unfortunately I don’t think we’re that smart yet.
 
4K8KW10 said:
It killed people because its execution was poor. Not that the ideology itself is wrong.
Click to expand...

That might wash if there was only one example. It's a lot less convincing when every attempt at it has resulted in mass human rights abuses and deaths. Authoritarianism is required by the ideology.
 
Irish_Tom said:
Most economists would agree that a little bit of inequality is a good thing, it motivates people to work hard and better themselves.

However, too much inequality (like the kind of levels we’re reaching now) never end well. Either society declines like the Roman empire, you get revolution like in France and Russia or it provides the basis for war like in Europe 100 years ago.

One would like to think that technology and education would stop us repeating history but unfortunately I don’t think we’re that smart yet.
Click to expand...

History always repeats itself it's just a matter of time. Personally I think there's a right about of people working vs not working. I'm not sure there's a lot of motivation about but there are plenty of jobs going. You just have to find them and have the right skill sets required for them.
 
mrbell1984 said:
History always repeats itself it's just a matter of time. Personally I think there's a right about of people working vs not working. I'm not sure there's a lot of motivation about but there are plenty of jobs going. You just have to find them and have the right skill sets required for them.
Click to expand...

The problem in some countries is that people work extremely hard, and they are still poor and can't afford basic and simple services, like good healthcare or education.
The rich in those countries, meanwhile, enjoy extremely high and unnaturally high profits.

People NEVER get rich when they work for someone else.
 
4K8KW10 said:
The problem in some countries is that people work extremely hard, and they are still poor and can't afford basic and simple services, like good healthcare or education.
The rich in those countries, meanwhile, enjoy extremely high and unnaturally high profits.

People NEVER get rich when they work for someone else.
Click to expand...

Places like the ussr were much more equal, because they had the poverty and nothing else... Unless of course you were tied into the party.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom