Universal basic income

solado said:
Yes. I have done it before, walked out a full time job into a part time £633 a month job and lived a bare minimum life style and it was fantastic. I just hate work.

I can't do it now that I am older but I don't need much motivation to quit and live on handouts where possible. It's people like me who would love socialism, UBI and the likes just so I don't have to deal with work anymore.
Click to expand...

Nothing stopping you doing that now, UBI wont change that at all.

The main advnatge of UBI is it stop the benefits trap. Currently, you can sit on your backside and get by on JSA/housing benefits/kid benefits. These benefits disappear/reduce when you start earning, preventing the workshy form wanting to enter work. a UBI is additive to any earned income, to the motivation to go and and work at least a part time job increases a lot.
 
balky12 said:
So it wouldn't in effect be universal? It would be a 'if your on a low income here is more money?'

Surely that's what exists now?

I'm not sure if stopping HRT payers from spending few extra grand a year on luxury items will have that much of an effect on inflation?
Click to expand...

UBI wouldn't go away but the tax rates would increase.
 
D.P. said:
UBI wouldn't go away but the tax rates would increase.
Click to expand...

So HRT payers would have a net nil position once UBI comes into play?

So it would only benefit the I unemployed/low earners gradually taping off up to the high earners?

I'm not being deliberately dense. I've been a fan of a for of UBI for a while however saw it as a boost to everyone universally.
 
Caracus2k said:
UBI at any meaningful level of payment is inherently linked to socialism so you can't expect to talk about it without discussing socialism.

Much like UBI, socialism tends to destroys the incentive for an individual, group or organisation to innovate or work harder then other individuals, groups or organisations....

If the 'people' / state place claim on everything including the product or Labour what incentive is there to work harder, innovate or improve.

The belief that UBI would somehow free the populace to be a collective of arty, contented people gainfully occupying their time with positive deeds free from the grind of work is a total fantasy....

You only have to look at what happens to people today who for one reason or another find they don't have to work to support themsleves or their family (this doesn't have to be paid work - for example a stay at home parent would still count).
Click to expand...

It entirely depends on the threshold and how it's implemented — trials have already been run in various countries and haven't seen massive reductions in employment.

Most advocates for UBI aren't suggesting it completely replaces the kind of wage required for a luxury lifestyle, there would still be incentives to work.

It's not as black and white at UBI = a de facto Socialist state.
 
balky12 said:
So HRT payers would have a net nil position once UBI comes into play?

So it would only benefit the I unemployed/low earners gradually taping off up to the high earners?

I'm not being deliberately dense. I've been a fan of a for of UBI for a while however saw it as a boost to everyone universally.
Click to expand...

Thats the issue with discussing UBI, there are so many different versions that you can't really decide whether or not it is a good idea.

What are we giving to people, a straight replacement of the tax free allowance, JSA and working tax credits? Include a bit of housing? What about pensions? Increase it by a few thousand more because thats a nice thing?

Everyone seems to have a different interpretation.
 
D.P. said:
This austerity:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_government_austerity_programme


Government spending alone does not tell what services were reduced
Click to expand...

Austerity is an economic term, we have not had economic austerity in the UK.

If you are going to allege that the program called austerity (which predominantly involved growing spending slower than planned and moving it around rather than cuts), then you need a better study to link to, because your linked study didn't actually prove any causation, only correlation. They specifically called out that they hadn't looked at alternative causes.
 
balky12 said:
I recon UBI will just widen the rich / poor divide.

I would use it to top up my existing wage.

Hell at 6-8k a year I would either just use it on very nice holidays or save 10 years and buy myself an extremely nice car...
Click to expand...

Ubi isn't intended to close the gap between rich and poor, because the measure is largely irrelevant when you don't cherry pick the data.

The intent is to treat everyone equally, not to force an equal outcome.
 
balky12 said:
I recon UBI will just widen the rich / poor divide.

I would use it to top up my existing wage.

Hell at 6-8k a year I would either just use it on very nice holidays or save 10 years and buy myself an extremely nice car...
Click to expand...

Ubi isn't intended to close the gap between rich and poor, because the measure is largely irrelevant when you don't cherry pick the data.

The intent is to treat everyone equally, not to force an equal outcome.
 
balky12 said:
So HRT payers would have a net nil position once UBI comes into play?

So it would only benefit the I unemployed/low earners gradually taping off up to the high earners?

I'm not being deliberately dense. I've been a fan of a for of UBI for a while however saw it as a boost to everyone universally.
Click to expand...

I posted my take on how Universal payments could work, and some of the issues involved in an earlier post here, but it got buried in 4 or 5 pages discussing whether communism was a good thing.

In a nutshell, it would replace the existing benefits, state pension and tax credit system, with additional taxation on a sliding scale meaning anyone earning under £48,000 pa would gain from it to some degree. Without access to government figures I can't say whether this would be cost neutral, but I would expect those on more than £48k could expect to pay additional taxes to cover this.
 
trigg_27 said:
I posted my take on how Universal payments could work, and some of the issues involved in an earlier post here, but it got buried in 4 or 5 pages discussing whether communism was a good thing.

In a nutshell, it would replace the existing benefits, state pension and tax credit system, with additional taxation on a sliding scale meaning anyone earning under £48,000 pa would gain from it to some degree. Without access to government figures I can't say whether this would be cost neutral, but I would expect those on more than £48k could expect to pay additional taxes to cover this.
Click to expand...

Why would you put tax on a sliding scale? It adds complexity and means the state doesn't treat everyone equally.
 
Dolph said:
Why would you put tax on a sliding scale? It adds complexity and means the state doesn't treat everyone equally.
Click to expand...

The simple answer is because it provides a source of funding for the scheme and means the payments are targeted more towards the unemployed and low earners. This means it becomes an acceptable replacement for the current state benefit system and doesn't disincentivise people from working to improve their personal finances
 
trigg_27 said:
The simple answer is because it provides a source of funding for the scheme and means the payments are targeted more towards the unemployed and low earners. This means it becomes an acceptable replacement for the current state benefit system and doesn't disincentivise people from working to improve their personal finances
Click to expand...

sliding tax bands create complexity as well as a moral case for reducing your tax paid due to being unfairly treated.

A flat rate achieves both the aim of providing a better replacement for the current benefits system, treats everyone equally and removes any moral case for tax avoidance.
 
Dolph said:
sliding tax bands create complexity as well as a moral case for reducing your tax paid due to being unfairly treated.

A flat rate achieves both the aim of providing a better replacement for the current benefits system, treats everyone equally and removes any moral case for tax avoidance.
Click to expand...

I should point out that in my full post, I suggested a rate of an additional £250 in taxation per £1000 in wages, which is a flat rate by your terms. My use of the term 'sliding scale' was intended to show that the more you earn up to the £48k, the less net gain you would receive.
 
trigg_27 said:
I should point out that in my full post, I suggested a rate of an additional £250 in taxation per £1000 in wages, which is a flat rate by your terms. My use of the term 'sliding scale' was intended to show that the more you earn up to the £48k, the less net gain you would receive.
Click to expand...

Perhaps it's more of an implementation thing to make it clearer. I tend to favour the negative income tax model, which makes the process simpler to administer by giving everyone the same payment (or everyone in the same circumstances the same payment if you want to add in tweaks for children or disability), and taxing all income. The final result is a break even point where the tax paid is equal to the payment giving an effective tax free amount, and an effective tax rate that tends towards the marginal.
 
I'm curious - how would a negative income tax rate be applied to the unemployed and pensioners, who would form a significant proportion of the beneficiaries of the scheme?
 
trigg_27 said:
I'm curious - how would a negative income tax rate be applied to the unemployed and pensioners, who would form a significant proportion of the beneficiaries of the scheme?
Click to expand...

They would receive the same payment as anyone else. Many additional income (such as company pension) would be taxable.

The payment replaced existing benefits.
 
Irish_Tom said:
It entirely depends on the threshold and how it's implemented — trials have already been run in various countries and haven't seen massive reductions in employment.

Most advocates for UBI aren't suggesting it completely replaces the kind of wage required for a luxury lifestyle, there would still be incentives to work.

It's not as black and white at UBI = a de facto Socialist state.
Click to expand...

of course not, in fact for plenty of people in London it would mean bigger cuts to their benefits than the wet dreams of the most right wing of Tories

people don't seem to want to address that one, we already dish out way more in housing benefit in some areas, in order to keep economically inactive people housed in in zone 1 and 2, than we'd ever likely be able to afford to pay out nationally in the form of UBI to every individual
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom