Page 7 | To think the time is coming when a universal basic income is seen as a necessity?

DoubtfulCat · 2025-09-10T12:26:52+00:00

AI is replacing a lot of jobs which were previously highly specialised- like translation- as well as entry-level jobs into careers like law. Because the jobs which are hardest to automate seem to be those which are currently either very well paid (like senior managers, politicians, etc) or those at the lowest pay level (like care work, for example) it seems as if more and more people who would once have been gainfully employed will increasingly be competing for a shrinking pool of jobs with half-decent pay, and for those manual jobs. I see a rise in people with no job at all and a huge fall in people earning ‘professional’ salaries and following a reasonable career path. The knock-on would be falling private pension provision, falling savings, rising personal debt, and so on. Increasing hardship and wealth gap between those with and those without. Do you think that a form of UBI would help to solve that problem? - more people could work fewer hours each, so more people could have a job which often gives people a purpose in life - hardship would be mitigated- no-one would be destitute or unable to feed themselves - people might use their time on creative projects or things that are good for their health and well-being, if they have some breathing space around struggling to survive

ObelixtheGaul · 10/09/2025 19:05

FallingIntoAutumn · 10/09/2025 16:41

Ds has a 3d printer. I will be honest. Wouldnt want stairs or a ceiling made with that
I appreciate they are very different machines!

Show quote history

I have only seen one once. A friend had one. I watched it working and found it fascinating.

Silverbirchleaf · 10/09/2025 19:04

DoubtfulCat · 10/09/2025 18:32

I think it could work. Everyone would get an amount which you could live on, but wouldn’t necessarily want to. So most people would want at least a part time job (and if there are fewer jobs available, more people could have a part time one than a full time one). Those with additional needs would receive appropriate extra amounts to level the field for them.
Tax would still be paid. But more people would have surplus income compared to now (since the basics would be covered) and would spend their money on the things they want, generating revenue and production and keeping the money circulating (rather than hoarding it offshore).
More people would have better health and well-being because they would have lower stress and afford a better diet, to exercise, etc. This would save the country a lot in health and social care costs. I think it could be self funding if it were done in the right way.

In principle, what you say would be lovely. However, I think its a bit idealistic.

Clychaugog · 10/09/2025 19:03

Namelessnelly · 10/09/2025 16:55

But then wouldn’t the companies just raise prices? Or are you suggesting they would reduce their profits for the good of humanity? They don’t do that now so why would th in the future? The more you tax them, the higher they raise their prices, the less people can affird, so ubi has to be increases, so more taxes etc.

Show quote history

Well, yeah. That is a risk. Government would have to regulate the fuck out of them. For it to work, we'd need something approaching communism and we don't need to look far to see the faults with that.

FirstCuppa · 10/09/2025 18:59

CamiIIaHighwater · 10/09/2025 18:49

If I were PM, I'd set up our own version of Amazon, and edge Besos out. The other countries can deal with him as they see fit. Same for all the tax-avoiders.

Show quote history

Hmmm, but Amazon is based on free labour from the Latter Day Saints in America, isn't it? No other country or company can compete. Maybe China with the Uyghurs but it's not exactly something most countries can or want to emulate.

CamiIIaHighwater · 10/09/2025 18:49

taxguru · 10/09/2025 18:33

Whilst I'm sure most sane people would agree about billionaire tax avoidance, I've yet to hear any workable solutions to stopping it. Unless you're willing to bomb/nuke/invade the tax haven countries to take them over and change their laws, it's never going to happen. Tax havens aren't going to give up their tax haven statuses without being forced to do so, so that means military action or bunging them billions to "encourage" them to change their laws.

If a billionaire chooses to base themselves in the Virgin Islands, Panama (or Isle of Man!) then it's inevitable they're going to pay a lot less tax than if they were based in Manchester.

This is one of the entirely foreseeable "Unforeseen" consequences of the global economy - borders don't matter anymore.

Show quote history

If I were PM, I'd set up our own version of Amazon, and edge Besos out. The other countries can deal with him as they see fit. Same for all the tax-avoiders.

EasternEcho · 10/09/2025 18:46

Silverbirchleaf · 10/09/2025 17:11

“If there is a UBI, wouldn't more people be encouraged to work full-time, have more income, better their prospects?”

I think the opposite is true. If you need £2000 to live, and the government gives you £1000, then you only need to work part time to make up the shortfall.

Also, those people who aren’t bothered about working now, and are ‘happy’ to live off benefits on the existing system, are not suddenly going to be incentivised to work more under UBI.

Show quote history

It's not just the income of those getting it that matters to the economy. It is their spending. Without people spending money, businesses cannot survive. We just need to look at former coal, steel, and shipyards etc. to see what happens when people lose their jobs. It's not just the jobs that disappear, the whole local economy collapses. Fewer people have disposable income. Local shops, restaurants, and services lose customers. Tax revenue falls, so public services decline. Young people leave to find work elsewhere, hollowing out the community even more.

That’s the same ripple effect people worry about with AI. If millions lose work and income, it’s not just their problem, it drags down demand across the whole economy. Without some kind of safety net (UBI, reskilling, or another way to keep money circulating), the risk is real of repeating those “ghost town” effects on a much larger, national scale.

FirstCuppa · 10/09/2025 18:41

CamiIIaHighwater · 10/09/2025 18:33

We can't have the likes of Musk or Besos in charge.

I'd love to see Rutger Bregman and Gary Stevenson (not particularly seen that the latter is a proponent of UBI, but I like his ethics and trust he'd do right by the people) in charge.

Show quote history

I agree but if AI is funding it (unlike the Income Tax in the JRF link, as that was published 5 years ago and before AI had really taken off) we do need to see behind the curtain and who runs these firms before we hand over any more keys. I'm worried that it is already quite opaque and all we really know is that there are more men coding into it than women and this is already affecting women in a negative way, so my hopes aren't hugely high. As with all good things, they can turn bad in the wrong hands.

Swiftie1878 · 10/09/2025 18:39

DoubtfulCat · 10/09/2025 18:32

I think it could work. Everyone would get an amount which you could live on, but wouldn’t necessarily want to. So most people would want at least a part time job (and if there are fewer jobs available, more people could have a part time one than a full time one). Those with additional needs would receive appropriate extra amounts to level the field for them.
Tax would still be paid. But more people would have surplus income compared to now (since the basics would be covered) and would spend their money on the things they want, generating revenue and production and keeping the money circulating (rather than hoarding it offshore).
More people would have better health and well-being because they would have lower stress and afford a better diet, to exercise, etc. This would save the country a lot in health and social care costs. I think it could be self funding if it were done in the right way.

Fantasyland.
I’ll have what you’re drinking! 😂

taxguru · 10/09/2025 18:35

DoubtfulCat · 10/09/2025 18:32

I think it could work. Everyone would get an amount which you could live on, but wouldn’t necessarily want to. So most people would want at least a part time job (and if there are fewer jobs available, more people could have a part time one than a full time one). Those with additional needs would receive appropriate extra amounts to level the field for them.
Tax would still be paid. But more people would have surplus income compared to now (since the basics would be covered) and would spend their money on the things they want, generating revenue and production and keeping the money circulating (rather than hoarding it offshore).
More people would have better health and well-being because they would have lower stress and afford a better diet, to exercise, etc. This would save the country a lot in health and social care costs. I think it could be self funding if it were done in the right way.

It would just fuel inflation (like Brown's tax credits) meaning prices go up and the UBI becomes too low to live on. You'd also have to set the income tax on earnings at a high level to bring in enough money to pay for UBI which would mean fewer people would find it worthwhile to work, especially in jobs involving expensive commuting, training, etc if they're paying stupidly high marginal tax rates on their earnings.

taxguru · 10/09/2025 18:33

CamiIIaHighwater · 10/09/2025 18:16

These people tend to make their wealth off the work of others. If we move away from this model and set up systems where no one person can accumulate wealth to the extent the parasites like Musk and Besos have, then we will be better off as a society. For a start, they are tax avoiders. That at the very least needs to stop. And we need to stop bailing out the rich - the bankers, the gas companies, who then don't give back when they are running at profit.

Show quote history

Whilst I'm sure most sane people would agree about billionaire tax avoidance, I've yet to hear any workable solutions to stopping it. Unless you're willing to bomb/nuke/invade the tax haven countries to take them over and change their laws, it's never going to happen. Tax havens aren't going to give up their tax haven statuses without being forced to do so, so that means military action or bunging them billions to "encourage" them to change their laws.

If a billionaire chooses to base themselves in the Virgin Islands, Panama (or Isle of Man!) then it's inevitable they're going to pay a lot less tax than if they were based in Manchester.

This is one of the entirely foreseeable "Unforeseen" consequences of the global economy - borders don't matter anymore.

SleepQuest33 · 10/09/2025 18:33

Maybe the entire world will end up following the communist principles!

everything is state owned
everyone earns the same regardless of competence, education, etc
ration of food
no private education or healthcare
all money generated by government is shared

i wonder how things work in Cuba?

disclaimer: I am absolutely clueless about communism so… apologies if I’m completely wrong!

CamiIIaHighwater · 10/09/2025 18:33

FirstCuppa · 10/09/2025 18:26

Popping back on as I just saw this from the JRF https://www.jrf.org.uk/social-security/is-universal-basic-income-a-good-idea

It has the potential to do great things but, as I said before I don't think I full trust that it wouldn't be "overseen" by the likes of Google or Musk etc who are already the biggest players in keeping our data. Plus, they are the ones avoiding paying tax at the moment so highly unlikely to hand over enough cash to teach the world to sing...(particularly in a Communist way where they get less back in spends). Ultimately it will only happen if those who are profiteering now can continue to profiteer.

We can't have the likes of Musk or Besos in charge.

I'd love to see Rutger Bregman and Gary Stevenson (not particularly seen that the latter is a proponent of UBI, but I like his ethics and trust he'd do right by the people) in charge.

Original poster

DoubtfulCat · 10/09/2025 18:32

I think it could work. Everyone would get an amount which you could live on, but wouldn’t necessarily want to. So most people would want at least a part time job (and if there are fewer jobs available, more people could have a part time one than a full time one). Those with additional needs would receive appropriate extra amounts to level the field for them.
Tax would still be paid. But more people would have surplus income compared to now (since the basics would be covered) and would spend their money on the things they want, generating revenue and production and keeping the money circulating (rather than hoarding it offshore).
More people would have better health and well-being because they would have lower stress and afford a better diet, to exercise, etc. This would save the country a lot in health and social care costs. I think it could be self funding if it were done in the right way.

OP posts:

FirstCuppa · 10/09/2025 18:26

Popping back on as I just saw this from the JRF https://www.jrf.org.uk/social-security/is-universal-basic-income-a-good-idea

It has the potential to do great things but, as I said before I don't think I full trust that it wouldn't be "overseen" by the likes of Google or Musk etc who are already the biggest players in keeping our data. Plus, they are the ones avoiding paying tax at the moment so highly unlikely to hand over enough cash to teach the world to sing...(particularly in a Communist way where they get less back in spends). Ultimately it will only happen if those who are profiteering now can continue to profiteer.

Is Universal Basic Income a good idea?

Universal Basic Income (UBI) could be designed to reduce poverty, improve income security and boost well-being, but could be expensive and challenging to introduce. Many of its goals could be achieved through changes to the existing social security sys...

https://www.jrf.org.uk/social-security/is-universal-basic-income-a-good-idea

Dweetfidilove · 10/09/2025 18:21

Silverbirchleaf · 10/09/2025 17:11

“If there is a UBI, wouldn't more people be encouraged to work full-time, have more income, better their prospects?”

I think the opposite is true. If you need £2000 to live, and the government gives you £1000, then you only need to work part time to make up the shortfall.

Also, those people who aren’t bothered about working now, and are ‘happy’ to live off benefits on the existing system, are not suddenly going to be incentivised to work more under UBI.

Show quote history

True.
I just like to think that most people wouldn't settle for £2,000 when £3,000 is easily achievable. Maybe I have too much faith in people's needs/ ambitions.

MumoftwoNC · 10/09/2025 18:16

FullOfLemons · 10/09/2025 18:04

Perhaps you could tell us what makes you so interesting ?

Show quote history

Just ignore. I agree with you, I think people who want to be idly "creative" are usually akin to a certain ex boyfriend of mine who used to lounge around writing [terrible] poetry and paint pictures of vulvas.

Good art usually comes from people who are driven, with grit and resilience. I'm imagining (say) Van Gogh or Mozart who both produced work in a bit of a frenzy while being chased for debts.

Good art is rarely made by people lounging around comfortably being paid a living wage whether they make it or not.

CamiIIaHighwater · 10/09/2025 18:16

NuovaPilbeam · 10/09/2025 18:09

Any UBi requires a seismic shift away from capitalism. It requires the wealthy/clever people who are most able to accumulate wealth under the current model, to be willing to accept a smaller proportion of overall wealth in order to share it with others. These types of people tend to be motivated, hard working people who are reluctant to provide a guaranteed income knowing that some people will opt to use it to live off while providing no productive labour.

These people tend to make their wealth off the work of others. If we move away from this model and set up systems where no one person can accumulate wealth to the extent the parasites like Musk and Besos have, then we will be better off as a society. For a start, they are tax avoiders. That at the very least needs to stop. And we need to stop bailing out the rich - the bankers, the gas companies, who then don't give back when they are running at profit.

NuovaPilbeam · 10/09/2025 18:09

Any UBi requires a seismic shift away from capitalism. It requires the wealthy/clever people who are most able to accumulate wealth under the current model, to be willing to accept a smaller proportion of overall wealth in order to share it with others. These types of people tend to be motivated, hard working people who are reluctant to provide a guaranteed income knowing that some people will opt to use it to live off while providing no productive labour.

FullOfLemons · 10/09/2025 18:04

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Perhaps you could tell us what makes you so interesting ?

Emori · 10/09/2025 17:48

MumoftwoNC · 10/09/2025 13:55

I think you could only fund this if we suddenly discover a huge mine of oil or gold under the peak district or something. Otherwise there's not a chance. There's no way you could just fund this internally via taxation of the workers themselves. It could only come from some huge, reliable exports

Well we did discover a huge field of oil off the Scottish coast a while back. Sadly the English government squandered all the money from that and here we are.

OriginalUsername2 · 10/09/2025 17:40

Jamclag · 10/09/2025 17:22

I admit I'm completely out of my depth on this subject but as far as I can tell the people who are concerned about AI are saying it's not about listening to Sam Altman it's about reading between the lines of all the guff he talks. If Artificial General Intelligence (broader cognitive abilities of learning and applying knowledge) is reached - and that's what the AI race is focused on achieving with billions of dollars being poured into it - it's really difficult to predict where things will go as once achieved the growth in learning would be exponential and there would be no off switch. Obviously it's still a massive 'if' that they'll be able to move beyond the large language models but if AGI was achieved maybe that would be close to a form of sentience and that does seem very scary 🤷

Show quote history

Honestly, they have nothing. It’s all about the GPU trade. I don’t want to spam with another link but the same writer has a very long and comprehensive piece spelling it all out.

SisterTeatime · 10/09/2025 17:23

Dweetfidilove · 10/09/2025 16:54

Would UBI genuinely encourage people to not work like the current means-tested benefits do?

Many benefits threads centre around supposed shirkers not working/ working as little as possible to minimise the impact on their benefits.

If there is a UBI, wouldn't more people be encouraged to work full-time, have more income, better their prospects?
If not, should we be focusing more on why people are not inclined to strive for better financial outcomes where possible?

Yes, I envisage UBI being just that - universal and basic. No top ups, nothing extra for housing etc, except possibly for disabled people who are unable to do paid work. It would be lifelong and replace the state pension.

People could work, train, volunteer, take time out or whatever.

Humans are endlessly creative - many work without ‘needing’ to already - and we want to buy things. There are jobs that can’t be done by AI, new jobs will arise, and in an AI world, things made and done by humans will be more valuable.

I do think sentient AI is pretty scary though.

Jamclag · 10/09/2025 17:22

OriginalUsername2 · 10/09/2025 16:46

Don’t be scared of AI, they’re nowhere near anything yet.

And Sam Altman is a massive goober. Look at what he actually says. Hint: word salads full of nothing.

Look at this, it’s full of his profound quotes:

https://www.wheresyoured.at/make-fun-of-them/

Edited

Show quote history

I admit I'm completely out of my depth on this subject but as far as I can tell the people who are concerned about AI are saying it's not about listening to Sam Altman it's about reading between the lines of all the guff he talks. If Artificial General Intelligence (broader cognitive abilities of learning and applying knowledge) is reached - and that's what the AI race is focused on achieving with billions of dollars being poured into it - it's really difficult to predict where things will go as once achieved the growth in learning would be exponential and there would be no off switch. Obviously it's still a massive 'if' that they'll be able to move beyond the large language models but if AGI was achieved maybe that would be close to a form of sentience and that does seem very scary 🤷

cobrakaieaglefang · 10/09/2025 17:12

Meadowfinch · 10/09/2025 14:13

OP, I worked for an IT company in 1983. We were told, with the advent of the PC, many job roles would be redundant - typists, clerks, accountants, most admin workers, telephonists, receptionists, draughtsmen, printers, journalists.

We were told a basic income and three day working were likely. That we would have more leisure time, quality of life would rise. There would be more time for the arts and creativity. Sound familiar?

More than 40 years later, I, and everyone I know, is still working flat out to make ends meet and have a decent standard of living.

Markets adapt, new needs and new roles are created. In 1985 there were only a handful of IT companies -IBM, ICL, Burroughs etc. Now there are 000,000s. And millions of apps enabling us to do things faster and work more. On-line banking, internet everything, food deliveries, mobile phones etc.

If you are really expecting AI to make a huge difference to the employment market, maybe don't hold your breath.

This! I was told the same things at school in the early 80s. We were encouraged to look beyond the 'career' .. I'm still waiting for my life of leisure.

Silverbirchleaf · 10/09/2025 17:11

Dweetfidilove · 10/09/2025 16:54

Would UBI genuinely encourage people to not work like the current means-tested benefits do?

Many benefits threads centre around supposed shirkers not working/ working as little as possible to minimise the impact on their benefits.

If there is a UBI, wouldn't more people be encouraged to work full-time, have more income, better their prospects?
If not, should we be focusing more on why people are not inclined to strive for better financial outcomes where possible?

“If there is a UBI, wouldn't more people be encouraged to work full-time, have more income, better their prospects?”

I think the opposite is true. If you need £2000 to live, and the government gives you £1000, then you only need to work part time to make up the shortfall.

Also, those people who aren’t bothered about working now, and are ‘happy’ to live off benefits on the existing system, are not suddenly going to be incentivised to work more under UBI.