What are your thoughts and opinions on Universal basic income?(UNI)

[shesellsseashells99]

I dont know much about this, but was talking about it with a friend this morning and how on favour they were of it.

I'm just interested to hear your thoughts. For and against and how it would actually work.

Which countries have tried this already?

[W3dontdoduvets]

@Jaxhog

It's one of those ideas that looks great in theory but wouldn't work in practice. This is why.

1 - Everyone would get it, even many, many people who really don't need it.

1. If you means-tested it, imagine the fun with that! Think UC.
2. People would argue for exceptions e.g. living somewhere expensive (London) or having more than 2 kids etc. etc etc. Think Coronavirus.
3. It would either be a LOT less than 25k each and/or prohibitively expensive. Think pensions.
4. Taxes would have to go up to pay for it
5. Implementation would be a nightmare as it wouldn't cover people's current financial commitments. Think extra transition costs.
6. Employers would reduce wages significantly and few people would want to do the still necessary low paid manual jobs
7. It would be much harder to keep many people in jobs, as 'why would they bother' when they get paid anyway

I’m not sure you fully understand UBI.

[TheFormerPorpentinaScamander]

Ah we agree then . If its not a subsistence rate, then there is no need for 'extra' benefits. I'd support that!
No idea how it would be funded, higher tax I guess.

[HelloToMyKitty]

My comment was more into reply about your comment about there being no other welfare benefits. (downside to quoting the whole post). So either everyone gets ubi at a high enough rate to live not exist, or people who can't work are fucked because it only covers the very basics

I wouldn’t be in favor of a system that is basically a subsistence income. So my ideal is that this replaces benefits (a lot gets wasted on admin and such) but if you can work, you don’t get penalized for it. The UBI is always there for you whether or not you engage in paid work.

I guess though that those on disability and such would not have any extra income under this system.

Maybe you might consider it unfair but what I think is attractive about the system is every citizen gets the same amount no matter what. No lobbying for this group to get X and that group gets Y and then Z complains they pay for it all and get nothing at all .... etc etc.

[TheFormerPorpentinaScamander]

@HelloToMyKitty
My comment was more into reply about your comment about there being no other welfare benefits. (downside to quoting the whole post). So either everyone gets ubi at a high enough rate to live not exist, or people who can't work are fucked because it only covers the very basics.

I'm not sure how it would work with the NHS. It's an interesting consideration!

[SheWranglesRugRats]

Look at the large scale study in Kenya to see how UBI empowers women.

[Doingtheboxerbeat]

@CeaseAndDesist, the naysayers that always assume the worst in people are the same people who assume that if drugs were to be legalised, we would ALL become raging heroin addicts - because the only thing standing in the way that so far is because it is illegal . No amount of studies and evidence of countries that already do this successfully will not convince them.

[HelloToMyKitty]

So people who are genuinely too ill/disabled to work just have to suffer then? How kind

No, my point here was that hospitals and insurers would compete for your money under a competitive market. With a UBI in place, there’s more scope for this type of system, or another approach that mixes readily available private with a scaled back public system.

Only because I’m not sure a public health system and a robust UBI are both feasible, and I’d much prefer UBI personally. You may have a different opinion.

[CeaseAndDesist]

Why Basic Income is a women's issue

[LivingDeadGirlUK]

The against arguments seem to be that some people will not want to work, and that it could make prices go up for everyone. I honestly can't see either of these things happening when there is talk of huge levels of future unemployment when the furlough scheme ends, and the current hit to the retail industry due to the pandemic.

I think it would be a really good idea to modify the benefits system in this way, and the green party proposal is really interesting (I never thought I would agree with the nutters on anything :) ) this year has shown that society really needs a change and I hope some good will come of the last 9 months.

[user1497207191]

How about those in favour come up with a properly costed plan showing how much people will get, personal tax allowance levels, income tax rates, whether any other benefits remain (disability, rent allowance, free prescriptions, council tax reductions), how it inter-acts with state benefits, etc., etc. Only then can any sensible decisions be made as to whether we want it or not. It could be one of those "good idea in theory, crap idea in reality" just like the poll tax. Before people are asked whether they agree, they deserve to know how it will affect them.

[SheWranglesRugRats]

Actually studies have shown that it doesn’t all get spent on booze and drugs: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income

[CeaseAndDesist]

It's nice to see a UBI thread that hasn't completely descended yet into people shrieking about spongers and skivers...

I think it's a great idea although I do acknowledge that issues around current disability or housing payments need careful consideration.

Important also to emphasise that no serious discussion of UBI has ever talked about sums of eg £25k - more like £100 pw or £500pm - enough to promote some income security but not enough to discourage work.

I think covid has shown us that UBI needs some serious consideration (won't happen under our current bunch of criminal shysters posing as a govt who want us all scared and compliant... but we can all dream).

Some links for those who are interested:

BIEN Basic Income Earth Network

Citizen's Income site

UBI Lab Network

[Elieza]

I can only imagine that the amount would be the same as the current lowest benefit (Is that jobseekers?) plus something for housing in the area they live in.

Plus the same for everyone else in the household. I don’t know if children under 16 would have a decreased amount. You’d hope disabled would get more.

So that could be in the region of say 180 per person per week in my area.

I work so I would get that allocated to me but have my tax increased so I would pay that amount back in tax.

So basically I’m no better or worse off. However if I wanted to jack in my job I would in theory have enough to live on.

The amount would be pretty low or it would encourage too many people to not apply themselves to work.

I talked about this with my pal who works with drug addicts and alcoholics who are currently unable to work. She imagined the carnage that would happen if they got extra money handed to them. It was bad when their housing benefit was paid direct to them rather than the housing association. Some ended up homeless as they couldn’t restrain themselves from splurging to get out their face when all that money was in their bank account. We don’t want any more homeless people so I’d hope they would pay the housing element direct to the housing association.

I suppose it would give people the option of where to live. A bigger house they put money to themselves or a smaller pad that is cheaper.

I think a number of things would need ironed out but it does have potential, even if that means fewer civil servants working to administer complex benefits packages.

[TheFormerPorpentinaScamander]

@HelloToMyKitty

I support UBI, there’s a lot to like (every citizen gets it regardless of income) but only under the following circumstances:

*No other welfare or any other government entitlement
*No minimum wage
*Restrict citizenship to one citizen parent

You’d also have to look at the feasibility with regards to public healthcare. Can you have UBI with an NHS?

So people who are genuinely too ill/disabled to work just have to suffer then? How kind.

[Smallsteps88]

If it paid the very bare minimum for shelter in a cheap area, food and heat and no extras whatsoever

Oh, you sound lovely.

[Devlesko]

How would it be different to tax credit.
Anyone earning less than a certain amount is eligible.

[Thelnebriati]

I dont understand some of the objections to UBI. Its not supposed to remove the rich/poor divide; its supposed to give the poorest a safety net that isn't means tested.
At the moment, people are penalised by the benefits system for taking short term or part time contracts. UC only really works if you can get a more secure, longer term contract.
People on the lowest income are unable to save, all of their income goes back into the economy. So society gets its investment back.
The wealthiest will still pay tax on income over and above the basic income.

There's an interesting blog about it here;
medium.com/basic-income/the-economic-case-for-a-universal-basic-income-9a61624749e5

[HelloToMyKitty]

Should add it’s about reducing absolute poverty. It also increases spending among the poorest cohort, so will be a bit of an economic boost.

Naturally some of this economic boost is going to go to successful businesses, so yeah, may even exacerbate income inequality in the end.

But who cares as long as absolute poverty is reduced?

[HelloToMyKitty]

So then wouldn’t there still be a rich poor /division

The goal isn’t to erase the rich/poor divide

[Namechangeme87]

Not being goady I genuinely don’t understand how this differs that much from the benefits system we have now ?

Those who don’t work get an amount Of money that is deemed enough to live on ( whether or not this is always the case due to high rents etc is another story !! But can’t see the universal wage thing been any different in that regard from the amounts pp have suggested people would receive )

Those who work but fall below what I guess has been deemed and average Livable household income (25k ish I think?) get Topped up to that amount through tax credits etc ( myself included )

Those who earn above that threshold with their salary get nothing - so this would be the only thing that would change ? These people would also get “free money” on top

So then wouldn’t there still be a rich poor /division ??

[JustAnotherPoster00]

@IceCreamAndCandyfloss

No, think it’s a bad idea. Too many already play the system and don’t work or do the bare minimum to net the max gain in benefits. Why would they suddenly work if they were given money with no conditions or sanctions?

We need the next generation to have a work ethic not even more people doing little or nothing.

I’d support changes to the tax system whereby if all the adults in a household worked full time there was an incentive.

If it paid the very bare minimum for shelter in a cheap area, food and heat and no extras whatsoever and replaced all other benefits then maybe at a push it may get a few more into work or stop people having children they don’t support.

Do you have any reputable statistics to back up the 'Too many already play the system and don’t work or do the bare minimum to net the max gain in benefits' assertion or was it the usual right wing trope?

When trying to survive on benefits having to choose between heating and eating as I increasingly have to, where would you suggest I fit in finding a work ethic? I'm disabled, but plenty of people who are not get repeatedly sanctioned for spurious reasons at the whim of 'job coaches', where do they find the energy to find a work ethic while worrying about homlesness and starvation?

Current benefits do not pay for shelter, food and heat how does that encourage people into work?

I see you also support 'poor' ghettos and it wouldnt be suprising if you also support eugenics for poor benefit claimants, I'm sure you'll deny it but we see you

[SheepandCow]

I wrote about this on another thread.
The development of the welfare state.
It came about not only because of altruism. When large numbers of people are desperate and destitute, they turn to crime and civil unrest. Violent revolutionary ideas flourish in these conditions. Far better to provide a decent standard of living for all with affordable housing and money for the essentials. (Decent doesn't mean luxury btw.).
It's the more civilised and peaceful approach.

[SheepandCow]

Look on the Relationships board. So many women (and children) trapped in abusive relationships because of lack of money and/or financial abuse. Many are with high earning husbands meaning no eligibility for benefits. Yet these women (and children) often have no money because their abusive partner controls the finances and uses their lack of access to money as a tool to control. Universal Basic Income would help in tackling financial abuse.

Automation is a thing that's definitely happening. Amazon and another delivery company are currently trialling drone deliveries. As coronavirus starting taking its toll on jobs, people on Mumsnet were saying those made redundant should apply to work as delivery drivers. A role now being given to robots/drones.

The retirement age has been increased. How do young people get jobs when older people can't retire?

[SheepandCow]

If someone's playing the system, then as you say they're already doing it. Meanwhile the vast majority want to work - because as several of us have pointed out it's about much more than money. Something to get up for in the morning.

The small minority who don't want to work? Like @Graphista says generally it's actually mental health issues, and if it's not it's likely someone who is unemployable, not someone who you would want as an employee or colleague (nor would you want to deal with them as a client or customer).

Unfortunately too many people are forced into the benefits poverty trap after redundancy or illness because the struggle to survive is so time-consuming (and mentally draining). Which leads to depression and then the slide into long-term unemployment. All the while with the constant worry about how to afford the essentials.

Disabled and long-term ill people have a work ethic. Which you seem so keen on. So what do you suggest we do to help them into work? Positive discrimination might be necessary because many employers don't want to employ someone with a career gap or who has had to take time off sick. Many applications explicitly ask about sickness records.

[IceCreamAndCandyfloss]

No, think it’s a bad idea. Too many already play the system and don’t work or do the bare minimum to net the max gain in benefits. Why would they suddenly work if they were given money with no conditions or sanctions?

We need the next generation to have a work ethic not even more people doing little or nothing.

I’d support changes to the tax system whereby if all the adults in a household worked full time there was an incentive.

If it paid the very bare minimum for shelter in a cheap area, food and heat and no extras whatsoever and replaced all other benefits then maybe at a push it may get a few more into work or stop people having children they don’t support.