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?

It’s not just house prices QuestionableMouse, it’s all essentials.

If people have more money and it increases demand for food, clothes, travel etc because they don’t need to be as careful with their budgets (which I see as a good thing), will that not inevitably lead to a cost increase due to supply and demand?

@TerribleCustomerCervix

I like the idea but can someone explain something that I can’t quite get past.

If everyone is given a basic income, does that not mean that everyone has more to spend on basics and therefore push the cost of living up?

For example if UI became a thing, DH and I would look to move house. But if everyone was doing similar, would that not just push housing costs, both rent and house prices up?

And the same for food, clothing etc?

I know that with the Green's proposals, UBI would form part (or possibly all) of a new tax free allowance. They really did look at the wider picture. People probably wouldn't be better off by as much as it might appear if they're in work and the UBI rates proposed were similar to the amounts of relevant benefits at the time. Spread across the population, I don't think there would be enough people who were significantly better off to have the effect of pushing prices up.

This is the link to the Green's study if anyone wants to look at more details (PDF download) <a class="break-all" href="https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=policy.greenparty.org.uk/assets/files/Policy%2520files/Basic%2520Income%2520Consultation%2520Paper.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjsv7CZ7OPrAhWPX8AKHTWXCHAQFjACegQICxAP&usg=AOvVaw2o7aKwyJv4MRD_P-PTFtdy" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=policy.greenparty.org.uk/assets/files/Policy%2520files/Basic%2520Income%2520Consultation%2520Paper.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjsv7CZ7OPrAhWPX8AKHTWXCHAQFjACegQICxAP&usg=AOvVaw2o7aKwyJv4MRD_P-PTFtdy

Its a stupid idea and won't remove the poor and rich divide whatsoever.

So every single person for agrument sake gets £2000 per month as universal income.

Some people will choose to work and earn more money on top of that (obv taxed).

A house in central london will still be out of reach for those who choose to just have the income and not work because there will be people who earn more money will pay for it.

So unless there is a cap on everything you buy its pretty pointless.

A person on universal basic income will struggle just as much as they do now because its all relative.

The BBC (podcast?) did a programme about it in Alaska. Since 1980-something.
Really interesting and not what you'd think as the results.
I'm kind of neutral now.

Recent per person amounts in Alaska. They also have no state income tax (most US states have own local taxes as well as people being liable to pay federal income tax) AND there's no sales tax (no VAT).

In terms of amounts, surely or would need to be set at subsistence level, so you could survive on it but not enjoy life, hence a motivation to work.

I thought I'd read somewhere that tax will just increase so for those who work, what they 'gain' in this, they will lose by paying a higher rate in tax?

I thought I'd read somewhere that tax will just increase so for those who work, what they 'gain' in this, they will lose by paying a higher rate in tax?

Tax would need to be set so there is an incentive to work say a few hours and not lose benefits as you would now. At some point on the salary scale yes, you'd be getting the same as without a UBI, but that's fine surely. It's not meant to increase everyone's income, it's meant to simplify benefits while incentivising work.

The main issue with UBI is that it is fundamentally designed to solve an issue which does not yet exist, and will not work as it is a) too expensive and b) wont be enough for people who really cant work.

I forget the exact figure, but for the trial run in Finland, the cost one national level was just prohibitive, the % of tax take that went to UBI would have been unaffordable, even though the figure was only seen like £7000 annually.
Also for people who are seriously disabled, require state support etc, £7000 wouldn't cover them, so in reality, youd have to cover not only UBI, but the top up costs of old age care, disability support etc. As a 21 year it would be lovely if I got 7k, but quite frankly there those who need far more state support than me, they should be prioritised, rather than stimulating my 'creativity'.
Also the concept was mostly arrived at to solve a situation where a large % of humans were structurally unemployed as a result of advanced mechanisation in the future. Though this may be the case, its essentially the same arguments the luddites used 200 years ago, they believed cotton mills would result in no jobs, and yet here we are. Now, it is possible in the distant future this may be a problem, but if youd have said 30 years ago 'I work in IT' people would have looked at you funny, so there are many industries that dont even exist yet.
Overall it's an interesting concept, but wont cater (in its current forms) to the most vulnerable, isnt really affordable and solves a problem which may not yet exist. There's also the incentive to not bother working, and taking a look at high dependency ratios in society will show how you want as many working individuals supporting as few dependants as possible. In addition there's the personal moral dilemmas, but that is more of a personal viewpoint.

Also Alaska is NOT UBI, it is payment from state oil tax revenue, and is essentially a reverse poll tax, and is not in any way to do with what UBI aims to solve, or actually does.

I don’t get the argument about “it’ll just encourage lazy people not to work” so what if it does? how will that affect anyone else? They’ll get the UBI whether they work or not. So what difference does it make to other people if they don’t work? It just means there are more jobs for people who actually want to do them rather than unwilling people being pushed into jobs they don’t want and will do badly preventing someone who is willing from getting the job and income from it.

FWIW I think it’d be a far better idea to phase out housing benefit to stop artificially inflating housing costs and paying off the mortgages of BTL owners and wealthy property hoarders.

Without constant worry about basic survival, how to afford the essentials, less people would get caught in the poverty trap. Applying for (and remaining on) benefits is a job in itself. Time consuming and mentally draining. They're also below subsistence level for many, and lots of people fall through the gaps of eligibility.

With UBI, people could concentrate on (meaningful and realistic) jobseeking, those who wanted to pursue a career or retrain could do so, disability and illness would no longer mean extreme deprivation.

With increasing automaton and use of robots and drones, a lot more of us will need something like UBI.

A big thing about UBI is it would help address the issue of financial abuse. Domestic abuse victims would have more of a way out.

@Smallsteps88

FWIW I think it’d be a far better idea to phase out housing benefit to stop artificially inflating housing costs and paying off the mortgages of BTL owners and wealthy property hoarders.

What do you suggest happens to people who can't afford a home? People made refundant and the disabled/long-term sick?

Or do you mean there should be more social housing? If so, yes absolutely agree. The cost of temporary accommodation in particular is very high.

Or do you mean there should be more social housing?

Yes, masses of it. I’d happily see the end of private residential renting tbh,

@Smallsteps88
I'm with you on that. Unfortunately I suspect we're in the minority.

But that will never happen. Politicians make far too much money out of property.

It's a great idea, but it's hard to define what's basic? Food, rent, mobile, broadband, health survives, education, car, etc? Also it's not really universal if it's implemented on a country by country basis.

@smallsteps88

The issue is that it it will create a huge amount of people who used to be economically active, and make them inactive. Instead of being contributors to the economy, they will instead just act as pensioners, and though they will spend the mo eyes in the economy, it just means that those who are working will have to pay even more tax. It is a solution to a problem which doesn't yet exist ie, there simply are no jobs for lots of people to do, due to automation, which just isnt the case yet.

TBF we could be facing the “there simply are no jobs for lots of people to do” within the next few months when the furlough scheme ends. There were 300,000 redundancies planned by companies before the second furlough scheme was announced.

Work is so much more than money. Why do you think so many people continue to do it even when they can afford not to or are past retirement age. It's about identity, sense of purpose, social interaction, and importantly independence. Only a minority choose to be unemployed, and in reality many of that minority are unemployable. The novelty of not working for most people soon wears off. One of the first questions you get asked when you meet someone new is what do you do for a living? Work is very much what most people want to do. They might (understandably) want better pay and working conditions, but they certainly don't want unemployment.

I’m very much in favour of this.

Certainly as a temp measure during lockdown and I don’t think it would have cost more but I think the Tories feared it would...and that people would have wanted it to continue!

I actually think it would have been simpler, clearer and cheaper - in terms of easier to implement and provide and in saving the country in fewer hours needing to be worked and resources used by dwp/hmrc or whoever would have had responsibility for it, and in terms of those receiving not ending up in debt, evicted etc

I have friends who work in dwp and they’ve had to work CRAZY long hours to sort all the policy changes that were brought in to cover people’s loss of income, I’ve also recently learned from someone with a spouse in hmrc that they’ve had the same experience.

Now they’re salaried so no overtime BUT additional employees had to be recruited and trained, the pretty much CONSTANT policy changes have as one friend put it “cost at least one rainforest” in the amount of replacements to policy daily which isn’t just communicated electronically but as per the old civil service jokes in paper in triplicate per person! Plus of course all these people working extra hours mean extra electricity used etc...

So no I don’t think a quicker, easier concept could have been more expensive.

As a long term proposition it might SEEM In the short term more expensive (and imo tories are frequently guilty of viewing things this way) but in the long term it would address a LOT of social and inequality issues and we’d save a lot of money In not administrating means tested benefits and there’d be a LOT less “benefit bashing” mentality, less of a them and us divide, both long and short term would boost the economy as we know that the poorest in society when they do have “spare” cash they spend it, whereas the wealthy tend to hoard their money.

Importantly, if people could live stabily on UBI, employers would have to treat people better and pay better because if you didn't like it you could afford to jack in your shitty job. also true

I don't really agree with supporting people to do nothing very few people would genuinely select this option, there’d still be incentives to work and have more, but even so you sound very much typical Tory/capitalist attaching a moral value to wealth/poverty! Which is nonsense

The current system isn't working

Exactly!

Pretty sure those that argue against it have been fortunate enough not to have to rely on our current benefits system

Those of us that are having to know how shit it is!

But that will never happen. Politicians make far too much money out of property. definitely! Personally and I’ve said it a lot on here I think serving politicians should be banned from having ANY interest in property as a conflict of interests. You just need to look at voting records on housing issues and the ones (of all colours) who tend to vote against improving housing and housing laws ALSO are property developers, landlords etc

there simply are no jobs for lots of people to do, due to automation, which just isnt the case yet.

are you sure about that?

Have you missed the news about 100,000’s of redundancies JUST in recent months? Have you had to job hunt recently especially for a nmw job? Because I have, my dd has and quite a lot of our friends abc family.

Dd is currently job hunting just for a wee part time job while she’s at uni, just today she was telling me the jobs she’s applied for (she’s by no means fussy) had according to the ticker on the sites over 600 applicants every time and in one case over 900 applicants for ONE part time position.

This is worse than a few years back when we were both job hunting but different jobs due to different cvs of course and even then, pre corona there were easily between 300-500 applicants for many jobs

@sheepandcow totally agree!

My job hunt that few years ago was me mistakenly thinking I was able to work - I wasn’t - and very soon after I tried that I became very ill again.

I am physically disabled with a degenerative condition and I also suffer from serious mental illness, mainly ocd but I’m 3 years housebound with agoraphobia and badly struggling with depression and anxiety.

BUT if I had the support and tech to work from home i think I possibly could but even with supposedly so many jobs now being possible to wfh I haven’t been able to find one that’s SOLELY wfh as I genuinely NEVER and can’t leave the flat for meeting clients or attending staff meetings etc and can’t cope with people coming here.

I’d love to be working, I miss it so much, I miss using my brain, I miss challenges of that type, I miss having colleagues, I miss having that identity and self worth...

I have lived all over Uk (and overseas) and have met so so many people in all that time I’ve met exactly ONE person who portrays they simply cba to work, but even he I suspect has mh issues that are undx. I know he struggles using public transport and being in public places, he’s ex forces and I suspect has ptsd.

Everyone else I’ve met who’s not in paid employment outside the home has caring responsibilities, ill health or is fortunate enough they can afford to work for free in volunteer roles.

I am for UBI and believe it is inevitable the alternative, a sort of technofeudalism is unthinkable.

I'm very much in favor of it. Lots of people seem to think it would mean a comfortable amount to live off , but the reality would be an amount that would go to basic survival and you earn on top of that.
The rich could place their's into start ups and charities (donor badges etc available) in the same way that comfortably off people getting a heating allowance were encouraged to pass it on. (I know many wont, but enough will)
The fear that some may not work is foolish. Most of those prepared to live on a difficult income level rather than work, already have that situation and have always been with us, with or without help.
The majority will want to work both for money, identity and social advancement, and the reality is jobs are going to be a privilege that many of wont be able to access soon enough.
Something has to change, and this seems like one of the few peaceful answers that allows for hope and trying for a different way of life rather than despair and rage.

@Graphista, also since the start of lock down, I have not been required by the DWP to apply for work - for how long, I do not know. But as soon as things go back to normal (ish) each job that has 500 applicants will increase by hundreds more due to job seekers applying for anything to keep the job coaches off their backs to avoid sanctions. This is before the expected 1000's of job losses when furlow properly ends .