Universal basic income?

[longwayoff]

I can't understand this concept. Everyone, regardless of need, would be given £x each e.g. £40 per week for all, from Duke of Westminster to Big Issue sellers. This would replace welfare benefits and tax credits but would leave people free to top up their £x without interference should they wish to.

I can see so many drawbacks that I don't see how this could ever be a serious proposition. Can someone explain why it might be a good idea?

www.ted.com/talks/rutger_bregman_poverty_isn_t_a_lack_of_character_it_s_a_lack_of_cash/up-next?language=en

This guy can!

I don’t get it either. Is it instead of the personal tax allowance or as well as? Surely this would be targeting hardworking people if it’s instead of?

If they get rid of the personal tax allowance most of us would be worse off.!

Finland trialled it.

The long and short of it was that people were happier, but no more likely to try and find productive work themselves.

I can't say I am amazed that being given free money for nowt had that result tbh.

www.technologyreview.com/f/612927/finlands-universal-basic-income-trial-made-people-happier-but-not-employed/

Yes exactly. Why would they want to make working people worse off when we are already feeling stretched? I might have missinderstood the BBC article though, anyone know more about it?

I'm an economist and I don't get it. All the estimates suggest it would cost way more than the current benefits system even to give out a somewhat paltry amount. My concern would be for people who really do need a lot of support - you'd still need a benefits system in parallel. The admin!!

Also, in a country where the media immediately jump on public money spent on e.g. art, just imagine the headlines when the first person spends their UBI on Class A drugs...

It's not about making hard working people worse off though is it? Hard workers would have the same £x allowance as shirkers. So you could then work as hard as you wish without penalty. Although the money to fund this would have to come from somewhere so presumably the more you earn the more you'd be taxed, seems like a disincentive, àgreed.

It sounds like a wonderful idea - I've had it filed in my head along with world peace, no more disease, a full stop and/or reversal of environmental destruction of the planet etc.

But I can't see how it could ever work, practically.
And surely the biggest problem is that every time something is done to "even things out" or help those worse off, then prices just rise disproportionately so the only ones who really benefit are either landlords or those already near the top?

I think societies and economies based around capitalism will always have a large level of income disparity, and you will always have the mega rich at one end, and those who can't afford a basic standard of living at the other. You would need to overhaul everything to really root out poverty.

The money could only come from increased tax or increased government borrowing. Which taxpayers pay for. It's not that different in principle to government funded universal education and healthcare, but UBI could be spent on nothing useful at all and that would be fine presumably - you can't give people money and mandate how they spend it.

If you actually wanted to help people, making all education, healthcare, childcare and elder care tax deductible would be a start.

I think societies and economies based around capitalism will always have a large level of income disparity, and you will always have the mega rich at one end, and those who can't afford a basic standard of living at the other. You would need to overhaul everything to really root out poverty.

Every attempt at different -isms has spectacularly failed, which is why the world works on an almost exclusively capitalism-based model.

Or cut VAT significantly. That would help poorer people more than the rich and be a lot cheaper than UBI.

If they are scrapping the personal allowance then it wouldn't benefit the majority of people would it, or am I missing something?.

If they don't get a personal allowance then you are either too rich for £48 to make any difference, or you don't work and then it wouldn't be enough for those who can't work for very good reasons (disabled, carers)

I don't understand who it actually would benefit?

It could be parameterised to minimise the changes so that people, whether currently working or on benefits, were mostly not a lot better or worse off than currently. In that configuration it would give a very low income and wouldn't cost more in taxes.

The idea is that is would save admin on benefits. Much as I love the idea, I read a very good critique in the Guardian not long ago that explained in detail why you couldn't abolish the current benefits system. There are too many special cases where we would want some people to have more than a standard amount of help.

So at best it would be an underpinning to people's finances that would reduce the number of people who needed to engage with the benefits system, without eliminating the system. I suppose it would also reduce the dependency of those who do engage by giving them some unsanctionable income.

I don't understand who it actually would benefit?

For it to be affordable, no large group of people can be better of. So it's not about people having more money.

I think it's meant to benefit politicians/taxpayers, who think that if they hand out a small amount of money, enough to prevent people starving, they can abolish the benefits system and no longer have the angst and worry of dealing with all that complexity.

In the real world, Universal Credit, if it ever works properly as intended, will actually deliver part of the objective, in that it should allow people to move seamlessly in and out of work without worrying about the effect on benefit, while ignoring the part of the objective that doesn't work, being deliberately oblivious to different levels of need.

Basically, there are a lot of morons in this world. Many of them think that a government stipend will free people completely overlooking that it makes people dependent on their government which is only a few steps removed from slavery. It also costs a great deal and dampens the economy making it harder for people to earn enough to be independent of the government. The government starts taking advantage of this as cash for votes. Left wing governments promise more money and those who are dependent on them vote for it. They then wreck the becoming some more by taking more in taxes and even more people become dependent increasing the vested interests voter numbers. This makes it easier to re-elect etc until the vast majority of the population cannot meet its basic needs without government support of some kind. At the point the government can start taking liberties. It can reduce the quality of its services because voters have no where else to turn and probably don’t know better anyway. Or it can start taking absurd amounts in tax making everyone even poorer and justifying it by saying it’s theonly way. The government can start passing outrageous laws if it wants and the voters won’t care so long as they get their cash/education/healthcare. And eventually you end up with a population that is defective enslaved and a democracy that is a sh because voters have no choice but to vote for candidates offering to pay them off. Universal income is the quickest way to reach the largest proportion of voters and that is why it’s so popular amongst hard left thinkers. Twats.

@Phineji the government loves VAT because it’s an ‘invisible’ tax so I doubt it will ever be reduced or scrapped. There is a very interesting book called ‘Everything You Need To Know About Tax’. It’s very well written (by an accountant) and provides a brief overview of how tax works in Britain. Good read.

The gravy train is pulling out of the station soon.

I like the idea. People have to jump through a lot of hoops to get Universal Credit, lots of people I encounter professionally struggle with the level of organisation required to do the right amount of job searching, turn up on time with the requisite fit note covering the correct period etc. This system basically makes the lowest rate guaranteed. It would be means tested so anyone earning enough to pay tax would essentially pay it back. It would also mean low earners don't get UC taken away at 67p in the pound or whatever it is currently. It would save a lot of admin costs. Disability benefits could still exist and housing benefits but for a large group of people this system would be all they need.

Yes I know that (VAT comment). I teach Economics. I thought we were playing Fantasy Policy. Just come back to this thread to say the FT was reporting today a study has found that a UBI that paid 20% of average income would cost £400bn. For comparison, we pay £4bn each year servicing the National Debt.

Pigs might fly...

That can't be right

There's about 30 million adults of working age?

And 20% of average income is about £6,000?

So that's 1.8 billion isn't it?

I think an amount would also be paid for children. I read an article the other day about a possible trial in Scotland and I believe the figures suggested were £4800 per adult and £1500 per child