Universal basic income and what it may look like

[porkpiesinthepark]

I've been thinking for a while about the criticism of UBI and I think it's due to people not being able to imagine the government trying to 'match' peoples wages. In my opinion, it never will but there will be alternatives to what we have now, which will be able to offer something better.

So say the UBI is £1000 a month for a single person.
We could change the housing market to allow much more public housing with rents set at an affordable level, much more stability, no private landlords and the option to customise/ change your home. Let's face it, home ownership is out of reach for the majority at present. I don't find people are dying to own their own homes but desperate to be out of the instability of the private rental market, out of parents houses, out of house shares etc. If you could offer the next best thing to owning your own house, I think people would go for it.
There would be much more community linked to people having extra time due to not working or not working as many hours. Now, not having enough to do in the day is bad but most people have these huge dreams for retirement and this would just allow them to do some of these things now instead. Also more volunteering, looking after elderly relatives etc.
I don't think that private car ownership would be a thing. There would be a big system like Uber who you could call rides on. There would be a cheaper option, say if ten people wanted to go to the city centre at the same time, they would have to walk to a hub and then the van would pick everyone up, like public transport but based on demand. It would be a status symbol to be able to call a car out just for you.
I think a lot more people would wfh getting the cost of transport and childcare down. Schools might even go remote, as there wouldn't be both parents working and so in theory they could help facilitate the lessons. Then teachers would have small classes of Sen kids like mine, key workers and vulnerable children. Kids would interact with others through volunteering groups with parents, or just playing out as there would be less cars and more parents around to keep an eye on them.
People will either hate this vision as it's so different to what we have now. Or they will like some parts. But what we have now can't continue.

In what way am I missing the point? This is a thread about UBI and what it might look like.

In what way am I missing the point? This is a thread about UBI and what it might look like.

Because even in terms of just UBI you seem to have missed the point entirely - firstly that it is meant to be universal, and secondly that it is instead of existing benefits, not to maintain those expensive systems alongside it.

I shall continue to shop for groceries in person, I don't care what you say. I'd sooner support independent butchers and greengrocers than conform to your brave new world where no one has any reason to leave the home.

Apologies if this has been said before, but any UBI must come hand-in-hand with the removal of ALL tax credits and a much flatter income tax regime.

Resources will never not be scarce. There is a finite amount of resources on this planet and many of them are being used up. It will be harder and harder to extract what we need as time goes on.

@baroqueandblue @Swrigh1234 not to be a hipster, but I started the same thread two years ago and got about five replies saying that I was crazy and AI was nothing to worry about.

In my scenario it will be universal, to everyone over 18.
I take your point that ideally it would replace all current benefits, but unfortunately if it was to replace all current child and disability benefits, let alone housing, it would have to be set at such a high rate as to be impossible to implement.
I think a low UBI is better than no UBI. Get it brought in, then worry about increasing the rate and discontinuing other benefits.
I can't see housing ever being included in UBI - it is a separate issue.

Why a much flatter income tax? I don't see the logical connection.

You reckon that's the reason?

Yeah I don't see housing costs being included in UBI, not with rent varying so massively across the country.

But £1k a month UBI per adult would cost 3 times what’s the current system does. And wouldn’t have accounted for children or the costs of disability.

Are you suggesting that we should just let fathers abandon all financial responsibility for their kids if they so choose?

Beezknees · Today 21:03
Yeah I don't see housing costs being included in UBI, not with rent varying so massively across the country.

But turn that on it's head, should the taxpayer be propping up inflated housing costs in some areas of the country? Should the taxpayer be subsidising pay for businesses in some areas of the country? UBI would encourage people to take risks and be entrepreneurial throughout the country as they would have their basic needs met. Basing the economy on house values is ridiculous, if the Government pulled all it's departments out of London and stopped paying London Weighting on jobs house prices would drop by a lot which just means the current house prices are inflated and don't actually reflect a market value.

£1k/month just isn't going to happen (at current prices, obviously inflation will eventually bring it up to that anyway). A more likely figure is £670/month which is the minimum a state pensioner is considered able to live on.

I don't think it will happen at all because people won't vote for it.

Well as the old saying goes, even a broken clock is right twice a day...

The reason you've got more people agreeing with you this time around is because the media hysteria has gone into overdrive in the last few weeks. It's the topic of gloom de jour!

Du jour, even. Still gloomy as fuck!

Am I still allowed to use public transport to go to the city centre, or do I have to go to the pick-up point to be put in a van with 10 other people?

Like @DdraigGoch, I would expect any UBI to be set at a NMW/pension level, and uprated with inflation. But then one has to consider the tax regime, so no personal allowances, and a flat rate income tax on all income, earned and unearned. Additional tax allowances for two, or maybe three children, per mother, but none for fathers unless awarded custody by court.

You're in the banana truck with the Iconoclasts For Resistance. Apparently <checks notes> it might be my turn to drive, in a fetching beret.

I'm quite looking forward to it.

Is the banana truck still going to have bananas in it? I'm going to walk if so - can't stand the smell of bananas!🍌🍌🍌

Well the taxpayer does that already! Some form of rent control would be better.

The ones that rent get housing benefit on top of that.

It will never happen here because the majority of voters cannot STAND the idea that someone else is getting something for 'nothing'.

Doesn't matter if it costs that voter more to chase the non-working benefit recipient around forcing them into jobs they don't want, can't do, who do not actually want to employ them.

I think it'd be brilliant but heres the other reason it will never happen.

It would be a world in which employers have to actually provide benefits beyond 'a wage' to their employees.

Employers would have to make working for them desirable, they'd have to make it fit in with peoples lives, rather than demand people sacrifice their lives for their jobs.

We would still have jobs filled, but more on a part time and job share basis, the toxic work-culture we currently have would not be possible with a UBI system.

Of course on the plus side, employers would have workers who actively wanted to be there for reasons other than survival which is likely to make them far better workers, doing a better job.

How much better would carers, cleaners, menial shitty hard work jobs be, if to get anyone to do them they HAD to pay really bloody well and have reasonable hours? THose who do not want to do such jobs, wouldn't. Those who DO, are more likely to be good at it and work hard.

We would also have many more volunteers for charity roles, because it would not impact their income. There are many people who can't work reliably, to support themselves, but CAN do useful volunteer work as and when suits them/they;re able - but they can't do a lot of that now or they risk losing the benefits they live on.

We would save loads of money if we stop trying to force the can't work/won't work brigade into work - no fucker wants to employ them anyway (and before anyone yells at me, I am technically in the 'can't work' camp, I do work, because I want to, but I am unemployable!), it costs loads of money to chase around after them forcing them to attend bullshit work fayres and courses and fortnightly meetings and filling out forms and so on. Then they get a job that isn't a real bloody job, then they fall out of that job shortly after (but that isn't a statistic anyone cares about, only the 'got a job' statistic matters).. and round it goes again.

@WiddlinDiddlin I agree. I'll never forget the conversation I had with someone I went to primary school with, who went on to have four kids by the age of 30. The government were offering her all kinds of incentives to go to work, even though she had never worked and wasn't the sharpest. They were going to pay 80% of childcare x 4 to get her into a minimum wage job, I mean, how does that benefit the tax payer? Just let the girl be a mum!
People like me and you will always work as we enjoy it and it's part of what makes up our self esteem. There is no benefit to pushing those who don't or can't work into employment. Some people will never hold down longterm jobs and that's ok. Maybe they'll get a lot out of volunteering, chatting to the elderly, keeping a lovely garden. Why force them into work just because we want/ have to?