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.

Yep. We already tried that, it was bad.

Probably some who liked it on here but no thanks

Excuse me - I'm on a lot less than £150k (I'm low enough to be just below the 40p threshold). I'm not poor. Far from it. I'm very comfortable.

Are you suggesting that - under your proposal - if I was selling up and someone from London was downsizing for retirement that they wouldn't be allowed to buy it because they've got too much wealth?

I don't actually care about "profit" in housing. I do however care about having the freedom to live how I choose, in my small, pokey, 200 year old quaryman's cottage with a garden.

The sheer idiocy of the idea is astounding. It’s like some people lack basic observation skills as well as comprehension. Maybe they just hibernated through lockdown and missed the colossal harm done to an entire generation of children as result of school closures and ‘home learning’.

You think UBI is the answer to inequality?

Where have you been for the last 15 years while the level of free money being thrown around at the unproductive has grown while asset prices skyrocketed and the concentration of asset ownership consolidated at the top?

The mind boggles.

FFS, having an after tax monthly income of £6500 is very far from poor, even in London. Get a grip. Obviously it's less than the super rich have.. everyone has less than someone. If you want social housing, I suggest you change your job to a minimum wage one, and who knows, your dream may come true .

Well the £150k threshold is for London (as that is where i live). If your area is cheaper, threshold should probably be £75k household income...

And your home is private anyway, this is for the homes owned and built by the state. And the state should probably use this opportunity in the upcoming housing price crash to purchase more properties that can be repurposed for state housing. As many people would not be able to afford their mortgages.

Downsizing is an interesting question. In my home country, my dad wanted to buy government flats for my grandparents in cash and would have been allowed to because my grandfather only had a teacher's pension. It would have been a good investment for him and he was planning to purchase it in their names as well as that of myself and my sister so that we could own a home in our teens and always have a place to go back to. In hindsight it was probably a good thing it didn't work out (couldn't manage to find one in the area my dad wanted and also my grandparents deteriorated fairly quickly) as me owning a property overseas would have had implications on stamp duty relief when i finally bought in London years later. But it would have been a good option for them as it would have been more suitable for elderly living and nearer facilities. My point is that i think most elderly downsizers would probably be able to qualify as most pensions are usually less than PAYE pay.

The income threshold is meant to guard against landlords and investors buying state subsidized properties as that is where most of the RTB properties landed up.

You have the freedom to buy whatever property you wish. But at the same time, you have far less buying power than many people..this means that while you can safeguard your ownership rights for now, it is not guaranteed. There are people selling their homes to pay for healthcare treatment because NHS is underfunded. Right now..On an income of £40k can you afford £100k medical bills in your old age? Probably not. So if you sell your house to pay for medical bills and there is no subsidized government housing, where will you go? This is why we need to have a robust welfare state because in an unequal world, there are a myriad of ways poorer people can lose their assets. Healthcare, care costs, inflation, you don't need to be creative to imagine it..

We talk about welfare for the poor, but in this age, we need welfare for the ex middle classes as well..

I am actually contemplating buying ex social housing and it is my second stepper property i.e.. i had to overpay mortgage for 4 years by at least £1000 per month to get to this point.

The person selling it is definitely on at least £200k (it was her FTB flat).

It's a bit ridiculous that we are the ones paying private market prices for it though. And market is inflated due to housing being seen as an asset rather than a roof over one's head. There should be two markets- one for speculation and another for function. That's all i am trying to say. For medical care in the uk, there is functional healthcare (NHS) and luxury healthcare (private with all the bells and whistles). There should be such a distinction for housing.

Actually there was a lot more free money being thrown at the rich due to low interest rates which meant asset prices skyrocketed.

The economy didn't grow which meant wages at the bottom and middle stagnated.

Maybe children could learn in a virtual reality environment so it would like they'd be at school without there actually having to be a school.

You have my sympathy. Being a champagne socialist must be difficult. If only you could be given whatever you want for free, then you could be truly happy

This is a country where healthcare is free at the point of access. Selling government property at cost price or at least 20% below market rate is far less controversial (at the same time as putting restrictions so that it doesn't end up in the hands of investors)

The reason why 'people who believe they are middle class' need to be given incentives is because as this thread amply shows, people don't want to accept they are poor. So we have to lie to them and tell them they aren't poor (and this subsidized housing is not the same as the housing for the 'poor' people) while making sure they don't completely bankrupt themselves trying to compete with the actual rich or investors to buy property. We are going to see lots of repossessions as families struggle to pay their mortgages. And a lot of them would be the 'middle class'.

I know of a Tory who is now voting labour as her mortgage went up £500 and that is a lot of money to her. Apparently she was not as middle class as she thought.

@socialmedia23 a household income of £75k is not "poor". Particularly not outside of London. You really need to gain some perspective.

So I read this thread, those for this idea are still not answering a fundamental question.

What happens when people who don’t want to pay for this start to leave? It will first be the corporations, then (ironically) those with ties to other countries, then finally it will be those who say fuck it and go somewhere else.

Do the doors get locked? Other countries in this scenario haven’t signed up for this so people will be able to look around and notice that they don’t have to finance other people not working if they move.

Does everyone just say screw it I’m not working extra so someone else can sit on their ass and not contribute?

what about the people who get this UBI, do they suddenly feel like like are secure? Or do they look around and see that there are still ‘rich people’ who have more than them. Are they happy in there little state sponsored ghettos, where they can’t afford a car, can’t shop for their own groceries, etc?

Because it will be a ghetto, and they certainly won’t be living next door to someone who is working and can make choices… unless you take that choice away from someone who is working…which will incentivize them toe either move or stop working themselves…which reduces the money coming in to pay for those not working… which means you can’t afford to pay people not to work… which means you’ll have to make them work to get stuff done…

Honestly, this is communism which has NEVER worked because it goes against human nature and really only produces better capitalists but then punishes them for it.

Apparently it would be cheaper to do this as it's a lot less complicated than calculating benefits.
If work you'd get your pay on top of this. I also think it's good for working people as employees probably wouldn't have to work in crap jobs. Not necessarily pay more but make the working environment pleadsnt

If everyone was so short sighted, no one would be living in London/SE and paying rent or a mortgage. Everyone would get a job paying £20-28k and live in a part of the UK where it costs £100k for a house. Maybe you can even work part time and top up with benefits..easier life.

But there are tons of people living in London /SE, in particular there are 9 million people living in London. And most people don't start out at 6 figures. This is because most people recognize that when you start working, you have a chance to increase your earnings and even if you don't become 'rich' you can still afford more luxuries and to buy the things you value. And if you stay on UBI, you would not be able to do that. Our combined income increased from £48k to £120k from 2016 to 2023 (my first job paid £18k which is around the same as UBI today). You can bet if i had received UBI instead of my first job, then i would still be on 18k maybe 19k and then i would be truly fucked. I am sure most people are smart enough to work out that if they choose to stay on UBI in the long term, that is just a recipe for disaster.

One benefit of UBI is that it would allow people to start a business or study without worrying too much about the bills. That would actually increase earning power in the long run.

Communism is when the state owns the means of production and decides how much of each product should be produced. UBI isn't advocating for that at all. It's just a different way of paying the poor and lower middle classes top up benefits so that they don't lose their pride and dignity (as i am guessing they don't want to accept that they are poor and possibly it may be detrimental to their mental health)..i expect that practically, higher rate taxpayers would be paying tax on their UBI..so it would be kinda like child benefit. On paper i am entitled to child benefit but as DH earns above the threshold, i have to pay it back.

*stay on UBi meaning surviving solely on UBI in the long term

I don't think UBI will ever happen so I don't think it is something worth worrying about. If it does ever come to be, I hope I am not around by then as I think it will be absolute hell on earth.

That's why people plan and establish careers first and buy a house before having children.

I haven't read all the pages

In the news this week there is a 2 year trial
£1500 per month
No requirement to work, but you can work

Technology has taken away do many jobs. Tech is literally doing lots of jobs and earning money. Ai will increase this. This should mean more money and leisure time and money for all of us but instead the top keeps getting richer while the rest of us struggle. Take a look at how much richer the super rich have got in recent years because of this. A basic income is possible

Also many would use ubi to take the time to move into more rewarding and high paying careers. It would help social mobility. It's rude to assume everyone would just choose to live off it and drop out of work. Many want fulfillment they can't pursue on low paid long hours

Perhaps offer everyone the option of 10 years ubi to be taken when chosen

It would kill social mobility stone dead. There would be a two tier society and the two tiers would be entirely separate.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65806599

I was close it is £1600 per month

That is a decent amount