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.

The point of it is that it would be funded by taxes on capital. It's quite clear already no more can be squeezed out of higher rate income rax payers who are paying marginal rates of 85% to over 100% already on incomes from £50k upwards if they also have young children. The limit there has been reached.

The only way to fund UBI would be tax start taxing capital far more, not earnings. This can only happen to the extent needed it there are large productivity gains: the need for UBI and the means to fund it are linked. It will be because work will soon become very scarce, and simultaneously there will be very large productivity gains. But those accruing them need people to sell their products to who are not destitute, and also will not be able to operate in a jurisdiction at all unless they pay the taxes. It is a means of redistribution. It isn't about individuals upping sticks, that will make no difference. Systems will be changed so that if you sell products in a jurisdiction, you pay large taxes because you'll be making huge amounts of money, like in any other stage of a leap forward in technology, but this time on steroids.

That's if it's done properly, the adjustment of social structures to adapt. But I doubt it will be in time to avoid chaos because we are led by morons and based on the comments on this thread most people don't get what's about to happen in the next 10-20 years either. So many ridiculous comments based on how UBI would impact the status quo and not comprehending that this will soon cease to exist and the reason UBI is being considered is because it will be the only way to prevent total meltdown of society once work vanishes for 80%+ of people.

I disagree I think it could help because the poorer could afford to quit work to study, freelance or train their way into a better career or start a business.

This is just stupid. How can you draw any meaningful conclusions from a sample of 30? And from two specific areas, so it can't possibly be "representative" as they claim. All they'll do is write up what happened with 30 people and shove it into statistically meaningless graphs and conclude "further research should happen to draw conclusions." Because no conclusions can possibly be drawn from it, so if you know that at the outset, why not do the research properly in the first place?!

There has been a trial in a Scandinavian country too

Instead of me working 12 hour shifts
Perhaps someone would like to pay me the £1600 a month instead ?

Alrighty… good luck to all of you that are gunning for this.

It will fail as miserably as it’s failed in the past. All of these ideas and theories always fail to take into consideration the most important component. The humans that are involved. Please think of the worst people that you can think of and fit them into this utopian mold.

The feckless, the cheaters, the cocklodgers, the CFs, the unreasonable, the driven, the gullible, the social climbers, the liars, the selfish, and the dreaded individual.

They will not fit into your utopia.

You may be thinking of Finland. Also not enough people to draw meaningful conclusions to extrapolate. But the results they did have showed that for those involved it increased wellbeing, but not employment market participation. Again a scewed group of participants, again too small a sample, and again not taking account of effects when everyone receives it which will be quite different to when only some do (in terms of inflation, incentives, etc). Also ignoring the very purpose of the idea to begin with and why it is being explored further in several countries.

Ridiculous way to study the concept. If one was being cynical, one might conclude these were attempts to discredit the idea based on how incompetently designed the studies are. Or, the studies are being done by silly people who haven't put all the jigsaw pieces together yet and are concentrating only on their own academic fields in isolation.

I disagree I think it could help because the poorer could afford to quit work to study, freelance or train their way into a better career or start a business.

Aargh. It won't be possible to pay for UNTIL there is no work for most people. That's the whole reason it is being seriously considered: because until then it couldn't possibly be funded, and until then it couldn't possibly be paid for either.

That's why studies in the current economic system are pointless because the same "rules" will not apply.

Ridiculous way to study the concept. If one was being cynical, one might conclude these were attempts to discredit the idea based on how incompetently designed the studies are

Or it’s an exercise to Pat the deluded on the head to pacify them while everyone else gets on with living.

Sorry, until then it would not be *necessary

Okaaay

Good luck with that.

You may find the chickens that "come home" have pecky beaks in a few years.

Wasn’t there a trail of this somewhere in Scandinavia? Basically everyone was more chilled but had no inspiration/ambition to do f all?

www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/05/finlands-basic-income-trial-found-people-were-happier-but-werent-more-likely-to-get-jobs/

Which was an obvious conclusion they could have drawn before they began. 😆

The point is rather what happens when there IS no work to "get".

Surely there’s always work to get? Leisure, tourism, experiences?

Sure. Perhaps you should do a little reading while you are waiting. I consider both of these to be good ideas for how these grand ideas affect the normal people under these regimes. And before someone says but wait… it would be different these countries had/have dictators… this is what it comes down to because your average person agrees to these terms under force and coercion.

But I’m totally sure this time will be different…HAHAHA

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Whisperers-Private-Life-Stalins-Russia/dp/B07GL2W544/ref=sr_1_1?crid=3JPRKLT4VSDW1&keywords=the+whisperers+private+life+in+stalin%27s+russia&qid=1686015238&sprefix=The+whisperers%2Caps%2C166&sr=8-1

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Nothing-Envy-Ordinary-Lives-North/dp/B004AG4AII/ref=sr_1_4?crid=12NSWEFSRBRXR&keywords=North+Korea&qid=1686015285&s=audible&sprefix=north+korea%2Caudible%2C152&sr=1-4

I can only see UBI creating more of a divide. 50% of the population are less intelligent than the other…a certain percentage cost more than they give to society.
someone needs to code the AI systems, run and manage. Do they get the same basic income as Stacey sat on her fat arse?

We’ll Stacey won’t be sitting on her fat arse , she’ll have inexplicably found the motivation to create art or run a business to allow her to work her arse off to pay for someone else.

Not a fan I take it

Clearly I’d be one of the first to ‘have the opportunity to attend a reeducation seminar’ 😬

It’s just frustrating to watch these grand ideas play out in people’s imagination. It’s fear at the end of the day. Unfortunately , this particular scenario has been played out again and again with devastating consequences for the very people it was supposed to help.

But hey, what do I know. I’m totally sure it would be different this time.

AI will code itself. This is happening already, with systems upgrading themselves. A kind of "evolution", if you will, but much faster. Human input not required.

@saltinesandcoffeecups lol, don’t get me wrong, I don’t really support it. Do we not already have a system to support those in need?

I can only see UBI creating more of a divide. 50% of the population are less intelligent than the other

No shit...

Human input required to control it

Human input required to control it

Good luck.