• Welcome to DOSBODS

     

    DOSBODS is free of any advertising.

    Ads are annoying, and - increasingly - advertising companies limit free speech online. DOSBODS Forums are completely free to use. Please create a free account to be able to access all the features of the DOSBODS community. It only takes 20 seconds!

     

Sign in to follow this  
HolyCow

Universal Basic Income?

Recommended Posts

How likely are we to get UBI now? It seems the Government in it's panic to please everyone has pushed itself into a hard corner. Sunak doesn't know how to remove the furlough scheme and apparently 52% of the population is now being paid by the Government. Apparently the Tories do have a magic money tree afterall... 9_9. Anyway, I know they don't like UBI but I think it is quite likely we'll have some form of it. We already have helicopter money for loans and grants to businesses, the longer this goes on the harder it will be to take the free money away and the remaining 48% will start to revolt at paying all the taxes without any of the benefits. UBI could be a way to sweeten it for everyone and then the Government can control most of us.

Oh and apparently cash is a goner...who would have thought. The Orwellian takeover has been so easy and so quick to achieve.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/news/article-8289561/Will-cash-victim-virus-Businesses-refuse-coins-notes.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A liveable level of UBI would be a disaster because a lot of people would not work a day in their lives; I wouldn't have done so and several on here have said the same. You can't just restrict it to the idle and stupid.  The hard working and intelligent will take it and go off and spend their lives learning things and be creative.

Where is your economy then?

 

Going cashless is to my mind on a par with the paperless office and FM Radio switch off.  It's always five years away.

Whenever it is seriously analysed it becomes very clear that a lot of currently disadvantaged groups (elderly, learning difficulties, restricted sight) would have real trouble without it.  It's going nowhere. 

I use it because I prefer to do so and will continue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Frank Hovis said:

A liveable level of UBI would be a disaster because a lot of people would not work a day in their lives; I wouldn't have done so and several on here have said the same. You can't just restrict it to the idle and stupid.  The hard working and intelligent will take it and go off and spend their lives learning things and be creative.

Where is your economy then?

So people are going to quit work forever because the state gives them £70 a week. Really?

After a housing crash you would still be looking at £35 a week to live in one room of a HMO (and this is very minimal in a Northern slum town type affair). Eating only rice, canned tomatoes, ramen you would be looking at £10 a week in food. Leaving you with £25 a week to spend on, presumably marijuana and mobile phone credits. If you did that every day, you would run out of pot before next week's payment came in.

I doubt the majority of the country would plan to live like that. Maybe in the first few months, until they realised. But rarely as a life plan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

UBI might work if used as a tool to completely rejig the UK's welfare state.  

But even with UBI it would result in a whole pile of moans about how tough life is (when you've never worked because you arranged your life around milking the welfare state.

The interesting part is the (working) population's new attitude to welfare and those on welfare -- I'm sure there are large numbers of people who've had to go on 'proper welfare' for the first time and have noticed how there's bugger all money for those who live a normal life, but lots for those who've gamed the system.   This could trigger a significant change over the next decade.

[There's also gen-z, who are the perfect antidote to the Millennials -- there are big changes coming as their votes replace those of the Baby Boomers]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, HolyCow said:

How likely are we to get UBI now? 

 

No one would work.

Everyone would stay at home.

Until they realised it was 6p a week and a loaf now cost £400. And then we're all fucked anyway.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, billfunk said:

So people are going to quit work forever because the state gives them £70 a week. Really?

After a housing crash you would still be looking at £35 a week to live in one room of a HMO (and this is very minimal in a Northern slum town type affair). Eating only rice, canned tomatoes, ramen you would be looking at £10 a week in food. Leaving you with £25 a week to spend on, presumably marijuana and mobile phone credits. If you did that every day, you would run out of pot before next week's payment came in.

I doubt the majority of the country would plan to live like that. Maybe in the first few months, until they realised. But rarely as a life plan.

It would surely be higher than that.

But yes.  HMO or studio flat, surfboard, guitar and some cash in hand work to run an old car.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, Frank Hovis said:

It would surely be higher than that.

But yes.  HMO or studio flat, surfboard, guitar and some cash in hand work to run an old car.

Why? £70 a week for every British person would cost about the same as the current pensions and welfare bill. And the beauty is that it would cap the state's liabilities in line with the population. Also, it would remove the incentive for low-skilled, low-pay immigration to lower the tax base via housing benefit and tax credit subsidies.

And of course, there would be no national minimum wage as the state would see to it that people had a basic living standard prior to entering into any wage discussions with potential employers. That's why it is fundamentally a pro-capitalist policy rather than a communist one. It absolves the state of any duty of care to provide welfare to its citizens.

Edited by billfunk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, billfunk said:

Why? £70 a week for every British person would cost about the same as the current pensions and welfare bill. And the beauty is that it would cap the state's liabilities in line with the population. Also, it would remove the incentive for low-skilled, low-pay immigration to lower the tax base via housing benefit and tax credit subsidies.

And of course, there would be no national minimum wage as the state would see to it that people had a basic living standard prior to entering into any wage discussions with potential employers. That's why it is fundamentally a pro-capitalist policy rather than a communist one. It absolves the state of any duty of care to provide welfare to its citizens.

There would be a lot of savings.

Tens of thousands of public sector workers sacked who administer benefits.

All public sector workers would have their salaries cut by £70 a week.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, sarahbell said:

 

No one would work.

Everyone would stay at home.

Until they realised it was 6p a week and a loaf now cost £400. And then we're all fucked anyway.

 

Of course people would work if it's set at the right level.

All work will pay.

If you want luxuries like foreign holidays, a car, or iphones you'll have to work for it.

Do you think people will just want to sit around all day doing nothing?

Edited by Syd Germs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, billfunk said:

Why? £70 a week for every British person would cost about the same as the current pensions and welfare bill. And the beauty is that it would cap the state's liabilities in line with the population. Also, it would remove the incentive for low-skilled, low-pay immigration to lower the tax base via housing benefit and tax credit subsidies.

And of course, there would be no national minimum wage as the state would see to it that people had a basic living standard prior to entering into any wage discussions with potential employers. That's why it is fundamentally a pro-capitalist policy rather than a communist one. It absolves the state of any duty of care to provide welfare to its citizens.

I repeat though that you would lose a lot of productive work by bringing it in.

When dole was easy to get back in the 80s, so not that different to a UBI, several of my mates just took it and went surfing for three to five years after leaving school.

I've lost touch but maybe they still are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

surely an easier route would be to raise the tax free income threshold to 100k?  

A major disincentive to work harder is the fact that every hour you work, over a third goes to chavs down the road.  remove that, and you realign much better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Frank Hovis said:

I repeat though that you would lose a lot of productive work by bringing it in.

 

As opposed to the current system where people do productive stuff like running nail bars.

I'd argue that people will be more productive. Do stuff they actually like and enjoy.

People aren't very productive when they are forced to do stuff they don't want to do .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, billfunk said:

Why? £70 a week for every British person would cost about the same as the current pensions and welfare bill. And the beauty is that it would cap the state's liabilities in line with the population. Also, it would remove the incentive for low-skilled, low-pay immigration to lower the tax base via housing benefit and tax credit subsidies.

And of course, there would be no national minimum wage as the state would see to it that people had a basic living standard prior to entering into any wage discussions with potential employers. That's why it is fundamentally a pro-capitalist policy rather than a communist one. It absolves the state of any duty of care to provide welfare to its citizens.

The tories would never agree to such a socialist policy. Money only ever goes to business (as we have seen recently). Never the scummy people who do the work. People are replaceable by migrants, businesses are holy.

Labour might consider it, but at the levels they consider paying it, it wouldnt be affordable. And there would still be a multitude of other benefits to go with it.

So it will never happen in the UK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Frank Hovis said:

I repeat though that you would lose a lot of productive work by bringing it in.

When dole was easy to get back in the 80s, so not that different to a UBI, several of my mates just took it and went surfing for three to five years after leaving school.

I've lost touch but maybe they still are.

If you think in terms of net productive work being done I think it would increase as the 80% who have to work in the current system would not be downing tools over an extra £70 a week but the 20% of layabouts on hundreds a week certainly would consider getting off their arses when their money is cut back significantly.

So a mean gain in productive work done, or the desire to do productive work. As I say, it would put a rocket up the arse of UK productivity.

1 minute ago, Green Devil said:

The tories would never agree to such a socialist policy. Money only ever goes to business (as we have seen recently). Never the scummy people who do the work. People are replaceable by migrants, businesses are holy.

Labour might consider it, but at the levels they consider paying it, it wouldnt be affordable. And there would still be a multitude of other benefits to go with it.

So it will never happen in the UK.

It's not a socialist policy. And the reason why the Tories wouldn't do it is because they would lose the grey vote and hence the election.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, billfunk said:

If you think in terms of net productive work being done I think it would increase as the 80% who have to work in the current system would not be downing tools over an extra £70 a week but the 20% of layabouts on hundreds a week certainly would consider getting off their arses when their money is cut back significantly.

So a mean gain in productive work done, or the desire to do productive work. As I say, it would put a rocket up the arse of UK productivity.

It's not a socialist policy. And the reason why the Tories wouldn't do it is because they would lose the grey vote and hence the election.

I will disagree. Its a 'Everyone gets the same money regardless' policy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, billfunk said:

If you think in terms of net productive work being done I think it would increase as the 80% who have to work in the current system would not be downing tools over an extra £70 a week but the 20% of layabouts on hundreds a week certainly would consider getting off their arses when their money is cut back significantly.

So a mean gain in productive work done, or the desire to do productive work. As I say, it would put a rocket up the arse of UK productivity.

It's not a socialist policy. And the reason why the Tories wouldn't do it is because they would lose the grey vote and hence the election.

it is a socialist policy, but that doesn't mean one should discount an idea out of hand.

for example, the idea of a national health service that treats certain things for free, irrespective of the patients wealth, has many societal benefits.  The problem is when it goes too far (current NHS one such example) where the negatives now outweigh the positives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Syd Germs said:

Of course people would work if it's set at the right level.

All work will pay.

If you want luxuries like foreign holidays, a car, or iphones you'll have to work for it.

Do you think people will just want to sit around all day doing nothing?

Yes

I think half the country are enjoying that right now.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, Green Devil said:

I will disagree. Its a 'Everyone gets the same money regardless' policy.

But ultimately the amount of the money that the state pays to people in socialist fashion would remain the same. It wouldn't introduce more or less socialism into the system. And it would greatly assist the private sector. So the net result would be to increase capitalistic forces whilst capping socialistic liabilities.

1 minute ago, sarahbell said:

Yes

I think half the country are enjoying that right now.

 

They are getting much more than £70 a week though. That's why that figure is key. It prevents the kind of luxury communism you are alluding to.

Edited by billfunk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, billfunk said:

But ultimately the amount of the money that the state pays to people in socialist fashion would remain the same. It would introduce more or less socialism into the system. And it would greatly assist the private sector. So the net result would be to increase capitalistic forces whilst capping socialistic liabilities.

Im not saying i disagree with the idea. Im just saying it wont work for the reasons i said in the UK. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was also digging out the Finnish one:

 

Quote

 

Giving jobless people in Finland a basic income for two years did not lead them to find work, researchers said.

From January 2017 until December 2018, 2,000 unemployed Finns got a monthly flat payment of €560 (£490; $634).

The aim was to see if a guaranteed safety net would help people find jobs, and support them if they had to take insecure gig economy work.

While employment levels did not improve, participants said they felt happier and less stressed.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-47169549

Now with £490 a month I would work until I had enough to buy a peice of land to grow food, stick a caravan on it out of sight of the road, and have a nest egg for emergencies.

Maybe £30k; earned in a frugal two years of hard work.

Then £490 a month woudl see me set for ten years and then I might work again for a top up.

That would be a great life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ElKapitan84 said:

Looks like SNP proposals and Finnish trials put this at less than £500 a month.  Bad news for people sucking the tax credit teet, and a bunch of others.  What will single mothers do?

1. Have fewer children they cannot afford.

2. Try to ensure they have a stable family unit with which to fund children prior to getting pregnant. The state is no longer the baby-daddy. This is not Stalinist Russia or Nazi Germany.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.