Apparently it's something they're keen on in Sheffield. I can see the logic behind it for the unemployed or on zero hours contracts, but I'm struggling to see the benefit of giving it to those in FTE. Can anyone elucidate?
I could be way off the mark with the logic, but when I was at uni, I found it very difficult to balance my studies with the evening job I had to pay my own way. Some extra cash would have been very useful, but then who would do the 'student jobs'? I guess it's all about finding the balance.
UBI is a theoretical policy where every adult, regardless of job status, receives the same monthly amount of money from the government. This is something that is meant to supersede things such as benefits and student finance. It's a policy generally associated with the political left but is not necessarily against the economically liberal theories of economists such as Hayek and Friedman. If they're trialing it in a specific location such as Sheffield I'm not sure how they'll fund it because, as you can imagine, it'd be a bloody mammoth policy to finance.
I've not heard of this before... so how does it work... everyone in a group, range, age, whatever other criteria, is paid a preset flat level of income irrespective of their skills, knowledge, character, effort and whether they are in work or not?
Been trialing it in a few countries, Finland have just ended theirs, won't be happening there. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entr...-ontario-stockton_us_5c5c3679e4b00187b558e5ab Edit: new link, previous link was behind a paywall
I just can't get my head around the funding. I am in FTE and not eligible for any benefits. I presume there's plenty in the same situation. So if this was introduced I would just in effect stop paying income tax? I can't see how this is viable. I must be missing summat.
This is what I think I am misunderstanding. I have read that we all get 500 quid so you'd get it if you were on 100k or if you were unemployed. That can't be it.
It's not making much sense to me. If you have private income of a good level, the extra is a waste of public money. If you have your salary taken off you to be replaced by a government payment of £500, you're not going to be happy with life and removes any drive to improve, skill and better yourself.
I suppose so, yes. Although it reality you will be paying income tax, then getting a fixed fee back from the government. I believe it was about 500 quid a month when they trialed it in Sweden. I believe that policies such as this will become more common in the future, when in essence machines will be doing more and more jobs. money made by the companies that control the computers that do the jobs (manufacturing, warehouse work etc.) will pay into the system, in absence of income tax, then the money will be used as a UBI. That's the idea, anyway, as I understand it. (Just realised that for some reason I misinterpreted FTE as full time education earlier, hence my earlier comment not making much sense...)
Everybody, regardless of earnings, from the richest billionaires to the poorest vagrants, would receive a specific, universal amount of money per month. In order to fund it obviously income tax would have to be raised significantly (although I would guess that this extra burden would probably be levied on the richest few percent of society).
Maybe look at it as an earlier introduced state pension, or pensioner bus pass/TV licence? Everyone gets it, whether they need it or not. The negative argument is that it removes motivation, the positive it provides breathing room for education and creativity, as state benefit did in the past. I think it's a good idea in theory, in practice it will be ridiculously difficult to organise and very easy to exploit.
Not really. As I understand it everyone would receive that basic income but then anything you earned yourself would still be yours to keep, subject to income tax and NI. There would presumably need to be some changes to the thresholds there to make the books balance. The beauty of it is that everyone is incentivised to work as little or as much as they want and are able to. No more of this crazy situation where people are better off not working or not working more than x hours a week (and no, that's not a dig at those on benefits, just an acceptance of the anomalies that the current system can sometimes create). So if you get offered 2 hours a week and you want to do it then you can just do it, pay tax on your income if there's sufficient to demand it and your universal basic income is unaffected. It would also mitigate the sometimes vitriolic divisions in our society where some groups feel aggrieved by the lifestyles of those on benefits and others feel that those in employment don't appreciate or understand their personal situation. Everyone gets this money so there's none of this "I'm paying for your lifestyle" nonsense. We would of course need to retain certain benefits, such as incapacity or disability allowances but I believe this would replace JSA, tax credits, etc. I stand to be corrected if I've got the wrong end of the stick but I like the idea a lot.
It is not a concept soley linked to the left. Richard Nixon early in his term was looking at introducing it.
It's an idea with a huge amount of merit. It removes all bureacracy and costs associated with a means based system, removes any negativity towards people on benefits as we all get the same, opens up the opportunity for people to make better decisions about work life balance, allows a better system of family based care for the elderly and young whilst reducing some of the burden on the state, and prepares us better for the fourth industrial revolution when technology and automation is going to wipe out the availability of jobs on a massive scale. And for those who love money they can still work as much as they did before but with the bonus of their universal basic income. Of course it would need more progressive taxation to make it work.
That is the basic idea. It would remove a significant cost (and stigma) of claiming benefits, needs testing, etc, and allow people to pursue their own interests. Removing the tax allowances and changing the tax rates would fund it. Although I've been toying with the idea of a "Community Income" rather than UBI. Basically, you get paid for being part of the community, so you get the same payment if you work for a certain number of hours per week, are in education, or just help out at a charity, etc. Provided you do something rather than just sitting around at home watching tv for 168 hours a week.
Sorry, but all people aren't the same. Means testing is important. I don't have a stigma of anyone who needs assistance. But something universal for people who don't need it is ridiculous. I think as Finland scrapped it, it shows it hasn't had any conceivable benefit and laziness is encouraged while upward mobility is curtailed. I could imagine it being even worse in a country with as appalling a productivity rate as we have. Still utterly bonkers, and certainly isn't the right way forward as we back ourselves over our giant manmade cliff.
But your assuming everyone has a value system where upward mobility is based on wanting more money. It gives people the opportunity to choose to do different things other than full time paid employment, like informal care, community work, leisure time. I would certainly chose to work 4 days instead of 5. Those that place value on income would continue to work full time. As others have said it would encourage those who don't work at all to take some paid employment in addition to their universal income by removing the barriers the current welfare system creates.
£500 per month is not much to live on. But if you supplement that with a part time job you could. You could choose to do something less well paid but still rewarding (social care, youth support etc.). I like it as a concept. As more and more tasks are automated there has to be something that allows those whose jobs have been replaced to live. Examples of jobs that will not exist in a couple of decades time include any driving based job (driverless transport) and any delivery task (drones). That's off the top of my head. Most production has the potential be fully automated. Without UBI we would have even more of a two tiered society.
So does that mean you don't agree with free NHS health care for anyone who can afford to pay for their own treatment? It's a similar culture shift, IMHO.