Could a Universal Basic Income (UBI) work?

[GusB]

It utterly amazes me that people are still expecting something in return for Universal Basic Income being paid out when the whole point of it is that it's a) universal and b) unconditional.

I've recently been through the whole process of having to claim Universal Credit and, while it's a good idea in theory, in practice it's absolutely horrendous because of its conditionality, even when someone has legitimate medical reasons for not being able to work. Towards the end of the process I felt I that I was being pushed towards finding work when I genuinely wasn't ready for it, and I'm rather glad that I no longer have that pressure; one sure way to exacerbate a medical issue is to have the Sword of Sanctions held over your head for the slightest of issues. Missed your job centre appointment because your hourly bus was late? Well, that's too bad - you should have caught the earlier one, even if it means hanging around in the cold for ages with no money in your pocket to go to somewhere warm and have a coffee. Similarly, if you do turn up on time they often keep you waiting so that you miss your hourly bus home - there's no sanction that goes the other way.

It may come as a surprise to some, but the days of someone signing on the dole and doing nothing are long gone, and have been since before Cameron & Co took power in 2010. Those who are medically fit enough to work sign an "agreement" that outlines exactly what they're expected to do to find work; if there's the slightest deviation from that agreement, sanctions are applied that can literally mean the difference between having a roof over your head and being homeless. How is that supposed to encourage anyone into work? It's simply a box-ticking exercise that's neither good for the individual involved, nor the state.

UBI does away with all this nonsense. I agree that there will be some who sit on their arses and do nothing, but I'm willing to bet that it's only a small section of the population. I'm also willing to bet that a great number of those people are simply unaware of what skills they do have and are acutely aware of the skills that they lack. There may be issues with basic literacy or numeracy, but this isn't going to be fixed as long as there is more stick than carrot, as the current incarnation of the Job Centre is set up to do. Don't get me wrong, there are some Job Centre staff who are absolute gems and you can tell that they're genuinely frustrated by the system but there are some absolute horrors who shouldn't ever be let near a public-facing role.

We should be encouraging education to help people who fell through the cracks of the school system with the basics and to provide further skills for those who perhaps just lack a bit of confidence. It's no good offering someone the chance to go to college to do a course that will improve their skills when all of a sudden a job offer comes up and they have to take it and ditch college because the hours aren't compatible. It's just madness!

UBI gives those people who are willing to upskill the chance to do so without the additional pressure. It allows people to take a break for a while and possibly go in a different career direction if they find that their current job isn't fulfilling enough. It's not just about giving free money to so-called layabouts.

 

[najaB]

It utterly amazes me that people are still expecting something in return for Universal Basic Income being paid out when the whole point of it is that it's a) universal and b) unconditional.

[Long post snipped]

UBI gives those people who are willing to upskill to do so without the additional pressure. It allows people to take a break for a while and possibly go in a different career direction if they find that their current job isn't fulfilling enough. It's not just about giving free money to so-called layabouts.

Thank you very much for that post. You've made the case for UBI more eloquently than I've seen to date.

 

[Cowley]

Thank you very much for that post. You've made the case for UBI more eloquently than I've seen to date.

Yes indeed, very thought provoking and I find myself wondering where I’d be in my life if things were set up a little differently than they generally have been.

 

[DustyBin]

It utterly amazes me that people are still expecting something in return for Universal Basic Income being paid out when the whole point of it is that it's a) universal and b) unconditional.

I've recently been through the whole process of having to claim Universal Credit and, while it's a good idea in theory, in practice it's absolutely horrendous because of its conditionality, even when someone has legitimate medical reasons for not being able to work. Towards the end of the process I felt I that I was being pushed towards finding work when I genuinely wasn't ready for it, and I'm rather glad that I no longer have that pressure; one sure way to exacerbate a medical issue is to have the Sword of Sanctions held over your head for the slightest of issues. Missed your job centre appointment because your hourly bus was late? Well, that's too bad - you should have caught the earlier one, even if it means hanging around in the cold for ages with no money in your pocket to go to somewhere warm and have a coffee. Similarly, if you do turn up on time they often keep you waiting so that you miss your hourly bus home - there's no sanction that goes the other way.

It may come as a surprise to some, but the days of someone signing on the dole and doing nothing are long gone, and have been since before Cameron & Co took power in 2010. Those who are medically fit enough to work sign an "agreement" that outlines exactly what they're expected to do to find work; if there's the slightest deviation from that agreement, sanctions are applied that can literally mean the difference between having a roof over your head and being homeless. How is that supposed to encourage anyone into work? It's simply a box-ticking exercise that's neither good for the individual involved, nor the state.

UBI does away with all this nonsense. I agree that there will be some who sit on their arses and do nothing, but I'm willing to bet that it's only a small section of the population. I'm also willing to bet that a great number of those people are simply unaware of what skills they do have and are acutely aware of the skills that they lack. There may be issues with basic literacy or numeracy, but this isn't going to be fixed as long as there is more stick than carrot, as the current incarnation of the Job Centre is set up to do. Don't get me wrong, there are some Job Centre staff who are absolute gems and you can tell that they're genuinely frustrated by the system but there are some absolute horrors who shouldn't ever be let near a public-facing role.

We should be encouraging education to help people who fell through the cracks of the school system with the basics and to provide further skills for those who perhaps just lack a bit of confidence. It's no good offering someone the chance to go to college to do a course that will improve their skills when all of a sudden a job offer comes up and they have to take it and ditch college because the hours aren't compatible. It's just madness!

UBI gives those people who are willing to upskill the chance to do so without the additional pressure. It allows people to take a break for a while and possibly go in a different career direction if they find that their current job isn't fulfilling enough. It's not just about giving free money to so-called layabouts.

I actually agree with most of this. It’s not that far detached from a previous post I made, certainly in regard to up-skilling and allowing people to improve their lot in life.

This however is the bit that concerns me:

I agree that there will be some who sit on their arses and do nothing, but I'm willing to bet that it's only a small section of the population.

I’m honestly not so sure. If UBI was generous enough to make this a viable option, I think more than a small minority would take it.

 

[takno]

I’m honestly not so sure. If UBI was generous enough to make this a viable option, I think more than a small minority would take it.

Do you think these people are actually adding any value in the workplace though? There are plenty of seat-warmers who manage to get through entire careers without ever achieving anything except adding extra work and unpleasantness into the lives of their co-workers, employers and employer's customers. Frankly they'd be less damaging on benefits, and who knows they might just use the space to achieve something amazing.

We generally aren't willing as a society to let people starve, and nor should we. There are inevitably people who are at any given time unwilling or more often unable to engage in a meaningful way with the system we rather arbitrarily use to distribute resources. Is there really a massive issue with just giving them the money for the basics and letting them get on with it?

 

[JamesT]

I know its on trial here, but hasn't the UBI idea been trialled in other countries with positive results?

It's been kinda trialled. I'm not aware of anyone trialling it by blindly giving money to everyone regardless of their circumstances, it's tended to be giving to a set of people who are unemployed etc. So we have a reasonable idea what happens when you give a small group 'free money'.
But as it's been generally small scale, the other parts of implementing UBI haven't happened. The existing benefits system hasn't been withdrawn as everyone not on the trial still needs it. Changing the tax system to reclaim the additional money going to those who don't need it hasn't happened.
So we don't entirely have a picture of how behaviour would change if it was implemented fully.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It's been kinda trialled. I'm not aware of anyone trialling it by blindly giving money to everyone regardless of their circumstances, it's tended to be giving to a set of people who are unemployed etc.

In which case they haven't trialled it.

The fundamental tenet of it is that it is universal, i.e. it is paid to every single adult* unconditionally, with them able to choose, without any prejudice relating to their choice, to earn on top of that or not as they wish (or need for their chosen lifestyle). You can't trial it properly unless you're doing that, all you're trialling is a system of simplified benefits.

As an aside, one benefit of it is that the "gig economy" becomes absolutely fine as a thing, because UBI (if high enough) is the safety net. Might therefore some people choose to "job hop" a lot more, doing Deliveroo this week on my pushbike as I've put a bit of weight on and need the exercise to lose it, driving a bus or taxi for a month, doing some education and then doing a couple of months of IT contracting? I could see me doing that or similar. You don't need stuff like sick pay if the State is providing that safeguard using UBI, you can have a much purer job market without people seriously losing out. This is a curiously right-wing aspect of what is otherwise a pretty left-wing concept. And that promotes small business, because small business is disproportionately** affected by the need to pay the costs that arise from respecting employee rights as they are now.

* Or person. It'd be interesting to see the differing effects of paying it to children too, but potentially a slightly lower adult rate to compensate.

** Because of this, and because I think we'd all agree small business is a good thing, I have toyed in my mind with the idea that all employee rights stuff that requires significant funding - sick pay, redundancy pay etc - should be funded by way of a national insurance scheme that all businesses are required to pay into per employee, probably on a percentage-of-salary basis, but that everyone in the country would be entitled to the same things in principle, e.g. "100% sick pay for six months, then 80%, then 50%" or whatever we decided it to be. UBI removes the need for this, but it is another option that allows that load to be removed from small businesses. Thus the load of dealing with "stuff going wrong" would be split more proportionately between businesses.

 

[ainsworth74]

It may come as a surprise to some, but the days of someone signing on the dole and doing nothing are long gone, and have been since before Cameron & Co took power in 2010. Those who are medically fit enough to work sign an "agreement" that outlines exactly what they're expected to do to find work; if there's the slightest deviation from that agreement, sanctions are applied that can literally mean the difference between having a roof over your head and being homeless. How is that supposed to encourage anyone into work? It's simply a box-ticking exercise that's neither good for the individual involved, nor the state.

I think this is something those who haven't had to interact with the Jobcentre nor the Conditionality aspects of Universal Credit (or the handful still on Jobseekers Allowance) don't actually appreciate. It's a waste of basically everyone's time, effort and money with the only net effect often being the traumatisation of the people that it's supposed to be supporting. The majority of people who come through the Jobcentre's front door break down into three main groups.

Group One: People who are unemployed, can seek work off their own back and will find a job on their own before too long.

Group Two: People who are unemployed, can't seek work due to ill health and therefore need support for a longer period of time.

Group Three: People who are unemployed, can seek work but might struggle to find work either due a lack of appropriate skills, due to ill health (they can do some work, just not a full time job or certain types of job), due to caring responsibilities (of the child or adult variety).

Group One don't require the help of the Jobcentre and, to be frank, the Jobcentre are probably getting in the way of them actually finding work. For instance, when I signed on JSA back in 2012/13(ish) everyone who claimed JSA was sent on a three day skills course to assess their english, maths and IT skills and to help them set up email accounts. As a recent history graduate you can imagine that those three days were rather a waste of my time compared to actually trying to find work.

Group Two shouldn't need to deal with the Jobcentre because they're not fit for work but because of the broken nature of the system will have to jump through a lot of hoops to demonstrate this fact to the DWP and will probably need to regularly prove again that they remain unfit for work. We know that the Work Capability Assessment process has most probably killed people:

The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) ignored leading academics after they published “hugely alarming” research that linked the work capability assessment with 600 suicides in just three years, the Disability News Service reports.

The failure is just the latest evidence to show how the DWP ignored and covered-up warnings about the safety of its disability benefit assessment system over the last decade.

The Commons Work and Pensions Committee was hearing evidence on the assessment system on 22 June from Professor Ben Barr, from the University of Liverpool, and Dr Ben Baumberg Geiger, from the University of Kent.

Professor Barr was one of the team who published ground-breaking research in 2015 that concluded that the government’s programme to reassess people on incapacity benefit through the work capability assessment (WCA) was linked to about 600 suicides in just three years.

He told the committee that the study, and other evidence that has emerged over the last decade – such as reports of individual deaths and reports by coroners – showed “clear evidence that there’s potential for the assessment process to cause some very major adverse effects on mental health”.

He added that while it was impossible to prove that the WCA caused the 600 suicides, although it was “extremely likely” and “extremely plausible that the assessment process led to those outcomes”.

However, the DWP had not contacted the research team after the article was published. Professor Barr had recommended in the study that DWP should start to monitor the WCA’s “adverse outcomes it failed to contact them to discuss the recommendation and the wider study.

He said it was not possible to say if the level of harm had decreased since 2015 because DWP “hasn’t been collecting the data to be able to answer that question and hasn’t enabled researchers and others access to the data that would enable that to be answered more robustly.”

DWP ignored ‘hugely alarming’ research that linked WCA with 600 suicides, MPs are told | Disability Rights UK

www.disabilityrightsuk.org

Group Three, meanwhile, the group which might actually benefit the most from some sustained support tend to find that the support offered by the Jobcentre is patchy at best often not especially useful. Either because the Jobcentre and staff aren't actually equipped to help people who actually need skills support (and mostly send them to private contractors who often make money of the taxpayer whilst doing very little to actually show for it) or the benefits system by design isn't well equipped to support them.

For instance say you're ill but you can still do your little part-time job of 10 hours a week, you almost certainly won't be found to have Limited Capability for Work by a Work Capability Assessment which means that you could be subject to full conditionality and required to seek more work or better paying work. But you certainly can't do more work and it's tough to find high paying jobs sufficient to turn off conditionality (which needs to be the equivalent of 35x the minimum wage for your age group, which the DWP could reduce due to your health but, good luck with that). So eventually you'll give up your job so you've got a better chance of passing a Work Capability Assessment because having to actively seek work to avoid a sanction is probably making you more ill.

And, of course, all of this for peanuts. At the moment the standard allowance for someone 25 or over is £368.74 per month (if you're under 25 you'll get £292.11 per month). You'll get at least some help with rent (for private tenants this is capped at the 30th percentile of the average rents in your area though there was no increase this year so despite rents going up the level of support remains the same, and if you're single, under-35 with no children you'll get an even lower shared room rate) and some help with your Council Tax. But any shortfalls in your rent, council tax and then all your other bills have to be met out of this £368.74 per month. If you're mortgaged, best of luck to you because the only help you'll get is towards your interest on up to £200,000 of your loan at a fixed interest rate of 3.03%, which you'll need to pay back when the house is sold or ownership transferred (with interest on top) and only get after 3 months anyway. Hope you got mortgage protection insurance...

The whole system is rotten. The people that don't need any actual support beyond some financial support whilst they sort themselves out are just having their task made more difficult by Jobcentre interference. The people who can't work are just being traumatised whilst the people who might actually benefit from some support are finding that the system is incapable of supporting them with their more complex needs.

As a taxpayer it makes me furious seeing the utter waste of time and money that goes on in the name preventing "idleness" or people "sponging of the state" whilst also traumatising people who desperately need support and proving utterly incapable of effectively helping the people who might actually benefit from some support, guidance and direction!

 

[XAM2175]

You'll get at least some help with rent (for private tenants this is capped at the 30th percentile of the average rents in your area though there was no increase this year so despite rents going up the level of support remains the same, and if you're single, under-35 with no children you'll get an even lower shared room rate) ...

Can't help but wonder how much money is effectively being funnelled straight to private landlords through this process.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Can't help but wonder how much money is effectively being funnelled straight to private landlords through this process.

There's certainly a very strong case for building more publically owned social housing (or at least funding housing associations to do so) in order to avoid this issue.

 

[Thirteen]

I’m honestly not so sure. If UBI was generous enough to make this a viable option, I think more than a small minority would take it.

I agree, UBI would be beneficial to a lot of people but I could see some using that to just not find work.

Do you think these people are actually adding any value in the workplace though? There are plenty of seat-warmers who manage to get through entire careers without ever achieving anything except adding extra work and unpleasantness into the lives of their co-workers, employers and employer's customers. Frankly they'd be less damaging on benefits, and who knows they might just use the space to achieve something amazing.

We generally aren't willing as a society to let people starve, and nor should we. There are inevitably people who are at any given time unwilling or more often unable to engage in a meaningful way with the system we rather arbitrarily use to distribute resources. Is there really a massive issue with just giving them the money for the basics and letting them get on with it?

It could also create issues for a lot of businesses in terms of finding people who are reliable if there are those who work but then decide they're too hungover or simply can't be bothered to come in.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It could also create issues for a lot of businesses in terms of finding people who are reliable if there are those who work but then decide they're too hungover or simply can't be bothered to come in.

If one assumes that people who do choose to work want their job, they aren't going to do that too often or they're going to find themselves sacked.

 

[najaB]

I think this is something those who haven't had to interact with the Jobcentre nor the Conditionality aspects of Universal Credit (or the handful still on Jobseekers Allowance) don't actually appreciate. It's a waste of basically everyone's time, effort and money with the only net effect often being the traumatisation of the people that it's supposed to be supporting.

As I noted above, the DWP currently costs on the order of £6B a year to run.

It could also create issues for a lot of businesses in terms of finding people who are reliable if there are those who work but then decide they're too hungover or simply can't be bothered to come in.

What's the difference? Used to see plenty of them when I worked in the call centre industry.

 

[takno]

What's the difference? Used to see plenty of them when I worked in the call centre industry.

I used to be one when I worked in a call centre. My record was calling in sick for five people (more than half the team) who were sleeping it off in my living room. FWIW at least 3 of them were dangerously incompetent, so it's likely that overall customer outcomes were improved that day

 

[ainsworth74]

Can't help but wonder how much money is effectively being funnelled straight to private landlords through this process.

Quite a lot I expect! It's hard to pin down an exact figure but it would appear that we spend somewhere in the region of £20bn to £25bn a year on helping people pay their rent. Now a big chunk of that will go to social housing but its probably safe to say that at least several billion is going to private sector landlords each year through the benefits system.

As I noted above, the DWP currently costs on the order of £6B a year to run.

Indeed, lots of activity in the DWP. Very little of it actually seems to be delivering anything especially useful. Chalk it up as yet another Government department that is in crisis. Just this one is a slightly quieter crisis than say the Home Office.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I used to be one when I worked in a call centre. My record was calling in sick for five people (more than half the team) who were sleeping it off in my living room. FWIW at least 3 of them were dangerously incompetent, so it's likely that overall customer outcomes were improved that day

While I think it best that someone with a bad cold or flu takes the day off to avoid spreading it, if this is happening a lot that shows a business with very poor sickness management.

I don't think UBI would necessarily change this. While it might mean more people would take jobs like Deliveroo where if you don't work you don't get paid (due to UBI providing a safety net), businesses who want to be able to plan will presumably still offer jobs involving commitment on both sides, i.e. "we'll guarantee you shifts, but you have to guarantee to show up for them", as most jobs are now.

 

[RT4038]

I've recently been through the whole process of having to claim Universal Credit and, while it's a good idea in theory, in practice it's absolutely horrendous

That just about sums up the concept of Universal Basic Income too. The difference being that the Universal Credit system only affects those people who need to claim it, whereas UBI will affect everyone and the society which they live in.

. I agree that there will be some who sit on their arses and do nothing, but I'm willing to bet that it's only a small section of the population.

Yes, it is only a small section because the current system makes it so unpleasant and difficult to do otherwise. However, the prospect of unconditional free money would uncork a genie I am sure.

Do

We generally aren't willing as a society to let people starve, and nor should we. There are inevitably people who are at any given time unwilling or more often unable to engage in a meaningful way with the system we rather arbitrarily use to distribute resources. Is there really a massive issue with just giving them the money for the basics and letting them get on with it?

Neither are we generally willing, as a society, to give people a free ride. Yes, there is a massive issue with it - one of equity. There will always be a proportion of free riders, and the current system does well to keep this to a minimum. Likewise there is a section of the population who would be hard workers come what may. In the middle are a group who work because they have to. Aside from the need of their productivity (and they are not all wasters by any means!) , why would society want to be 'buying them off' paying them to sit on their arses?

In which case they haven't trialled it.

Quite. Lets wait for another country to trial it before we even think about it.

 

[baz962]

I used to be one when I worked in a call centre. My record was calling in sick for five people (more than half the team) who were sleeping it off in my living room. FWIW at least 3 of them were dangerously incompetent, so it's likely that overall customer outcomes were improved that day

Hope you weren't one of those 3

 

[66701GBRF]

Why shouldn't people be able to pursue art, music, crafts and other hobbies?

Pursue whatever you like, just don't expect me to fund it.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I've recently been through the whole process of having to claim Universal Credit and, while it's a good idea in theory, in practice it's absolutely horrendous because of its conditionality, even when someone has legitimate medical reasons for not being able to work. Towards the end of the process I felt I that I was being pushed towards finding work when I genuinely wasn't ready for it, and I'm rather glad that I no longer have that pressure; one sure way to exacerbate a medical issue is to have the Sword of Sanctions held over your head for the slightest of issues. Missed your job centre appointment because your hourly bus was late? Well, that's too bad - you should have caught the earlier one, even if it means hanging around in the cold for ages with no money in your pocket to go to somewhere warm and have a coffee. Similarly, if you do turn up on time they often keep you waiting so that you miss your hourly bus home - there's no sanction that goes the other way.

That sounds pretty dire and you have my sympathies if the rules they put you through are like that, but surely that's an argument for fixing the regulations around UC and how claimants are treated, so that it's more reasonable regarding things like late buses and keeping people waiting etc. and taking account of medical conditions fairly. I don't really see how the fact that UC appears to have been badly implemented amounts to an argument for UBI.

UBI gives those people who are willing to upskill the chance to do so without the additional pressure. It allows people to take a break for a while and possibly go in a different career direction if they find that their current job isn't fulfilling enough. It's not just about giving free money to so-called layabouts.

Allowing people to upskill when they wish to do so is a great aim, but if that is the aim, then I don't think it would be hard to come with far more cost effective ways to achieve that than giving a free salary to the entire UK population (the vast majority of whom are probably not at any one time interested in upskilling)!

Regarding career breaks... I think that realistically, if someone wants to take a career break, then it's probably their responsibility to make sure they first have enough savings etc. that they are able to support themselves through the career break. If I choose to take a career break, then it's not really reasonable of me to just expect all the people who are currently working to pay through their taxes for my lifestyle choice while I don't contribute anything during my break. I can see an argument for providing some support for people who are taking a career break specifically in order to retrain, but I'm sure you could figure out a more targeted way to do that than UBI.

 

[Thirteen]

Allowing people to upskill when they wish to do so is a great aim, but if that is the aim, then I don't think it would be hard to come with far more cost effective ways to achieve that than giving a free salary to the entire UK population (the vast majority of whom are probably not at any one time interested in upskilling)!

Regarding career breaks... I think that realistically, if someone wants to take a career break, then it's probably their responsibility to make sure they first have enough savings etc. that they are able to support themselves through the career break. If I choose to take a career break, then it's not really reasonable of me to just expect all the people who are currently working to pay through their taxes for my lifestyle choice while I don't contribute anything during my break. I can see an argument for providing some support for people who are taking a career break specifically in order to retrain, but I'm sure you could figure out a more targeted way to do that than UBI.

I think providing money to retrain a new area of work is a good one as long as it used for that purpose only.

I like the idea of UBI but I do worry that much like benefits, it could easily be abused,

 

[najaB]

Yes, it is only a small section because the current system makes it so unpleasant and difficult to do otherwise. However, the prospect of unconditional free money would uncork a genie I am sure.

That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

 

[SteveP29]

I recall seeing a BBC documentary on nuclear power made in the 1950’s stating the eventual aim of nuclear is to provide electricity for free.

My mother told me that when North Sea Gas was discovered, we were told that we'd never pay for gas again, now look at the price we pay at the point of use for it

I’m honestly not so sure. If UBI was generous enough to make this a viable option, I think more than a small minority would take it.

Thirteen:
I agree, UBI would be beneficial to a lot of people but I could see some using that to just not find work.

It could also create issues for a lot of businesses in terms of finding people who are reliable if there are those who work but then decide they're too hungover or simply can't be bothered to come in.

You do realise don't you that UBI pays your rent/ mortgage, council tax, utilities and feeds and clothes you.
It doesn't buy your subscription TV, broadband, tobacco, beer, holidays or days out.

If you want those things, you're also going to have to work for them

If one assumes that people who do choose to work want their job, they aren't going to do that too often or they're going to find themselves sacked.

Correct, and every sacking would make make it increasingly difficult to attain further employment.

 

[RT4038]

You do realise don't you that UBI pays your rent/ mortgage, council tax, utilities and feeds and clothes you.
It doesn't buy your subscription TV, broadband, tobacco, beer, holidays or days out.

If you want those things, you're also going to have to work for them

If you don't want those things, you won't go to work. But currently you'll have to work to to pay the rent/mortgage, council tax etc. So who is going to do the work of those people?

That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Yes - there is no evidence that UBI would be beneficial as a whole, only opinions and beliefs, so it can be dismissed.

 

[najaB]

Yes - there is no evidence that UBI would be beneficial as a whole, only opinions and beliefs, so it can be dismissed.

Mostly because it has never actually been done properly. There is, however, strong evidence that the current benefits system doesn't work.

 

[ComUtoR]

Personally I would prefer that help is targeted at those who need it most, rather than given to people who already have sufficient income and capital to support themselves.

The UBI for the lower end is there to support them. The UBI for the middle is to help ameliorate the "squeezed middle" scenarios where they have too much to be helped but too little to thrive. At the top end I'm not so sure. I'd agree that a lot of capital is tied up and getting money moving would help the economy. I'm sure those at the top end may be convinced to donate more to charity, spend some into the local drinking establishments, but the fear is that it would just make rich people richer.

I was told that this would trickle down?

Theoretically, it also helps generate more disposable income. From a personal perspective, looking at the trail in wales, that £1,600 a month would help me upgrade my car, save towards my kids education (if they end up in University), help my nephew financially, help my Son onto the property ladder, a few nights out a month for a family/friends meal, reduce my debt, finally fix/replace my laptop, some house repairs, gym membership. I could do all that without risking my mortgage or my day to day. Most of that is short term but in general, people live to their means. Potentially it would simply become my new level of normal (just like a typical wage increase) Maybe some long term investments for retirement.

Would a UBI potentially replace pensions ?

 

[najaB]

I'm sure those at the top end may be convinced to donate more to charity, spend some into the local drinking establishments, but the fear is that it would just make rich people richer.

So the Larry Ellison's of the world go from a monthly income of $700,000,000 to $7,001,000. I don't think it'll really make that much of a difference to his lifestyle.

 

[Tetchytyke]

No I didn't. You referred to 'money to pay the rent' so I assumed you were talking about renting stuff out.

Fair enough, apologies I was terse.

You're the one that keeps trying to link this to 'the poorest in society'. I've made no such connection so I think you're somewhat putting words in my mouth there. As far as I'm concerned it's a simple case of, if you have decided to live your life by not contributing anything to society, then you have no right to expect society to support you

UBI would only really be relevant for poorer people, though, so it is a relevant comment.

As for “contribution to society”, presumably you are measuring this in terms of tax revenue. And the moral aspect of that quickly falls away when you look at the rampant corporate and personal tax avoidance that you have in the UK.

Corporate tax avoiders are content to take from society- the costs of educating their workforce, keeping their workforce healthy, paying their workforce’s wages when they’re sick- without contributing anything in return.

And any attempt to make them contribute is denounced as “left wing politics of envy”, or as being “anti-entrepreneurship”.

I’ve always thought the whole “workers versus shirkers” thing was a deliberate distraction away from the real issues.

I would say UBI fails on that basic moral point (though there are also some economic arguments why I don't think UBI would work anyway).

The economic arguments centre around the lowest paid- nobody is going to do a drudge warehouse job at billionaire-owned tax-avoiding Amazon, getting paid minimum wage and being forced to urinate in a bottle because they’ll be sacked for missing targets otherwise. But is that a terrible thing?

The moral aspect centres around the idea anyone who doesn’t work is a “scrounger”. I don’t buy that argument, neither ethically nor practically. Ethically, as above. Someone doing nothing is less of a drain on society than Jeff Bezos.

Practically, the DWP spends hundreds of millions a year on running a huge framework to differentiate between what they call workers and shirkers. Ironically many DWP staff are only paid minimum wage. But the contracts to the likes of ATOS are very lucrative. The bureaucracy is staggering, and it’d be quicker and easier to just give everyone a stipend.

I don’t think most people would just sit on their bum and do nothing. It’d be a pay cut for a lot of people. But if some people did choose to, meh. They’ll spend every penny back into the economy anyway.

 

[RT4038]

UBI would only really be relevant for poorer people, though, so it is a relevant comment.

As for “contribution to society”, presumably you are measuring this in terms of tax revenue. And the moral aspect of that quickly falls away when you look at the rampant corporate and personal tax avoidance that you have in the UK.

You mean it is different in other countries? Yeah, right.

Corporate tax avoiders are content to take from society- the costs of educating their workforce, keeping their workforce healthy, paying their workforce’s wages when they’re sick- without contributing anything in return.

Then write the rules, implement them, and take the economic consequences. It is not difficult apparently.

And any attempt to make them contribute is denounced as “left wing politics of envy”, or as being “anti-entrepreneurship”.

I’ve always thought the whole “workers versus shirkers” thing was a deliberate distraction away from the real issues.

Your frequent derogatory comments about the rich people does rather show this envy, I do agree.

The economic arguments centre around the lowest paid- nobody is going to do a drudge warehouse job at billionaire-owned tax-avoiding Amazon, getting paid minimum wage and being forced to urinate in a bottle because they’ll be sacked for missing targets otherwise. But is that a terrible thing?

Depends whether you like the prices that the goods from these warehouses are being sold. I mean, we can raise minimum wages without any effect, as we have found out.

The bureaucracy is staggering, and it’d be quicker and easier to just give everyone a stipend.

No, because it would have unintended consequences, be unaffordable and affect productivity.

I don’t think most people would just sit on their bum and do nothing. It’d be a pay cut for a lot of people. But if some people did choose to, meh. They’ll spend every penny back into the economy anyway.

I think you just have to look at the effects of the furlough scheme on lots of people, who just didn't want to work anymore. After the mortgage has been paid off, a couple with two lots of UBI ........ We cannot afford for productivity to go down, look what furlough has cost us,. Oh sorry, the Duke of Westminster is not personally productive (because of inheritance) so it is ok for others not to be. I know it is easy to be envious of inheritance.


I suggest that one has to consider all the possible side effects and unintended consequences. Of course, some of these may be beneficial to some, supporters of UBI are usually those who would benefit from money transferred from others rather than the other way round. The defenders of the status quo being the opposite of course. UBI has only been described in airy fairy generalisations, without any serious detail or costings, and no other country has gone down this road (yet). When they do (assuming a country of similar economy and demographics) we can then study it and take a decision for ourselves.

 

[Ianigsy]

I don’t really see that it should be all or nothing, but a guaranteed minimum standard of living for all shouldn’t be impossible for one of the richest countries on the planet. At some point every developed country is going to have to grasp the nettle of how we live when it’s simply not necessary for everybody to work 35-40 hour weeks.

I do wish that we could get rid of the idea that it’s somehow virtuous to spend your waking life doing pointless, repetitive tasks well below your ability, or for the state to redirect tax money into bureaucratic job creation schemes. We’d do better to encourage a shift to a four day working week within the next ten years and look at what combination of carrots and sticks is going to get people to contribute more to their immediate community and take risks without the fear of failing and losing everything.