Applying your thinking about human nature to my situation, I retired when I decided not to work any longer, though I was perfectly capable of several more years of productive work, and, receiving an income of a state pension, almost a UBI, it is paid to the rich and the poor alike, with no need to work at all, and not expected to offer anything in return for the rest of my years, should I be sent back to work to justify my place in society?
So not really any different to today, except they'll be less likely to turn to petty crime to support themselves.
So what is early retirement? Retiring before some arbitrary age that the government stipulates (recently raised to 66/67 years), or at the age that an individual that feels that their fitness for work is insufficient either for their own health, or inappropriate for the performance expected of an employee?
Typically discourse places the onus on the person making the assertion to make the case that it is valid, yet so far you have failed to make the case to disprove the null hypothesis; i.e. these analogies aren't right.
I never suggested everyone would? But what is important here is averages, how does that effect the average income/standard of living/other useful metric; whereas you seem only to hyperfixate on a vanishingly small minority. It almost seems like if a detailed study said that this would make everyone better off, but there would be a few people that didn't contribute, you would be against it out of some twisted notion of fairness.
If it's done right, perhaps given the current state of the media and politicians, it might start off like that, but can you honestly say that it wouldn't devolve? You'd be talking about a level of intervention into the lives of people that even authoritarian "communist" dictatorships rarely acheive.
That is, however, a relatively recent phenomenon. And it's unlikely to continue in the long term. Not to mention that, thanks to the gig economy, many of those jobs don't actually pay a liveable wage.
It is a recent phenomenon, but it is here for the long term and we have to get used to it. That's because of demography.
Allegedly we have a National Living Wage! As I have already said, the elephant in the room here is housing costs.
Well, one could argue that that was an impressive sleight of hand on the part of George Osborne to borrow the phrase "living wage" and then use it to set a minimum wage that was actually less than a living wage would be whilst gaining the positive coverage of having a so-called "living wage" (and I can feel @DynamicSpirit breathing down my neck as I type that sentence
).But you are only looking at this from one side.
We are in that position in our current society. The means of obtaining shelter, food and warmth are there and those with a genuine, evidenced, need unable to obtain these are provided for. The system has its flaws, and there is a tension between interference by the state in people's personal lives, how much support is provided and how much the rest of society have to contribute.
It is not only the disincentive to work, but the disincentive to work productively. There is a state of tension in the jeopardy between work and providing for you and your family needs. It is not a conscious decision to work to the best of your ability to avoid being sacked ( or telling your employer where to stick their job!) and putting your life well being at risk - it is a sub conscious given. Remove that jeopardy by guaranteeing a minimum level of income and this will result in reduced productivity as more and more people take periods on UBI, which they wouldn't dream of doing currently. This is human nature.
With UBI, the housing market as it is presently constituted could not economically work. Housing could not be privately owned paid for by varying mortgage sizes or varying rentals, depending on area etc. as this would require varying UBI levels in accordance with need. We seem to be straying in a communist world with the State providing everything!
And reconstituting it means reducing/confiscating (some) people's wealth, which is a non-starter. Which makes UBI a non-starter.
In theory, yes. However the benefits system is fundamentally broken, so broken that people are literally being driven to suicide by the complexities of getting the assistance they need.
That isn't the case though. And hasn't been the case since the Tories starting taking the axe to the welfare state in 2010.
Acceptable losses to make sure a tiny number of people don't sit on their backside. Or something. I dunno what the justification is personally.
Well, one could argue that that was an impressive sleight of hand on the part of George Osborne to borrow the phrase "living wage" and then use it to set a minimum wage that was actually less than a living wage would be whilst gaining the positive coverage of having a so-called "living wage" (and I can feel @DynamicSpirit breathing down my neck as I type that sentence
I'm doing my best to breathe very heavily and scarily...There will always be people who have difficulty coping with life, in one way or another, and more help would be better than throwing money at them. There will always be people who have need for recourse to the welfare system, and those who never do. There are those in the middle who may or may not, and the system should be designed to incentivise as many as possible not to.
And I can't see any justification for those who don't need welfare, to be receiving it. Of course the definition of need can be endlessly debated too! One of the defining differences between left and right? It is my opinion that the tiny number you refer to would balloon with UBI.
Though the other side of the UBI coin is that there are usually intended to be changes to the tax system to claw back the money from those who don't need it. But rather than a means test to decide if the benefit should be given, it's a higher rate of tax for all.
Whether that is or is not true is irrelevant, as we're talking about something significantly different that is not comparable...
Surely it makes more sense to have one progressive system, rather than having two complicated and interacting systems to keep straight.
The unearned wealth of the Capitalist class?
Very easily. It is a distinction that has been used for a very long time.
