Universal Basic Income proposed

[Dave1987]

When you people talk about productivity are you talking about total earnings or the amount of services provided/goods created?

Productivity is the amount a worker can produce per hour worked. The higher the productivity of a worker the more they can produce per hour worked and the higher salary they can demand. The UK is beset by low productivity jobs. UBI gives an opportunity to shun low productivity jobs and seek higher paying, higher productivity work. Zombie companies reliant on cheep labour or low interest rates would either disappear or have to offer more productive, higher paying jobs. It would not matter if people lost their jobs because they would have a UBI to fall back on until they found new, more highly paid work.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But those jobs need doing, at least for now. How do you propose they are done? The streets need sweeping, pizzas need delivering, the bins need emptying etc.

What is the issue is not the existence of such jobs, but the removal of natural progression (caused mostly by them being siloed into contractors, so the cleaner of today would no longer be the train driver of tomorrow) so people can start in those roles and progress.

 

[civ-eng-jim]

High earnings is not a measure of high productivity. If anything, higher earnings for doing the same job results in a reduction in productivity.

 

[ComUtoR]

People are happier to take a lower paid job if their needs can be supported. As a Parent; I have met many Mothers that want to go back to work but are restricted because any earnings would remove their benefits. There is a reason why some take a job that only works 15hrs a week.

Some want to work but are limited because of the benefit system. A UBI can help people in those low paid jobs because it can help provide a safety net, keep them off the poverty line and keep them in employment; which can provide opportunity a sense of self worth and good mental health etc.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I'd suggest there should be a cap on profit made by big corporations.
I haven't thought this through from start to finish but quite simply, if someone is making £5 billion of pure profit a year, they're charging too much for their product/service OR not re-investing where they should.

Yes, you're right, you really haven't thought this through

How would you stop an organisation making more money? If this company makes enough sales to make £4.99bn, then if you prevent them making any more profit, you're just massively dis-incentivising them to conduct any research or make any improvements to their product that might earn them more money. And if it's a company and you put a cap on their earnings, all they are probably going to to is either split into two companies each earning about 2.5bn - or - more simply - move abroad, taking all their profits and any tax they would have paid the UK with them.

A far better approach would be to keep an eye on the behaviour of big corporations, and have a strong regulator able step in if any evidence emerges of unethical or anti-competitive business practices. If they make excessive profits after unethical practices: Then the real problem is the unethical practices, not the high profits, so that's where you want to focus your attention. And if they make huge profits with no evidence of anything untoward, then you can conclude that they are probably making big profits by providing a good service to customers, and there therefore really isn't any problem.

 

[GusB]

The other thing UBI could do is to move the "safety net" to the state, allowing businesses to be more flexible and meaning that things like the "gig economy" would be a viable choice of employment rather than something to be deprecated.

I think the "gig economy" is sometimes unfairly demonised. For the last few years I've been getting work through an outsourcing company, with some fairly big-name clients. The difference is that rather sitting in a big room with loads of people answering phones*, I've done it from the comfort of my own home and without having to travel to work. I can book work in 30 minute slots, which gives me flexibility, and if not enough people are booking for work at the right times, there are usually incentives to get more bums on seats. The money isn't necessarily rubbish either. Sure, I've worked with a few clients that pay not much more than minimum wage, but others have paid much more (and you may be surprised which ones paid more).

* I've also suffered far fewer coughs and colds through not being crammed into an office with a load of snivellers!

Where this model does fall down is when it comes down to sickness and holidays. Being self-employed there's no sick pay, nor holiday pay. I'm rubbish in winter, and it's a real struggle to feel human before mid-day. Conversely, during the longer summer months I can be up with the birds and have half a day's work done before 10am.

The worst thing is that a contract can, and often does, end quite suddenly. While there may be a new big client around the corner, it takes time to do the training course and actually be in a position to be earning again. This is one of the reasons why I think a universal basic income is a good idea.

So many people who are against the idea of UBI focus on those who would be layabouts and do bugger-all. Those people exist under the current system, have done so under all the systems before, and will continue to do so. I think we need to accept that there will always be a section of society that will always fall into this category. I also think we need to accept the fact that many people who have fallen on hard times are just as eager to get out of the hole that they've found themselves in as the rest of us are. "Hand-up, not hand-out" is perhaps a bit too much of a Labour expression for some, but maybe it's all a few folks need.

 

[whhistle]

How would you stop an organisation making more money? If this company makes enough sales to make £4.99bn, then if you prevent them making any more profit, you're just massively dis-incentivising them to conduct any research or make any improvements to their product that might earn them more money. And if it's a company and you put a cap on their earnings, all they are probably going to to is either split into two companies each earning about 2.5bn - or - more simply - move abroad, taking all their profits and any tax they would have paid the UK with them.

Perhaps make the amount high and ratable to parent companies?
I mean, Centrica making billions of pounds of profit is doing that exactly? Helping a few executives live like there's no tomorrow? How is that helping little old Granny who can't afford to heat her home and eat?

Perhaps anything over that amount goes to charity?

As soon as holes appear, such as splitting companies, plug them within 30 days.

If everyone could afford a Dyson, that would make Vax be more innovative so people choose their brand.

But hey, it's all about saying how it wouldn't work instead of trying to see how it could work right?
So may as well let the large corporations make loads of money for the few, instead of sharing the wealth so everyone can afford to live decently.

 

[radamfi]

There was a referendum on this in Switzerland recently but there was a large majority against it.

 

[Dave1987]

But those jobs need doing, at least for now. How do you propose they are done? The streets need sweeping, pizzas need delivering, the bins need emptying etc.

What is the issue is not the existence of such jobs, but the removal of natural progression (caused mostly by them being siloed into contractors, so the cleaner of today would no longer be the train driver of tomorrow) so people can start in those roles and progress.

Jobs that “need doing” in the economy would need sufficiently good pay and conditions to attract people to do them. Pay and working conditions are driven upwards not downwards. Removing the need to work puts power firmly back in the hands of labour and business would need to attract labour to work for them.

 

[JamesT]

Perhaps make the amount high and ratable to parent companies?
I mean, Centrica making billions of pounds of profit is doing that exactly? Helping a few executives live like there's no tomorrow? How is that helping little old Granny who can't afford to heat her home and eat?

Perhaps anything over that amount goes to charity?

As soon as holes appear, such as splitting companies, plug them within 30 days.

If everyone could afford a Dyson, that would make Vax be more innovative so people choose their brand.

But hey, it's all about saying how it wouldn't work instead of trying to see how it could work right?
So may as well let the large corporations make loads of money for the few, instead of sharing the wealth so everyone can afford to live decently.

Surely any sort of cap should be on the percentage of profit? As noted above, going for an absolute value merely discourages companies growing. Larger companies may well be better in that they have economies of scale allowing them to charge less to customers and still make a profit.

Let’s take Centrica as an example, last year they made £1.4bn in operating profit. But that was on sales of £29.7bn, so less than 5% profit. (After tax etc. they actually made a loss, but we’ll ignore that for this discussion).
Or maybe Tesco? They made even more profit, £1.6bn. On sales of £57.5bn, so even less margin.
Vodafone? €4.3bn on sales of €46.6bn. But that’s still less than 10%. What counts as fair and reasonable profit?

 

[baz962]

Because getting an unskilled job will earn him/her enough to live with more than soup every day, a bedroom without proper insulation and bed sheets, and a single set of clothes?

I don't know about you, but as a student that lived out of its home without a scholarship and also without time to take a part-time job, you get to know just how much each single pound is worth. There were times were I sacrificed on food and commodities so that I could save enough for my college assignments, without putting more strain onto my parents budget.

For me a meal being 4£ is already very expensive. Multiply that by 30 days and again by 2 (for 2 meals a day) and already I was 40£ over budget.
If I could manage to work on a part-time without sacrificing on my assignments, it would have been a completely different experience...

You were not budgeting were you. That £4 twice a day for 30 day's is £240 on food. I spend that on food now for three adults.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Where this model does fall down is when it comes down to sickness and holidays. Being self-employed there's no sick pay, nor holiday pay. I'm rubbish in winter, and it's a real struggle to feel human before mid-day. Conversely, during the longer summer months I can be up with the birds and have half a day's work done before 10am.

The worst thing is that a contract can, and often does, end quite suddenly. While there may be a new big client around the corner, it takes time to do the training course and actually be in a position to be earning again. This is one of the reasons why I think a universal basic income is a good idea.

This is all very true - but equally having to pay someone sick pay AND bring in someone else to do their job can be crippling for a small company. This is why I'd propose we stop fighting these ideas and move to a more US-style "work at will" system - but couple it (very much unlike the US) with a mandatory state unemployment and sickness insurance scheme, which would pay your full income for a period of time, maybe 6-12 months, with some other kind of arrangement for very long-term sick where you are not expected to return to work any time soon or at all. You would pay for this through a separate tax line on your income tax, and it would be your taxed income on average over, say, the last 12 months that would dictate what you get. It could also include a redundancy scheme of some kind.

Then we can embrace small business with very little of the personal risk normally associated with it. It'd also help the likes of Uber, but that isn't my main thing. At the moment it's really hard for a one-man band to employ someone - and this sort of thing would make it REALLY easy. Make it easy to employ people, and more people will employ people. And if your employer goes bust, it's not that much of a problem as the State will bail you out.

 

[Giugiaro]

You were not budgeting were you. That £4 twice a day for 30 day's is £240 on food. I spend that on food now for three adults.

No ****. Did you bother to read "Multiply that by 30 days and again by 2 (for 2 meals a day) and already I was 40£ over budget."?

What I usually spent on food was something like 30£ to 40£ a month. Everything else went for school assignments, transportation, house/clothing care and software licenses.
And I had to give up on a good grade on one of my projects because I couldn't afford more. While some colleagues of mine dropped 400£ on a prototype, I could only afford 100£ at most... after explaining a lot to my parents why I had to spend those 100 on the prototype while 40£ already went for maquettes and other materials.

Good thing is that I had so much work to do that I mostly skipped lunch and sometimes dinner because I couldn't waste time rather than not being able to afford the food, so that's a plus!

 

[Bletchleyite]

£1 per day on food is rather low, barely going to get you cereal for breakfast, bread and butter for lunch and pasta and tinned tomatoes for dinner. When was this?

 

[baz962]

No ****. Did you bother to read "Multiply that by 30 days and again by 2 (for 2 meals a day) and already I was 40£ over budget."?

What I usually spent on food was something like 30£ to 40£ a month. Everything else went for school assignments, transportation, house/clothing care and software licenses.
And I had to give up on a good grade on one of my projects because I couldn't afford more. While some colleagues of mine dropped 400£ on a prototype, I could only afford 100£ at most... after explaining a lot to my parents why I had to spend those 100 on the prototype while 40£ already went for maquettes and other materials.

Good thing is that I had so much work to do that I mostly skipped lunch and sometimes dinner because I couldn't waste time rather than not being able to afford the food, so that's a plus!

Yes I read it £4 multiplied by 30 equals 120 times 2 (twice a day) you said 120 times two is 240.

 

[Giugiaro]

When was this?

2017. Last year of my degree in Design and first year of Masters in Engineering and Product Design.
Basically my most stressful and expensive year in college.

There was a time in November and December when I didn't have breakfast, usually skipped lunch and would have dinner if I felt like it, or had made enough food for 4 meals in advance, usually on Wednesdays and Weekends. By Christmas, I was already 8kg thinner than in September. My family doctor was obviously not happy with the news...

 

[Bletchleyite]

There was a time in November and December when I didn't have breakfast, usually skipped lunch and would have dinner if I felt like it, or had made enough food for 4 meals in advance, usually on Wednesdays and Weekends. By Christmas, I was already 8kg thinner than in September. My family doctor was obviously not happy with the news...

I could do with losing quite a bit more than 8kg, but while I can get away with skipping breakfast if I also skipped lunch my blood sugar would go too low and I would end up jittery and feeling rather yuck - certainly not able to get any work done!

 

[DynamicSpirit]

This is all very true - but equally having to pay someone sick pay AND bring in someone else to do their job can be crippling for a small company. This is why I'd propose we stop fighting these ideas and move to a more US-style "work at will" system - but couple it (very much unlike the US) with a mandatory state unemployment and sickness insurance scheme, which would pay your full income for a period of time, maybe 6-12 months, with some other kind of arrangement for very long-term sick where you are not expected to return to work any time soon or at all. You would pay for this through a separate tax line on your income tax, and it would be your taxed income on average over, say, the last 12 months that would dictate what you get. It could also include a redundancy scheme of some kind.

I agree a different system is needed, although I'm not sure whether just having the Government step in and pay for it - at least at a basic level - would be better. Being able to get sick pay is massively important for most people, and to my mind an essential part of the the social welfare net that lets us (or should let us) get on with our lives without fear of becoming destitute due to circumstances beyond our control. Trouble is, by expecing employers to pay for it all, we're because using businesses as welfare providers. That's not what businesses are for, and it's not really fair to expect them to be that. Large businesses with hundreds of employees can usually afford it because laws of averages mean they won't ever have more than a tiny percentages of their employees off sick at any one time. For small businesses it's - as you - say - crippling - and a huge disincentive to start taking on staff. Same thing for maternity/paternity leave: Great idea but it's wrong that we rely on employers to pay for it.

 

[ComUtoR]

This is all very true - but equally having to pay someone sick pay AND bring in someone else to do their job can be crippling for a small company. This is why I'd propose we stop fighting these ideas and move to a more US-style "work at will" system - but couple it (very much unlike the US) with a mandatory state unemployment and sickness insurance scheme

No, no, and a hundred times no.

I have a close relative who is currently living in the US. Their system is well and truly; up S!"£!" Creek.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

So many people who are against the idea of UBI focus on those who would be layabouts and do bugger-all. Those people exist under the current system, have done so under all the systems before, and will continue to do so. I think we need to accept that there will always be a section of society that will always fall into this category. I also think we need to accept the fact that many people who have fallen on hard times are just as eager to get out of the hole that they've found themselves in as the rest of us are.

I think the problem with that argument is that - sure - layabouts etc. will always exist to some extent. But you shouldn't under-estimate the extent to which people naturally change their behaviour according to the social expectations placed on them. I think if you create a system of UBI in which people are always given enough to live on with absolutely no expectations that they will do anything in return, you can guarantee that the number of 'layabouts' will soar to massively greater numbers than currently exist - because of people unconsciously reacting to the lack of expectations placed on them. And that could be very harmful to our society. To my mind, a healthy society really does require an implied 2-way contract - in which society/the Government looks after people: But, in return, people are expected to be willing to contribute to society. The danger is that UBI would destroy that link.

For that reason, I'd prefer any UBI to take a form more like 'guaranteed work': In other words, anyone who wants it is given - say - 8 hours guaranteed work a week, provided by the Government and paid at the minimum wage. I'd even go as far as to say that maybe that should be the gateway to all other benefits: You can apply for other benefits IF you're doing your guaranteed work and you can show you still don't have enough money to live on. Obviously there would be a lot of details to work though to make that work properly (for example, you'd need to provide childcare for parents. I'd also make sure the scheme is available to all homeless people - with accommodation thrown in). You'd also need a humane, sympathetic, system to assess people who apply to find suitable things they can do, and may even to allow for people to spend their guaranteed hours in training if that's appropriate to them. (Lack of a humane system to assess people seems to be where most Tory welfare reforms dramatically fail ) I think that kind of system would give people the guarantee of support when they need it, but without breaking the social contract of, 'society looks after you iF you are willing to play your role in the community'

 

[Bletchleyite]

No, no, and a hundred times no.

I have a close relative who is currently living in the US. Their system is well and truly; up S!"£!" Creek.

Yes, but they don't have a state safety net. That is a very important part of what I would propose.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

No, no, and a hundred times no.

I have a close relative who is currently living in the US. Their system is well and truly; up S!"£!" Creek.

Does any system that we devise always have to be the same as the US system? (As opposed to being similar to all the variety of systems that exist across all other industrial nations?)

 

[GusB]

I think the problem with that argument is that - sure - layabouts etc. will always exist to some extent. But you shouldn't under-estimate the extent to which people naturally change their behaviour according to the social expectations placed on them. I think if you create a system of UBI in which people are always given enough to live on with absolutely no expectations that they will do anything in return, you can guarantee that the number of 'layabouts' will soar to massively greater numbers than currently exist - because of people unconsciously reacting to the lack of expectations placed on them. And that could be very harmful to our society. To my mind, a healthy society really does require an implied 2-way contract - in which society/the Government looks after people: But, in return, people are expected to be willing to contribute to society. The danger is that UBI would destroy that link.

For that reason, I'd prefer any UBI to take a form more like 'guaranteed work': In other words, anyone who wants it is given - say - 8 hours guaranteed work a week, provided by the Government and paid at the minimum wage. I'd even go as far as to say that maybe that should be the gateway to all other benefits: You can apply for other benefits IF you're doing your guaranteed work and you can show you still don't have enough money to live on. Obviously there would be a lot of details to work though to make that work properly (for example, you'd need to provide childcare for parents. I'd also make sure the scheme is available to all homeless people - with accommodation thrown in). You'd also need a humane, sympathetic, system to assess people who apply to find suitable things they can do, and may even to allow for people to spend their guaranteed hours in training if that's appropriate to them. (Lack of a humane system to assess people seems to be where most Tory welfare reforms dramatically fail ) I think that kind of system would give people the guarantee of support when they need it, but without breaking the social contract of, 'society looks after you iF you are willing to play your role in the community'

I'd agree with your point about having a humane system to assess people. The problem with the system as it stands is that it's a punitive environment that's almost designed to trip you up, and kicks you for the slightest wrong move. In the past I've been sanctioned for not applying for a job that I was sent details of, and for which I was woefully underqualified. While I'd happily let the Tories take the blame, I'd have to be fair and say that this happened under the Blair government, which is when the welfare reforms really began. I've met some really good DWP staff who are genuinely passionate about trying to help people find suitable work, but on the other hand I've met some thoroughly nasty individuals who shouldn't be let anywhere near people in any situation. As I understand it, frontline DWP staff are also under threat of sanctions for not meeting performance targets.

 

[ComUtoR]

Yes, but they don't have a state safety net. That is a very important part of what I would propose.

By all accounts they don't have any safety net. It's also not just about a state safety net, there is so much that is going wrong and just like our system, everything is so interconnected that the slightest knock in any direction will have drastic consequences. I think what really drove the point home for my her was being told; and this is a direct quote. "if you need an ambulance, call an Uber"

Does any system that we devise always have to be the same as the US system?

I am loath to admit it some days but I genuinely believe we have one of the best 'systems' in the world. Granted it is broken in places and there is a lot of waste in the system but overall; ours is one of the best.

 

[Giugiaro]

The original post didn't have reference to EMOP ordering, as when I mentioned hygiene I meant bathing and teeth washing.
But I'll be honest, I did have EMOP ordering as part of the rent. Everyone on the same "condominium" paid for it, which made it affordable since as much as 10 students would be paying for the same one service weekly. This also applies to the College own dorms.

Though, our own bedrooms had to be vacuumed and cleaned by their respective resident student, so whenever I spent the Saturday or late Friday in College I'd take the opportunity to clean my bedroom and do laundry if I had enough clothes for a full washing machine. But this is obviously something you can do in a tight schedule, especially nowadays when even weekends may end up being work days regardless.

I did have to find time to cook though. Cooking at home in Portugal is still far less expensive than buying ready-made meals or ordering food. From what I can remember by experience, only bread and francesinhas are less expensive bought than home-made.

 

[SteveP29]

If society believes everyone should have at least a decent basic lifestyle

Universal Income is NOT for a 'lifestyle', its for survival, its for people to be able to work at what they want to do, improve their prospects of a better job by enabling them to study without having to work a full time job at the same time, rather than just taking the work they can get, its not to fund a lifestyle of champagne and cigars.
If they want a lifestyle, then they'll have to get a job to go with the UI

Why would someone with no skills job hunt if they have enough to live on without leaving the house?

Again, UI will not fund lavish trips to Spain and Sky TV etc, it will allow them to live, if they want more, then a job would be necessary

But those jobs need doing, at least for now. How do you propose they are done? The streets need sweeping, pizzas need delivering, the bins need emptying etc.

Those jobs will still get done

 

[underbank]

The tax rates on wages for those who choose to work will have to be punitively high to be able to pay the UI for everyone. Will people really work if they're already on a level they can live on, and pay over half their wages back in tax?

Just look at the doctor/GP fiasco where they're reducing their hours and turning down extra shifts to avoid the penal tax on their pensions and the 62% marginal tax rate on their incomes just over £100k. They're simply choosing not to work as they don't get to keep enough of the extra.

 

[furnessvale]

Again, UI will not fund lavish trips to Spain and Sky TV etc, it will allow them to live, if they want more, then a job would be necessary

A small amount of work on the black economy will satisfy many.

 

[underbank]

A small amount of work on the black economy will satisfy many.

So who pays the tax/NIC needed to actually pay for everyone to have UI??

 

[matacaster]

So as soon as the supply of willingly cheap labour from the EU dries up the UK is suddenly and miraculously going to change into a high productivity economy? Come off it. People who are unemployed in this country are told to get a job, any job to get them off the dole statistics. The UK would become a far more productive society if people were given the option to be able to up-skill. Take away the need to work to live and that becomes an option. The UK has become such a low productivity economy that some are having to work 60hrs a week just to survive. Wow what a “strong and stable” economy that is eh..... not

I'm not clear how you believe giving people a wage enabling them to stay at home with little incentive to get a job is going to improve low productivity - they won't be doing anything potentially ever, although they might disappear in the statistics.

Who exactly do you propose creates these high wage / productivity jobs whilst using low skilled workers? Its always THEY should provide these jobs, but who are THEY - is it small businesses, large businesses (who suck up large loans and are often foreign owned, Government (who are generally crap at that)

In a small business, people are employed to take some of the strain OFF of the owner or provide additional skills so the business can grow. Small businesses generally need 2-3 years to become profitable (many never do and fold) often with large capital outlay and working hours that employees would have a fit about. These type of businesses try to be innovative and provide a lot of employment, but struggle to pay high wages because of all the costs and regulations. If you think its easy try it.

The old-style jobs where millions were employed yet required limited education where you could earn a decent wage and basically earn increments until you retired are gone. eg mining, most shipbuilding, steel making, railways. Similarly, councils have reduced staffing by using iT technology except in the area of childcare and old folks.

Please don't forget with all the training in the world you will not convert someone of limited ability into an IT/techno whiz, you'd probably end up with someone on the payroll who is pretty useless. The reason the best technical types are paid highly is because others CAN'T or WON'T do it - otherwise they would have done wouldn't they? I would agree though that top management is much more of a who you know situation and ability and qualifications often feature less at board level than in the rest of a company!

What is needed to create high-skilled jobs is to identify areas where there is promise and back it with Govt loans or grants. Eg Electric battery technology or even better hydrogen fuel cell. These grants should not just go to huge multi-nationals who are foreign owned and have no loyalty to UK. However, the number of such jobs will ALWAYS be a fraction of the jobs market. Lower skilled workers will inevitably end up supporting the far fewer highly skilled workers, its the way the world works. Those with skills in demand get more. The USSR didnt do well as it pretended everyone was equal (except those in the party hierarcy).