Universal Basic Income proposed

[Dave1987]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48185806

Every adult in the UK should receive a weekly basic income of £48, according to the recommendations in a new report.

The move could be paid for by scrapping more than 1,000 tax reliefs, a report by Professor Guy Standing, a professor at SOAS University suggests.

The Labour Party - which has previously floated the idea of a basic income - said it would study the report ahead of drawing up its next manifesto.

A universal basic income is already being trialled in other countries.

The report, entitled Basic Income as Common Dividends: Piloting a Transformative Policy, was written by Professor Standing, an authority on the concept of the basic income.

He was asked to write it by the Progressive Economy Forum, a left-leaning group of economists.

Advocates of a basic income say it reduces poverty and inequality by providing a guaranteed income.

But Conservative deputy chairman Helen Whately said it would be "a kick in the teeth to hardworking taxpayers".

"It would mean benefit payments for everyone, from Premier League footballers to investment bankers and even prisoners, costing billions, while hammering ordinary workers in the pocket by scrapping the tax-free income allowance."

The Treasury also criticised the report, saying it was "committed to supporting working people keep more of what they earn, while providing a strong and sustainable safety net for those who need it".

"Our policies are highly redistributive - this year the lowest income households will receive over £4 in public spending for every £1 they pay in tax, while the highest income households will contribute over £5 in tax for every £1 they receive in public spending," it added.

What is a basic income?
Universal basic income, or UBI, means that everyone gets a set monthly income, regardless of means.

The author of this latest report, Professor Guy Standing, told the BBC: "A basic income would be paid in cash, a moderate amount, a basic amount unconditionally to each individual man and woman equally, a smaller amount for a child and the good thing is it would be unconditional and it wouldn't be means tested and it would be a right, an economic right."

How much would it be?
Professor Standing said the amount would change over time as the funding for a basic income is built up.

However, initially he said the weekly sum would be £48, which he said would be a "significant amount for many people".

"Now £48 is not a lot for most people but for a lot of people out there they have £20 left at the end of the week after they've paid their rent and their food, so this is a significant amount for many people."

A lower sum would be paid to children, under these proposals.

How would it be paid for?
A rough calculation shows that if about 60 million people were paid £48 a week, that would come to about £150bn a year.

Professor Standing said there are 1,156 tax reliefs in the UK at the moment and if they were scrapped that would pay for a basic income.

"What that means [is] it's income foregone by the Treasury. Most of these tax reliefs didn't have any economic rationale and they're giveaways that are increasing inequality.

"If we phased out those tax reliefs the total revenue foregone by the Treasury from tax reliefs is £420bn per year and that's their own estimates, not mine," he added.

Has it been done elsewhere?
Some countries have tested paying a basic income to citizens.

In western Kenya, the government is paying every adult in one village $22 a month for 12 years to see if a regular payment can help lift them out of poverty.

The Netherlands and Italy have also launched trials, while Scotland is considering piloting basic income schemes in four cities, including Glasgow and Edinburgh.

Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell recently said that Labour would include a plan for universal basic income in its next general election manifesto.

• Finland basic income 'did not help jobless'

• Ontario cuts basic income project short

• Basic income pilot considered in Glasgow

However, a two-year trial in Finland, where a sample of 2,000 unemployed adults were given €560 a month, was not extended.

And in Canada, Ontario's newly elected centre-right government said it was scrapping a three-year basic income pilot project that hoped to discover whether it was better than existing welfare schemes.

This is not the first time this has been suggested in the UK is it?
No, there have been a couple of similar studies this year alone.

In March the New Economics Foundation think tank published a report in which it proposed replacing the personal tax allowance with a Weekly National Allowance of £48. However, it did not call it a basic income.

A week later the leftwing think tank Compass, suggested a universal basic income of £60 for each adult, £175 for those over 65 and £40 for children under the age of 18.

What are the pros?
Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell, who is attending the launch of the independent study on Tuesday, welcomed the report.

He said: "This report is an important contribution to the debate around inequality, austerity, poverty and how we establish a fair and just economic system.

"There have been pilots of 'basic income' elsewhere and Guy Standing has looked at them and come forward with proposals.

"Whatever mechanism we use, whether 'basic income' or another, we have to lead in developing a radical mechanism aimed at eradicating poverty, but also means testing.

"We will be studying the contents and recommendations of this report carefully as we put together our reform policies for the next Labour government."

What are the cons?
Opponents of a basic income are worried about how it would be paid for and what cuts would have to be made elsewhere.

And the government has previously said a universal basic income would not work for those who need more support, such as disabled people and those with caring responsibilities.

I think the idea has merits. The biggest problem currently is people have to work to survive. If people have enough money to be able to buy the absolute basics they are not forced into pathetic paid work simply because they need a job. The likes of Deliveroo and Uber etc arguably exploit the fact that people need to earn a wage to be able to live. If people did not need to work to survive they could hunt around for jobs that are well paid and have decent working conditions. Employers would be forced to offer decent, productive, well paid jobs if they were to attract anyone to work for them. At the moment it seems like this Government is not bothered about how rubbish the jobs that are being created are just so long as people are not the dole harming their statistics.

 

[tbtc]

There need to be different names for the two *very* different versions of Universal Basic Income that are frequently proposed.

There's a left wing version, which is along the lines of giving people enough money to survive on so that we can decide to spend time volunteering or on learning or on doing something arty - all very wholesome - instead of actually working full time - and well intentioned (though with obvious flaws).

There's a right wing version, which is along the lines of giving the basic state benefits to everyone, which essentially means that people on the breadline keep the income that they have but richer people gain this "£48/week" (or whatever amount is come up with) - which can then be used as an excuse not to increase things like Unemployment benefits (because that cost would have to apply over the whole population) - i.e. it's a means of reducing the amount paid in benefits to the poorest - like the benefits cap was - so that the poorest are even worse off compared to those on median incomes.

The problem is that £48/week isn't enough to live on, and it'd only come at the cost of removing various state benefits that are currently means-tested, so becomes a very regressive move (but is done under the name of the same project that "progressive" people on the left are wanting to bring in).

 

[Dave1987]

The current system doesn't work though. The economy is just generating lots and lots of rubbish, poorly paid jobs. Statistics show that UK productivity hasn't really gone up in a decade. It needs something radical to happen to get people into high paying jobs. The current Govenment seems to only want people off the dole, not in highly paid work.

 

[ComUtoR]

but richer people gain this "£48/week" (or whatever amount is come up with)

The theory behind not having any means testing is that those who do not specifically need the £48 will treat is as disposable income and therefore spend that £48 and increasing the economy. £48 a week could contribute towards a weekly travel card to help some attend interviews, first job, low paid job etc just as much as it can help reduce the season ticket travel for others. It would also benefit the leisure traveller as a family of 4 taking a trip into town or down to the seaside can be cost prohibitive.

It isn't about providing people with a means to live on. Sometimes a little step up is all someone needs.

 

[yorkie]

The current system doesn't work though. The economy is just generating lots and lots of rubbish, poorly paid jobs.

Who are you speaking for? I don't know that many people who describe their jobs as "rubbish"

..it needs something radical to happen to get people into high paying jobs....

You could increase everyone's pay and that would lead to inflation.

 

[433N]

It probably won't come as much of a surprise to many that this is actually being trialed in Scotland currently in some areas ...

https://basicincome.scot/what-is-basic-income/

Proponents of the concept believe that it provides a basic platform on which people can build their lives – whether they want to earn, learn, care or set up a business (RSA, 2016).

A combination of factors has broadened its appeal in recent times: rising inequality, widespread economic insecurity, and the potential of labour-displacing technological change including automation and artificial intelligence.

There are many models. Differences include the amounts of the Basic Income, how payment levels are applied across different age groups, the source of funding, the nature and size of reductions in other transfers that accompany it (for example, changes to existing tax and National Insurance systems; which benefits are withdrawn).

Don't know how it is going, but I don't think it was judged a resounding success in Finland

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-47169549

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.

It immediately attracted international interest - but these results have now raised questions about the effectiveness of such schemes.

Although it's enjoying a resurgence in popularity, the idea isn't new. In fact, it was first described in Sir Thomas More's Utopia, published in 1516 - a full 503 years ago.

 

[Giugiaro]

which can then be used as an excuse not to increase things like Unemployment benefits (because that cost would have to apply over the whole population)

To be honest I'd rather have a good enough UBI over unemployment subsidies like we do in Portugal. I know people that refuse to take a job since their new salary would be lower than what they currently get in subsidies.

An UBI that you can attach to a salary is a good way to promote employment and/or entrepreneurship. You get enough to survive just fine, but you'll be better off if you work, whatever job you get, even if it is a part-time or a new business.

Pensions to which people have sliced part of their salary to contribute to and subsidies for recurrent health expenses should be kept, but we need an UBI that keeps people from falling towards the poverty zone but doesn't make everyone lazier. After all, an UBI can only really exist if most people can, in a way, contribute to it by being productive.

I know food is extremely expensive in the UK, so I'm not sure 48£/w would be enough for food and shelter. In Portugal the minimum I would expect would be around 50€/w for all expenses (shelter, water, electricity and food), which is close to what I would have for the lowest of rents for a single student bedroom in shared home and expenses, 2 meals a day and hygiene. Not including things like phone and cellular, TV, internet, transport/mobility and furniture/expendables.

 

[Esker-pades]

Don't know how it is going, but I don't think it was judged a resounding success in Finland

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-47169549

It depends what one judges as "a success". If it's made sure people can survive without using food banks, then that would be quite good.

 

[Dave1987]

Who are you speaking for? I don't know that many people who describe their jobs as "rubbish"

I know of plenty of people stuck in dead end jobs with no hope of career progression. I also know of plenty of businesses that I have read about that have hired people because it is easier to sack a human worker doing a rubbish job than invest in helping their employees become more productive and earn more. There are lots and lots of "bull****" jobs out there where there is no career progression or hope of earning more.

You could increase everyone's pay and that would lead to inflation.

You are indeed correct. That is why the Government should be enabling people to refuse low paid work and aspire to higher paid jobs. If people are not required to work to survive they don't have to take those low paid jobs and can concentrate on getting higher paid more productive work. The the likes of Uber and Deliveroo would not be able to prey on people's need to find work. Uber and Deliveroo rely on a low paid workforce for their business models to work. If people weren't required to work to survive then only companies offering decent, well paid productive work would survive. That would benefit the economy wholeheartedly.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I know of plenty of people stuck in dead end jobs with no hope of career progression. I also know of plenty of businesses that I have read about that have hired people because it is easier to sack a human worker doing a rubbish job than invest in helping their employees become more productive and earn more. There are lots and lots of "bull****" jobs out there where there is no career progression or hope of earning more.

Ignoring the kind of part time jobs typically done by students who don't want progression, isn't the issue less the low-paid jobs but that these days you don't progress to management the way you used to?

(Strangely, though, one of the most modern industries, the IT industry, has a surprisingly large amount of such progression)

 

[tbtc]

The current system doesn't work though. The economy is just generating lots and lots of rubbish, poorly paid jobs. Statistics show that UK productivity hasn't really gone up in a decade. It needs something radical to happen to get people into high paying jobs. The current Govenment seems to only want people off the dole, not in highly paid work.

I'm not sure how stopping people from doing low paid jobs (by making those jobs effectively redundant) will create high paying jobs?

I agree that the status quo isn't great and I like the idea of getting more people into well paying jobs but I feel that there's a step or two missing in the middle.

The theory behind not having any means testing is that those who do not specifically need the £48 will treat is as disposable income and therefore spend that £48 and increasing the economy. £48 a week could contribute towards a weekly travel card to help some attend interviews, first job, low paid job etc just as much as it can help reduce the season ticket travel for others. It would also benefit the leisure traveller as a family of 4 taking a trip into town or down to the seaside can be cost prohibitive.

It isn't about providing people with a means to live on. Sometimes a little step up is all someone needs.

That might be how it'd work for the first couple of weeks but having that additional weekly income would just be treated as an ongoing benefit after a month or two - I think that if you gave everyone a one-off payment of £1,000 they'd use that for discretionary payments, they'd pay off debts, they'd arrange those things they've been putting off etc - but if you give them £48 a week then that'll just be absorbed into ongoing expenditure (plus employers may use it as a reason not to give a pay rise).

To be honest I'd rather have a good enough UBI over unemployment subsidies like we do in Portugal. I know people that refuse to take a job since their new salary would be lower than what they currently get in subsidies

This is a much bigger issue - and one that I think we'd be better focussing on.

I don't know the Portuguese figures but in the UK we have marginal tax rates of something like the following:

£0-£8,000: tax free
£8,000 - £12,000: 12% National Insurance
£12,000 - £50,000: 32% (20% Income Tax + 12% National Insurance)
£50,000 - £150,000: 42% (40% Income Tax + 2% National Insurance)
£150,000+: 47% (45% Income Tax + 2% National Insurance)

(feel free to correct me - the bands/rates can change every year but I think that's the kind of ballpark)

That means it's generally worth taking on additional work because you are keeping more than half of the additional money.

But we have a problem with getting unemployed people off benefits and into work because they often face marginal "tax" rates of well over half - for example, you might get a £10,000 job but end up losing £6,000 in benefits (unemployment/ housing etc), so end up keeping much less of every additional pound of income than a millionaire would.

One of my priorities, if I ever had a sniff of power, would be to try to find a way of getting people into *some* roles, because I am convinced that there are a lot of talented people out there (e.g. those who've had to take time off to bring up kids or due to health reasons) who have little incentive to get back into work because you might end up keeping only ten or twenty pence of every pound in salary (because of the corresponding reduction in benefits).

I'm not convinced that Universal Basic Income will solve this, unless the plan is to reduce *all* state benefits to something like the £48/week quoted (which I'm sure some on the right would love!).

The the likes of Uber and Deliveroo would not be able to prey on people's need to find work. Uber and Deliveroo rely on a low paid workforce for their business models to work. If people weren't required to work to survive then only companies offering decent, well paid productive work would survive. That would benefit the economy wholeheartedly.

Uber and Deliveroo have found a niche by using technology to create umbrella companies that have replaced lots of "independent" low paid jobs.

Minicab drivers were working for low money in the past - often self employed - now they are working for low money, but with the costs/benefits of being dependent upon an App.

Most independent takeaways where I live used to have their own drivers - often on low wages and reliant upon tips - but now use Deliveroo or JustEat (or other Apps) to deal with that side of things.

So it's not a case that the tech companies have created these low paid jobs - they have just made those jobs much more visible - it's much easier for people to complain about an unscrupulous tech giant but they never seemed to complain about these independent businesses paying pittances before.

There's also the problem that, if you are fixated on getting rid of Deliveroo then what's your solution? They aren't going to start paying delivery staff £30k pa with final salary pensions - the jobs only exist at the margins - if the staff won't work for those wages (e.g. because a Universal Basic Income means that people will refuse to do thankless jobs like these) then the jobs won't exist - if I'm ordering a family takeaway and the cost goes up by a fiver to pay for better wages for the delivery driver then I won't bother with the takeaway - I might go out and collect it myself but I'm more likely to take my business elsewhere - thus costing the independent restaurant jobs.

Don't get me wrong, I like the idea of "get rid of badly paid jobs" but the result of that wouldn't be "create well paid jobs" it'd just be "hundreds of thousands fewer jobs" - we might have the illusion of seeing the average salaries going up but that'd only be because we've destroyed most jobs paying under £15k pa.

 

[ComUtoR]

That might be how it'd work for the first couple of weeks but having that additional weekly income would just be treated as an ongoing benefit after a month or two - I think that if you gave everyone a one-off payment of £1,000 they'd use that for discretionary payments, they'd pay off debts, they'd arrange those things they've been putting off etc - but if you give them £48 a week then that'll just be absorbed into ongoing expenditure

It really does depend on the person and their situation and of course, how much disposable income they have. Personally, that's a new car for me and I could dump the old one. That would take a gas guzzler off the road and reduce my emissions. It could provide me with a holiday for the kids, something I haven't done in a few years, or it could help my Son as he moves towards Sixth Form and contribute to the cost of his education. I'm much wiser than I used to be with money so I would see it more as a bonus rather than absorb into my monthly income. I certainly think I'd be more deliberate in how I spent it and allow for it to be taken away at a moments notice.

There was a really decent 'experiment/documentary' with a group of people on long term benefits and long term unemployed who were given a full years benefit up front. The full whack of £26k, in cash. It was interesting to see how it each family spent the money.

Are we prepared to accept that people will use the money in different ways. Some to an advantage and some will still treat it like another benefit to scrounge off the state.

The Finland experiment was interesting too. Whilst it didn't benefit everyone, there were a few success stories.

 

[underbank]

I don't know the Portuguese figures but in the UK we have marginal tax rates of something like the following:

£0-£8,000: tax free
£8,000 - £12,000: 12% National Insurance
£12,000 - £50,000: 32% (20% Income Tax + 12% National Insurance)
£50,000 - £150,000: 42% (40% Income Tax + 2% National Insurance)
£150,000+: 47% (45% Income Tax + 2% National Insurance)

(feel free to correct me - the bands/rates can change every year but I think that's the kind of ballpark)

That means it's generally worth taking on additional work because you are keeping more than half of the additional money.

There's a 62% rate on earnings between £100,000 - £125,000 due to the tapered removal of the personal allowance (60% tax and 2% NIC). That's what is contributing to the shortage of doctors and dentists, the older and more experienced ones are earning in that bracket so are choosing to reduce their working hours to avoid the 62% penal tax charge. (Made worse by the 55% penal tax where their pension pots breach the lifetime limits also badly hitting doctors and dentists with generous NHS superannuation pensions).

The figures, particularly at lower levels, don't reflect the effect of state benefits either, i.e. the removal of tax credits at lowest levels and then also the tapered removal/pay back of child allowance on earnings between £50-£60k.

Nor does it reflect student loan repayments which start at those earning over £25k.

I havn't seen one for current tax/benefit rates, but a year or two back I saw one that reflected benefits as well as tax, nic and student loans, - the "marginal" deduction rates graph was like a roller coaster as earnings rose. Completely ridiculous and counter productive for the country when tax/benefits determine whether people work more/less or work at all.

 

[Meerkat]

It’s an odd concept that some think it is sensible to let people have money to live without any intention of contributing.
Taken to the extreme we all have money but no one grows food for us to buy......
If society believes everyone should have at least a decent basic lifestyle (which is obviously a good thing) then you should at least have to work for it (if able), even if that is low productivity community work. Keeps people in the habit of working and makes the jump into a real job a marginal gain.

 

[Dave1987]

It’s an odd concept that some think it is sensible to let people have money to live without any intention of contributing.
Taken to the extreme we all have money but no one grows food for us to buy......
If society believes everyone should have at least a decent basic lifestyle (which is obviously a good thing) then you should at least have to work for it (if able), even if that is low productivity community work. Keeps people in the habit of working and makes the jump into a real job a marginal gain.

Hmmmm well the current political agenda isn’t working is it! The UK has some of the worst productivity growth statistics of the developed world. The current Government seems utterly powerless to enhance productivity. Maybe forcing people into low paid, low productivity work just to get them off of the dole isn’t such a good idea? If people aren’t forced into low paid work just to have a basic standard of living they can choose to go for high productivity work. Business would be forced to offer high productivity work to attract people to work for them. People who chose not to work would only have enough money for an extremely basic standard of living, but they wouldn’t be forced into low paid work.

 

[underbank]

Hmmmm well the current political agenda isn’t working is it! The UK has some of the worst productivity growth statistics of the developed world. The current Government seems utterly powerless to enhance productivity. Maybe forcing people into low paid, low productivity work just to get them off of the dole isn’t such a good idea? If people aren’t forced into low paid work just to have a basic standard of living they can choose to go for high productivity work. Business would be forced to offer high productivity work to attract people to work for them. People who chose not to work would only have enough money for an extremely basic standard of living, but they wouldn’t be forced into low paid work.

So who does the low pay/low productive work then? What about those who don't have the skills/knowledge to do high productivity work?

 

[Dave1987]

So who does the low pay/low productive work then? What about those who don't have the skills/knowledge to do high productivity work?

The UK is beset by low productivity work. We should be looking to make the UK economy dominated by high productivity jobs. People who aren’t currently skilled enough to do highly productive jobs should be encouraged into education to enable them to earn more. If people weren’t required to work just to survive they could spend their time up-skilling themselves so they could apply for high productivity jobs. Or we could just carry on as we are with an economy reliant on low interest rates and one that creates low paid, low productivity jobs where living standards stagnate and populism is rife. Something radical is needed and I’m certainly thinking that a UBI could work in some form or another.

 

[underbank]

People who aren’t currently skilled enough to do highly productive jobs should be encouraged into education to enable them to earn more.

We already provide free school age education, colleges, apprenticeships, university funding, etc. Despite that, nearly half of kids havn't achieved "good passes" in GCSE Maths and English aged 16 - that's after 11 years of free state education. You can "encourage" all you want, but it seems a large proportion aren't interested, and then you also have ever increasing numbers with learning and other disabilities many of whom are probably incapable of high quality employment. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink. But, my point still stands - there are loads of low quality jobs that still need doing - even the highest qualified doctors, consultants, lawyers, etc still need their offices cleaned, they still need parcels delivered, they still need their car servicing, they still need someone to paint their house and mow their lawns.

 

[tbtc]

I havn't seen one for current tax/benefit rates, but a year or two back I saw one that reflected benefits as well as tax, nic and student loans, - the "marginal" deduction rates graph was like a roller coaster as earnings rose. Completely ridiculous and counter productive for the country when tax/benefits determine whether people work more/less or work at all.

That'd be a fascinating graph to see!

Hmmmm well the current political agenda isn’t working is it! The UK has some of the worst productivity growth statistics of the developed world. The current Government seems utterly powerless to enhance productivity. Maybe forcing people into low paid, low productivity work just to get them off of the dole isn’t such a good idea? If people aren’t forced into low paid work just to have a basic standard of living they can choose to go for high productivity work. Business would be forced to offer high productivity work to attract people to work for them. People who chose not to work would only have enough money for an extremely basic standard of living, but they wouldn’t be forced into low paid work.

...but HOW?

What is this "high productivity" work that you think all of these takeaway delivery staff and minicab drivers (the two areas you keep referring to) should be doing?

I'm not defending the status quo but there has to be something a bit more substantial than "just create lots of well paid jobs and then we won't need people to delivery takeaways or drive taxis".

But, my point still stands - there are loads of low quality jobs that still need doing - even the highest qualified doctors, consultants, lawyers, etc still need their offices cleaned, they still need parcels delivered, they still need their car servicing, they still need someone to paint their house and mow their lawns.

Agreed.

I can see the argument that some jobs are massively underpaid (given how little regard we put a lot of female-dominated occupations like "carers") but the bottom line is that those jobs need doing.

There's a lot of woolly thinking on this thread, that, if only we magically created lots of highly productive jobs then we could stop people from delivering pizzas (and those pizzas would, erm, deliver themselves)...

...maybe there's an argument that if we increased pay too much for some "menial" jobs then we'd end up with people "settling" for them rather than progressing (e.g. one criticism I've seen of the Minimum Wage is that it's led to a shrinking of the pay for jobs on the bottom rung of the ladder and the next couple of rungs, which may mean people are less likely to want to take on the stress/responsibilities of progressing up a rung when the NMW has removed much of the difference between the two wages).

The main issues, for me, are how we get "economically inactive" people onto the bottom rung of the ladder and how well we look after people near the bottom (e.g. Zero Hours Contracts make sense in industries like Hospitality where there can be huge surges in demand and therefore fixed hours wouldn't work, but shouldn't be used as an excuse to pay staff peanuts on insecure contracts in Sports Shops, where the staffing levels ought to be a lot more predictable).

 

[Giugiaro]

It’s an odd concept that some think it is sensible to let people have money to live without any intention of contributing.

Whatever you pay/buy has some sort of tax applied to it, mainly VAT. The more people you have consuming goods and services, the more the economy flows. That's why the 2011 crisis was such a punch in the gut, as people either lost buying power or reduced their investments and the government sliced public projects, retracting the economy, in some situations almost completely froze it.

As I said a UBI should be enough to give an individual enough money to have a minimally decent life while encouraging job hunting, whatever the amount of salary he/she may get. That's why I believe one should receive it even when having a salary since one will be even better off when working or doing business. The benefit for the economy and the government would be everyone having the power to spend (at least in groceries) and contribute to the annual budget in VAT.

If people end up in poverty by spending their UBI in drugs, gambling and other non-essential things... by that time society may have changed their moral code to completely ignore these people since they brought that situation onto themselves.

After all, why would people be on the streets pleading for money when everyone gets enough to eat and have room to sleep?

 

[Meerkat]

As I said a UBI should be enough to give an individual enough money to have a minimally decent life while encouraging job hunting

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

One of the reasons we have low productivity is the endless supply of over skilled and unskilled labour coming from the EU. We have replaced automatic car washes with a gang of people!!

 

[GusB]

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

One of the reasons we have low productivity is the endless supply of over skilled and unskilled labour coming from the EU. We have replaced automatic car washes with a gang of people!!

UBI could perhaps allow someone with few skills to attend part-time college courses in order to improve their skills without losing their safety net. For those who have to work two or three part-time jobs in order to make ends meet, it may allow them to work fewer hours. Not everyone who is unskilled sits around the house all day, but it's very difficult to juggle jobs and education when employers want staff to be as flexible as possible. Even if they don't attend classes, having a bit of extra free time at home could allow someone to do a distance-learning course.

 

[Giugiaro]

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

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...

 

[Dave1987]

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

One of the reasons we have low productivity is the endless supply of over skilled and unskilled labour coming from the EU. We have replaced automatic car washes with a gang of people!!

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

 

[Dave1987]

UBI could perhaps allow someone with few skills to attend part-time college courses in order to improve their skills without losing their safety net. For those who have to work two or three part-time jobs in order to make ends meet, it may allow them to work fewer hours. Not everyone who is unskilled sits around the house all day, but it's very difficult to juggle jobs and education when employers want staff to be as flexible as possible. Even if they don't attend classes, having a bit of extra free time at home could allow someone to do a distance-learning course.

100% agree! Totally what needs to happen.

 

[Bletchleyite]

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.

 

[whhistle]

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.

 

[Bletchleyite]

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.

That profit goes to shareholders, not to some magic pot. And when it does, it goes to the likes of your pension pot.

It's not that simple at all, IOW.

 

[Dave1987]

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.

I would actually disagree with that. The politicians have no guts so they don't tax the likes of Google properly BUT having said that people who work for Google are paid very well and have highly productive jobs. The Government should change the tax law so the likes of Google pay their fair share on revenues they gain from UK residents using their services. I have no quarrel with the jobs Google creates. A UBI would enable people to aim for the highly paid jobs that the likes of Google create and not have to work 60 hrs a week for just a basic standard of living.

 

[Giugiaro]

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