Universal Basic Income proposed

[furnessvale]

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

Exactly! My post was in no way supporting UI.

 

[SteveP29]

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.

So because these type of people outnumber the highly qualified or highly intelligent, how do we keep them gainfully employed under the current system without having to give them benefits so they can survive?
There surely aren't enough low or zero skilled jobs around to employ all of them.

 

[Bletchleyite]

So because these type of people outnumber the highly qualified or highly intelligent, how do we keep them gainfully employed under the current system without having to give them benefits so they can survive?
There surely aren't enough low or zero skilled jobs around to employ all of them.

Well, one thing we could do is (and this requires higher taxes) reinstate the likes of park keepers, lavatory attendants, street sweepers etc and use such people to keep our public realm in a proper condition.

 

[underbank]

Well, one thing we could do is (and this requires higher taxes) reinstate the likes of park keepers, lavatory attendants, street sweepers etc and use such people to keep our public realm in a proper condition.

Trouble is that the unions etc made all that too expensive so councils just stopped doing it and/or contracted services out to private firms that weren't hamstrung by union power. If we want that back again, we have to find ways to make it affordable, i.e. at or slightly above minimum wage with more realistic holiday/sick entitlements and more realistic pension schemes. One of my uncles is an ex council gardener - upon his retirement he got full state pension plus a 2/3 final salary occupational pension which added together gave him a higher weekly amount than he was on when he was working - that's absolutely crazy and completely unsustainable, yet the council are on the hook to continue paying it to him until he dies (not a third party/subcontracted pension scheme) so it comes out of current council tax. If he lives much longer, the council will have paid him more since he retired than they did when he was working for them.

 

[Tom B]

Such schemes are pretty much closed to new entrants - those who are old enough to have entered them at the right time retain the benefits, younger workers are not permitted to join.

This does raise issues for the future, in that there will be pension schemes where those paying in tail off rapidly, yet with large liabilities still to current pensioners.

 

[Bletchleyite]

This does raise issues for the future, in that there will be pension schemes where those paying in tail off rapidly, yet with large liabilities still to current pensioners.

I think it may be necessary for the Government to step in and "bail out" these schemes on the basis that the issues are genuine and were not entirely foreseen - the main issue with them is increasing life expectancy.

 

[underbank]

I think it may be necessary for the Government to step in and "bail out" these schemes on the basis that the issues are genuine and were not entirely foreseen - the main issue with them is increasing life expectancy.

Low investment returns too - some "funded" schemes were set up on the basis of 10-15% p.a. investment returns. And of course, a lot of schemes were completely unfunded and the councils etc just spent the money taken from wages on other things - a classic "kick it in the long grass" approach. Basically a perfect storm of several reasons, but basically very poorly thought through from the outset.

 

[ainsworth74]

Trouble is that the unions etc made all that too expensive so councils just stopped doing it and/or contracted services out to private firms that weren't hamstrung by union power.

Is it that or is it that, particularly in the last nine years, that Local Authority budgets have been cut quite significantly so they simply cannot afford to do anything beyond the absolute minimum no matter how unreasonable or otherwise the demands of union employees might have been?

 

[underbank]

Is it that or is it that, particularly in the last nine years, that Local Authority budgets have been cut quite significantly so they simply cannot afford to do anything beyond the absolute minimum no matter how unreasonable or otherwise the demands of union employees might have been?

Local councils were getting rid of park-keepers and litter sweepers long before the last 9 years. Our local parks got into a terrible state in the 90's and have only started to improve recently with voluntary groups doing most of the work.

 

[yorksrob]

Low investment returns too - some "funded" schemes were set up on the basis of 10-15% p.a. investment returns. And of course, a lot of schemes were completely unfunded and the councils etc just spent the money taken from wages on other things - a classic "kick it in the long grass" approach. Basically a perfect storm of several reasons, but basically very poorly thought through from the outset.

Incorrect - at least in terms of West Yorkshire councils, which have an actively managed pension fund. Not all public sector pension schemes are 'unfunded'

 

[underbank]

Incorrect - at least in terms of West Yorkshire councils, which have an actively managed pension fund. Not all public sector pension schemes are 'unfunded'

Not all, but most.

"Most of the main public service pension schemes - the exception is the Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS) - are unfunded."

https://assets.publishing.service.g...ile/748759/LGPS_England_and_Wales_2017-18.pdf

 

[Tom B]

I think it may be necessary for the Government to step in and "bail out" these schemes on the basis that the issues are genuine and were not entirely foreseen - the main issue with them is increasing life expectancy.

In some cases, employers have closed access to the pension scheme and this is why I anticipate issues in a few years time as those who are (say) 40-65 now retire. The employers made a decision and as part of that would have doubtless done the maths -so I wouldn't say its an unforeseen issue.

 

[Bletchleyite]

In some cases, employers have closed access to the pension scheme and this is why I anticipate issues in a few years time as those who are (say) 40-65 now retire. The employers made a decision and as part of that would have doubtless done the maths -so I wouldn't say its an unforeseen issue.

The unforeseen issue is that people are living rather longer than when these schemes came into being. They're nice if you have one but on balance they are best all closed to new joiners.

 

[matacaster]

This could well form a separate topic, but part of the problem is the ponzi scheme run by the medical profession and vote-catching politicians. It is THEY who decree that we can't decide to die 'when we've had enough' and keep people like my mother-in-law (deceased) who spent three and a half years bed-ridden and unable to even scratch her leg let alone turn over alive. If the medical profession and drug companies keep people alive, they will likely come back repeatedly to the surgery / hospital and need more attention (more hospitals, doctors, nurses etc needed and more drugs). Whilst great things have been done to give people longer HEALTHY lives, there comes a point when people are simply worn out (joints, heart, lungs, kidneys etc). At a time when world and UK population is somewhat out of control and (in my view) largely responsible for climate change although most commentators avoid population control because its an uncomfortable subject), it might make sense to allow people who WANTED to choose their date and time of death to be allowed to do so to help save the planet etc.

 

[Dave1987]

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).

And that is exactly how populism starts gaining traction. You offer and provide training to people who are low skill labour with the lure of gaining high productivity, high paid work if they succeed. I think you are forgetting that some people may be made redundant from jobs they have done for 20 plus years. They aren't lazy or feckless, just do not currently have the skills required for the world they live in now. Or is the modern economy going to consist of those at the bottom working in the 'gig' economy having to work 60 hours a week just to earn enough to survive? If people have enough money to survive without working then immediately you withdraw the dirt cheap labour the likes of Uber and Deliveroo rely on. Then people can concentrate on becoming more productive and improving themselves. The UK has some of the worst productivity growth in the world so something has to change before populism takes hold and you get a radical Government in charge.

 

[Dave1987]

So because these type of people outnumber the highly qualified or highly intelligent, how do we keep them gainfully employed under the current system without having to give them benefits so they can survive?
There surely aren't enough low or zero skilled jobs around to employ all of them.

And this is exactly the problem facing the UK at the moment. The economy is changing so rapidly it is leaving a lot of people behind. I read an article recently that said unless Governments finally have the guts to make meaningful tax incomes from the digital economy then the Government will be stuck with many people either on the dole or in very poorly paid employment and will have to pick up the tab via benefit payments with less and less tax income to pay for it. A robot or digital services tax becomes more and more likely the more jobs that are replaced by automation unless Government can get people trained to a sufficient level to gain high productivity employment.

 

[underbank]

I read an article recently that said unless Governments finally have the guts to make meaningful tax incomes from the digital economy then the Government will be stuck with many people either on the dole or in very poorly paid employment and will have to pick up the tab via benefit payments with less and less tax income to pay for it.

We also need to really improve state education so that there are fewer unskilled/unqualified people coming through. We desperately need to up-skill our workforce so that we can be less reliant on imports (both goods and labour). We'll end up in a fatal downward spiral if we're not careful - it's ok saying "tax the digital economy" but if people havn't money to spend, there'll be less income from a digital tax, and so less money for the govt to pay out in benefits etc. It's a national scandal that recent governments have chosen to ignore one key financial measure, i.e. balance of payments. Whilst we continue to import more than we export, it's inevitable we'll end up increasing the national debt - one day it has to be dealt with.