The case for £1000 p/m Universal Basic Income

[ExpandMyMind]

This is actually a really cool idea. Initially I though that it might encourage people to be lazy and decide not to work (which it will for a small minority, no doubt), and that it would cost an absolute fortune in taxes, but, when you look at all the different variables, you start to see that, not only is it a rather brilliant idea, it is also absolutely necessary for the future.

First, around half of the money needed would come straight from the benefit budget (70% of which is pensions), but then you could also get rid of all the bloated, beaurocratic social programs that come with poverty. Not to mention that instead of £25b per year being spent on housing benefit, not only would that money be saved, but the equal amount would be pumped back into councils. 

With less people in poverty, the reduced stress on the NHS would be massive.

People who were in poverty could go to college and gain a professional education.

It is a statistical fact that less poverty results in far, far less crime. Which would save billions in policing and the courts.

There really are countless pros to this and, with all the savings (if done properly), we wouldn't even see much of a tax hike forced on people, with most still seeing a massive net gain.

And it is needed. With growing automation, we are about to see an explosion of unemployment the likes of which we have never imagined. Self driving trucks and self-serve checkouts are only the beginning of this new future. Machines will be preferred for more and more jobs within our lifetimes.

We already have a pension bomb about to go off, which will devastate our society - this would solve that.

All in all I think it's a really, really interesting idea for a society that is modernising and evolving in a way that's simply not sustainable. And it seems that opinion of the subject isn't split down left and right. 

Keep an eye on this subject over the years because I believe that it could be our future.

Quote

Under the scheme, ­everyone would get a set amount of cash every month.

Trials have been done in ­several countries and a test run is now planned in Scotland.

UBI is now the focus of a book, It’s Basic Income, out this week, and other famous fans include Tesla and PayPal founder Elon Musk , Virgin chief Sir Richard Branson and Facebook supremo Mark Zuckerberg.

 

Edited March 12, 2018 by ExpandMyMind

[Setton]

6 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

This is actually a really cool idea. Initially I though that it might encourage people to be lazy and decide not to work (which it will for a small minority, no doubt), and that it would cost an absolute fortune in taxes, but, when you look at all the different variables, you start to see that, not only is it a rather brilliant idea, it is also absolutely necessary for the future.

First, around half of the money needed would come straight from the benefit budget (70% of which is pensions), but then you could also get rid of all the bloated, beaurocratic social programs that come with poverty. Not to mention that instead of £25b per year being spent on housing benefit, not only would that money be saved, but the equal amount would be pumped back into councils. 

With less people in poverty, the reduced stress on the NHS would be massive.

People who were in poverty could go to college and gain a professional education.

There really are countless pros to this and, with all the savings (if done properly), we wouldn't even see much of a tax hike forced on people, with most still seeing a massive net gain.

And it is needed. With growing automation, we are about to see an explosion of unemployment the likes of which we have never imagined. Self driving trucks and self-serve checkouts are only the beginning of this new future. Machines will be preferred for more and more jobs within our lifetimes.

We already have a pension bomb about to go off, which will devastate our society - this would solve that.

All in all I think it's a really, really interesting idea for a society that is modernising and evolving in a way that's simply not sustainable. And it seems that opinion of the subject isn't split down left and right. 

Keep an eye on this subject over the years because I believe that it could be our future.

 

I saw something about this a while ago and, I have to say, I agree with you completely. 

To anyone else looking at this and thinking it can't possibly work, please do look at the numbers and do the maths. This system would see us all better off both individually and nationally. 

[+joc]

7 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

This is actually a really cool idea. Initially I though that it might encourage people to be lazy and decide not to work (which it will for a small minority, no doubt), and that it would cost an absolute fortune in taxes, but, when you look at all the different variables, you start to see that, not only is it a rather brilliant idea, it is also absolutely necessary for the future.

First, around half of the money needed would come straight from the benefit budget (70% of which is pensions), but then you could also get rid of all the bloated, beaurocratic social programs that come with poverty. Not to mention that instead of £25b per year being spent on housing benefit, not only would that money be saved, but the equal amount would be pumped back into councils. 

With less people in poverty, the reduced stress on the NHS would be massive.

People who were in poverty could go to college and gain a professional education.

There really are countless pros to this and, with all the savings (if done properly), we wouldn't even see much of a tax hike forced on people, with most still seeing a massive net gain.

And it is needed. With growing automation, we are about to see an explosion of unemployment the likes of which we have never imagined. Self driving trucks and self-serve checkouts are only the beginning of this new future. Machines will be preferred for more and more jobs within our lifetimes.

We already have a pension bomb about to go off, which will devastate our society - this would solve that.

All in all I think it's a really, really interesting idea for a society that is modernising and evolving in a way that's simply not sustainable. And it seems that opinion of the subject isn't split down left and right. 

Keep an eye on this subject over the years because I believe that it could be our future.

 

The population of Britain is 65.67 million x 1000 = 65.67 billion.   Where exactly is 65.67 billion pounds per month going to come from?  That's 788 billion pounds per year...is Britain just going to print that money out of thin air?  

[ExpandMyMind]

1 minute ago, Setton said:

I saw something about this a while ago and, I have to say, I agree with you completely. 

To anyone else looking at this and thinking it can't possibly work, please do look at the numbers and do the maths. This system would see us all better off both individually and nationally. 

Most of it has to do with how bloated our current system is when dealing with the homeless, people on benefits and crime. 

I'm sure there would be some down sides but they are dwarfed by the benefits.

[Aquila King]

11 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

but, when you look at all the different variables, you start to see that, not only is it a rather brilliant idea, it is also absolutely necessary for the future.

I've thought for a long time that this was only a matter of time. With the advancement of technology slowly replacing all labor, it's gonna be an inevitability. It's just a question of when do we start?

[ExpandMyMind]

7 minutes ago, joc said:

The population of Britain is 65.67 million x 1000 = 65.67 billion.   Where exactly is 65.67 billion pounds per month going to come from?  That's 788 billion pounds per year...is Britain just going to print that money out of thin air?  

If you had actually read my post instead of just ignorantly replying, you would know where the money would come from.

And the working population is roughly 40m, so it's closer to £500b - half of which would be covered straight away by the elimination of our welfare spending, which is around £250b.

Edited March 12, 2018 by ExpandMyMind

[Aquila King]

5 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

If you had actually read my post instead of just ignorantly replying, you would know where the money would come from.

[+joc]

1 hour ago, Aquila King said:

shut up!!   I read the post....I guess I'm just confused...I'm not getting the logic of it...isn't it just replacing one welfare system with another?

I'm digging that cat!

Edited March 12, 2018 by joc

[ExpandMyMind]

10 minutes ago, joc said:

shut up!!   I read the post....I guess I'm just confused...I'm not getting the logic of it...isn't it just replacing one welfare system with another?

I'm digging that cat!

It's not really "welfare", since everyone would receive it. But, for some it obviously would be - mainly pensioners, who make up 70% of the welfare budget (and that number will keep increasing).

The rest would come from the indirect savings made by eliminating poverty and adding a little more tax to everyone (or maybe just a little more tax for corporations and billionaires).

The point is that there is already a massive amount of money being wasted. Not due to the money people receive, but due to all the different government departments and programmes that would be eliminated with Universal Basic Income.

The point, is that we're already spending the money, just not efficiently.

[+joc]

1 minute ago, ExpandMyMind said:

It's not really "welfare", since everyone would receive it. But, for some it obviously would be - mainly pensioners, who make up 70% of the welfare budget (and that number will keep increasing).

The rest would come from the indirect savings made by eliminating poverty and adding a little more tax to everyone (or maybe just a little more tax for corporations and billionaires).

The point is that there is already a massive amount of money being wasted. Not due to the money people receive, but due to all the different government departments and programmes that would be eliminated with Universal Basic Income.

The point, is that we're already spending the money, just not efficiently.

I see.  Makes sense on paper...I'm not really familiar with the Government infrastructure in Britain so I can't really say much about it.  

[ExpandMyMind]

2 minutes ago, joc said:

I see.  Makes sense on paper...I'm not really familiar with the Government infrastructure in Britain so I can't really say much about it.  

Well it's being tested and studied in countries around the world, including here, so we should have a better idea in the next 5-10 years I would think. Maybe less.

Edited March 12, 2018 by ExpandMyMind

[+joc]

3 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

Well it's being tested and studied in countries around the world, including here, so we should have a better idea in the next 5-10 years I would think. Maybe less.

Where is...here...Scotland?

[ExpandMyMind]

5 minutes ago, joc said:

Where is...here...Scotland?

Yup. Some councils near where I live.

I think the Scandinavian countries will end up paving the way though. They all seem to be on a push to properly research it, and it looks to be backed by their people and governments.

[Grey Area]

In cases of poverty the problem is not so much the amount of income it is the adult unable to prioritise the essentials, instead wasting their money on alcohol and cigs and media.

[+and-then]

8 minutes ago, Grey Area said:

In cases of poverty the problem is not so much the amount of income it is the adult unable to prioritise the essentials, instead wasting their money on alcohol and cigs and media.

I have no idea how this would work but it seems to me that the citizens it is meant to help the most are those who are employed but are earning less than a living wage or those who are unemployable due to lack of skills in the modern world.  I agree that something will have to be done to help the millions who are on the cusp of being put out of work by technology.  For the rest of those citizens (or immigrants) who are already on the dole - for whatever reason - how will this help them, exactly?  I assume that chronically physically ill, drug addicted, mentally ill or others who are unable/unwilling to work are already being fed, housed and have medical care.  I also assume that they receive some sort of tiny stipend and that all of those expenses couldn't possibly be less that 1000/LB - P/M  

Is this correct?  Would this basic income be for ALL citizens or just those at or under a certain economic level?  I know that many of our inner-city dwellers - of all races - already receive food assistance for themselves and their children, housing at no cost, free medical care and a cash payment for each child up to 3. Those benefits FAR exceed 1400 dollars per month.  So, would those on the dole receive an additional 1000?  Or would they be cut down to ONLY 1000lb?

[Tiggs]

1 minute ago, and then said:

Is this correct?  Would this basic income be for ALL citizens or just those at or under a certain economic level? 

Believe it's supposed to be for all, and is a replacement for all other benefits.

Interesting proposal, but probably unaffordable, tbh, without large tax increases.

[Space Commander Travis]

8 hours ago, ExpandMyMind said:

Self driving trucks and self-serve checkouts are only the beginning of this new future. Machines will be preferred for more and more jobs within our lifetimes.

I don't ******** prefer 'em. ******* infuriating, they are. "Place your item in baggage area." "Unexpected item in baggage area. Remove this item". "Place item in  baggage area." And so on, for ever. 

[Setton]

1 hour ago, Grey Area said:

In cases of poverty the problem is not so much the amount of income it is the adult unable to prioritise the essentials, instead wasting their money on alcohol and cigs and media.

For some, perhaps. To label everyone in poverty that way is willfully ignorant. 

1 hour ago, and then said:

I have no idea how this would work but it seems to me that the citizens it is meant to help the most are those who are employed but are earning less than a living wage or those who are unemployable due to lack of skills in the modern world.  I agree that something will have to be done to help the millions who are on the cusp of being put out of work by technology.  For the rest of those citizens (or immigrants) who are already on the dole - for whatever reason - how will this help them, exactly?  I assume that chronically physically ill, drug addicted, mentally ill or others who are unable/unwilling to work are already being fed, housed and have medical care.  I also assume that they receive some sort of tiny stipend and that all of those expenses couldn't possibly be less that 1000/LB - P/M  

Is this correct?  Would this basic income be for ALL citizens or just those at or under a certain economic level?  I know that many of our inner-city dwellers - of all races - already receive food assistance for themselves and their children, housing at no cost, free medical care and a cash payment for each child up to 3. Those benefits FAR exceed 1400 dollars per month.  So, would those on the dole receive an additional 1000?  Or would they be cut down to ONLY 1000lb?

Its £1000 per month for everyone. And it's enough for anyone. Im currently part time so only make £1100 a month. That covers my rent, bills, taxes, food, some treats and still leaves around £300 a month to save. 

I would argue that this might need to be adjusted by location. I live in one of the cheapest areas of the country. Down south I could probably just about scrape by on it. 

[Torchwood]

I still dont see it working, though I suspect it or something like it is going to happen (or at least be needed) on a global scale with the automation of everything....

The bit I don't get is if we can save so much money with these efficiency measures that we can then afford to give a £1000 back every single month to everyone than why do we not save more by cutting out the middleman altogether and simply reduce tax and national insurance across the board? 

 

[Grey Area]

16 minutes ago, Setton said:

For some, perhaps. To label everyone in poverty that way is willfully ignorant.  

Perhaps, but I guess it depends on our definition of poverty.

I shall rephrase, in my experience of families living in poverty, which is extensive, it is a self imposed state caused by seeing expensive phone and media subscriptions and huge tv’s as somehow being life’s necessities, and with cigarettes and alcohol being of higher importance than having a healthy intake of food.

while those who get by perfectly fine on lower incomes (all credit to them) might meet the dictionary definition, they are not the ones I am aiming at.

But you accuse me of wilful ignorance, here you say this:

28 minutes ago, Setton said:

Its £1000 per month for everyone. And it's enough for anyone.  

Then you totally contradict yourself by saying

29 minutes ago, Setton said:

I would argue that this might need to be adjusted by location.

So it’s enough for everyone, or it’s not.  

Personally, I think if this were to be a thing housing would be a massive issue, bigger than it is currently, and would hit single parent families the hardest for obvious reasons.

For me it would be awesome, I live in a dual income household we live within our means, save when we can.  Having an added £24000 per year coming in would be great, it would garuantee my children’s education paid for.

I fear though, that this would open the door to more complex issues with regard to employment and tax law, specifically around minimum wage and tax thresholds and leave many jobs open to exploitation

[Space Commander Travis]

18 minutes ago, Grey Area said:

I shall rephrase, in my experience of families living in poverty, which is extensive, it is a self imposed state caused by seeing expensive phone and media subscriptions and huge tv’s as somehow being life’s necessities, and with cigarettes and alcohol being of higher importance than having a healthy intake of food.

Heavens, isn't that a bit of a Sun/Daily Mail sweeping generalisation? 

[Grey Area]

1 hour ago, Vlad the Mighty said:

Heavens, isn't that a bit of a Sun/Daily Mail sweeping generalisation? 

You know, I wish it was a sweeping generalisation and that I wasn't speaking from direct experience.

Ask yourself a question, what is the bare minimum you could live with, what is there that you absolutely couldn't live without?

I have heard it all when speaking to families who have had to visit a food bank, and it still shocks me, responses like 'I had to have my wine at the end of a day', 'I had to buy a scratch card because I am trying to solve my money issues!', I have to have sky tv because my kids wont watch Cbeebies!', 'My kids use up all my data watching you tube so I have to pay out for an unlimited data contract'.

These and more are all lauded as genuine excuses for having to visit food banks, or reasons why their kids clothes aren't washed because the parents spent the money for a 2quid pack of washing powder on themselves.

The issue is muddy I know, but mental and physical health problems aside, if the recipients of benefits in whatever form just knuckled down and separated what they need from what they want the so called poverty that many proclaim would not be an issue.

But I know many people see things we take for granted as being essential and not privelage, I'm gonna roll with the punches on this one.   

[Setton]

1 hour ago, Grey Area said:

Perhaps, but I guess it depends on our definition of poverty.

I shall rephrase, in my experience of families living in poverty, which is extensive, it is a self imposed state caused by seeing expensive phone and media subscriptions and huge tv’s as somehow being life’s necessities, and with cigarettes and alcohol being of higher importance than having a healthy intake of food.

while those who get by perfectly fine on lower incomes (all credit to them) might meet the dictionary definition, they are not the ones I am aiming at.

But you accuse me of wilful ignorance, here you say this:

Then you totally contradict yourself by saying

So it’s enough for everyone, or it’s not.  

Its enough for anyone. As I say, where I am, I could save up 200 a month. Down south, I wouldn't have a penny left over. But it would be enough. 

So it should be adjusted by location to make it match the living costs of a location. That would also bring down the overall cost. 

I agree I didn't make it clear first time. Hopefully that makes more sense. 

Quote

Personally, I think if this were to be a thing housing would be a massive issue, bigger than it is currently, and would hit single parent families the hardest for obvious reasons.

For me it would be awesome, I live in a dual income household we live within our means, save when we can.  Having an added £24000 per year coming in would be great, it would garuantee my children’s education paid for.

Of course, living here already guarantees our children's education is paid for 

Quote

I fear though, that this would open the door to more complex issues with regard to employment and tax law, specifically around minimum wage and tax thresholds and leave many jobs open to exploitation

Possibly, and that's something that would need to be managed carefully. But every change brings other change and fear of change is no reason to stagnate. 

The benefits of this approach far outweigh the negatives. 

[Setton]

7 minutes ago, Grey Area said:

You know, I wish it was a sweeping generalisation and that I wasn't speaking from direct experience.

Ask yourself a question, what is the bare minimum you could live with, what is there that you absolutely couldn't live without?

I have heard it all when speaking to families who have had to visit a food bank, and it still shocks me, responses like 'I had to have my wine at the end of a day', 'I had to buy a scratch card because I am trying to solve my money issues!', I have to have sky tv because my kids wont watch Cbeebies!', 'My kids use up all my data watching you tube so I have to pay out for an unlimited data contract'.

These and more are all lauded as genuine excuses for having to visit food banks, or reasons why their kids clothes aren't washed because the parents spent the money for a 2quid pack of washing powder on themselves.

The issue is muddy I know, but mental and physical health problems aside, if the recipients of benefits in whatever form just knuckled down and separated what they need from what they want the so called poverty that many proclaim would not be an issue.

But I know many people see things we take for granted as being essential and not privelage, I'm gonna roll with the punches on this one.   

That may be your experience and these people definitely exist. I think my favourite one was the family on the news saying gas bills were too high. 'Well we got back from Disneyland Florida and there was this massive gas bill, I don't know how we're going to pay it'. 

However, in my experience working with impoverished families, these are the exception, not the rule. We just don't hear about the ones with genuine reasons for their poverty because they're not ridiculous. 

[Torchwood]

3 minutes ago, Grey Area said:

You know, I wish it was a sweeping generalisation and that I wasn't speaking from direct experience.

Ask yourself a question, what is the bare minimum you could live with, what is there that you absolutely couldn't live without?

I have heard it all when speaking to families who have had to visit a food bank, and it still shocks me, responses like 'I had to have my wine at the end of a day', 'I had to buy a scratch card because I am trying to solve my money issues!', I have to have sky tv because my kids wont watch Cbeebies!', 'My kids use up all my data watching you tube so I have to pay out for an unlimited data contract'.

These and more are all lauded as genuine excuses for having to visit food banks, or reasons why their kids clothes aren't washed because the parents spent the money for a 2quid pack of washing powder on themselves.

The issue is muddy I know, but mental and physical health problems aside, if the recipients of benefits in whatever form just knuckled down and separated what they need from what they want the so called poverty that many proclaim would not be an issue.

But I know many people see things we take for granted as being essential and not privelage, I'm gonna roll with the punches on this one.   

To be fair, whilst its certainly not universally true there are an astonishing number of people who havn't the faintest idea of how to get the basics right when it comes to money. What dismays me most perhaps is the number of kids that turn 18 and then want to be able to start gambling immediately, and the number of people who ring up panicking 'cos they can't pay their rent and don't know where the money has gone...because they gambled it all away. And all I can do is point them in the direction of the appropriate advice and help...

I do get to see the polar opposite a  lot too though, all those little old ladies  sat on several millions put aside  for "A rainy day", and all you want to do is shout , "Darling, your Ninety Seven! All the Rainy Days have been and gone, and you've nobody to leave it to: book that holiday of a lifetime, and hire yourself an elite team of extremely good looking people to do pleasant things to you and hand you margaritas 24/7, and do it now!"

And both groups are in that situation because thats how they were brought up.