Universal basic income of £1600 a month to be trialled in England

[pellinore]

A universal basic income of £1,600 a month is to be trialled in England for the first time in a pilot programme.

Under the pilot programme, 30 people in two areas will be paid an unconditional lump sum each month for two years, with the participants observed to better understand the effects on their lives.

Two places in England have been selected for the micro pilot scheme, central Jarrow in north-east England and Grange, East Finchley in north London.

In the pilots, 15-30 people would receive £1,600 a month for two years.

Universal basic income of £1,600 a month to be trialled in England | Universal basic income | The Guardian

Edited June 4 by pellinore

[joseraul]

Excuse my language, but.. ****ing finally.

[Eldorado]

That's more than I get for working three and a half 12 hour shifts per week as a Care Asssistant.

I imagine they'll survive just fine.

[joseraul]

UBI is championed out of silicon valley, no?

It's the natural course for the automated revolution, for humans, no?

[+and-then]

2 hours ago, Eldorado said:

That's more than I get for working three and a half 12 hour shifts per week as a Care Asssistant.

I imagine they'll survive just fine.

I think it will depend on the individuals it is given to.  We know that some folks would be able to live with a lot less financial stress but there would be others who'd use it to drink/drug/gamble... whatever their personal demons might be.  Those would probably end up worse off - or at least, no better.  If the gift came with no strings at all - and no restrictions - I wonder if most would use it for what it is intended, a stabilizer, and would then seek to earn even more to improve their lives.

Too often over here, anything that comes from the government is given in a way that means it can be suddenly taken away if one begins to try to help themselves AT ALL.  

[Electric Scooter]

5 hours ago, pellinore said:

A universal basic income of £1,600 a month is to be trialled in England for the first time in a pilot programme.

Under the pilot programme, 30 people in two areas will be paid an unconditional lump sum each month for two years, with the participants observed to better understand the effects on their lives.

Two places in England have been selected for the micro pilot scheme, central Jarrow in north-east England and Grange, East Finchley in north London.

In the pilots, 15-30 people would receive £1,600 a month for two years.

Universal basic income of £1,600 a month to be trialled in England | Universal basic income | The Guardian

I`m against this, at this point in history.

It will make sense in the future when society is more automated because 95% of the population may not have jobs. Alternatively, undertaking a job could be seen as a new type of national service where all people do 5 years when they finish education. Maybe most of the population will spend their days playing football? Imagine how well England would do in the World Cup with that!!!

But at this point in history it amounts to communism. It is not free money, someone else is paying.

[Tatetopa]

Great, but I have to ask where will the money come from?  If jobs are being replaced by  automation or AI, the owners of the replacements are most likely to be people in the top income brackets.  In the US at least, we don't like to tax those people very much.   Its a dilemma since more than 60% of US economy is consumer driven.  Without consumers, even the top income classes shrink. 

[L.A.T.1961]

It is already a reality with the basic state pension. This pays out to huge numbers of folk but less per week.

The system is already under strain, and has been for years, with the payout age put back to 67.

If the method cannot provide a £1600 monthly sum for those pensioners who may have paid in for decades funding this idea looks like pie in the sky.

Companies would have to ultimately foot the bill, if they employed very few people and used automated systems maybe the robots could be taxed for each one used in a business as well as standard existing taxes.  

If so I can see no reason for individuals to go out on a limb and start a business, might as well sit back and enjoy the largess of the state.  

 

 

[pellinore]

52 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:

Great, but I have to ask where will the money come from?  If jobs are being replaced by  automation or AI, the owners of the replacements are most likely to be people in the top income brackets.  In the US at least, we don't like to tax those people very much.   Its a dilemma since more than 60% of US economy is consumer driven.  Without consumers, even the top income classes shrink. 

Interesting, isn't it? In the past innovations in production (assembly lines, cheaper materials like plastics etc) has grown economies and everyone has got wealthier. But if AI and automation increase, there may be only service jobs left- delivering care or serving people in hospitality and such like. But if there are too many poor or unemployed people, who will drive demand for goods and services? I guess the US is like the UK, at present the gap between the richest 5% and the poorest 20% is increasing year on year. Maybe the very rich will have to accept some redistribution of wealth.

[pellinore]

1 hour ago, Electric Scooter said:

I`m against this, at this point in history.

It will make sense in the future when society is more automated because 95% of the population may not have jobs. Alternatively, undertaking a job could be seen as a new type of national service where all people do 5 years when they finish education. Maybe most of the population will spend their days playing football? Imagine how well England would do in the World Cup with that!!!

But at this point in history it amounts to communism. It is not free money, someone else is paying.

How will things change in the future to make it more feasible? How will 95% of the population being unemployed make UBI more affordable than it is now?

[Electric Scooter]

19 minutes ago, pellinore said:

How will things change in the future to make it more feasible? How will 95% of the population being unemployed make UBI more affordable than it is now?

I think there will be a restructuring of society when its level of automation is high.

Its not that people would be unemployed because they cannot find a job, its that they will be unemployed because there is no need for them to do jobs. Robots/AI will be doing most tasks from farming to building to delivering to finance. It will mean the main function of our existence in our country is not to work. I wonder what will fill the gap in peoples lives? There is only so much leisure time people can enjoy before it starts to get boring.

If robots/AIs are doing everything should the whole economy be nationalised? Don`t worry, robots/AIs dont need unions. Or should it be capitalist where every citizen is a shareholders living off dividend? Or will a new economic model emerge? Who knows, its too early to tell.

Will we become a new Sparta where humans watch over AI military assets and nothing else?

Edited June 4 by Electric Scooter

[Tatetopa]

1 hour ago, Electric Scooter said:

Its not that people would be unemployed because they cannot find a job, its that they will be unemployed because there is no need for them to do jobs.

What commodity that you control will you exchange for your income then?  So far, no manufacturing company has continued to pay workers it has displaced with automation.    It  is an interesting question and you do bring up some alternatives.

Here is one for you.  If I were one of the top 10% shareholders and all of my needs were supplied by robots and AI, why would I want the other 90% of the population on earth with all of their pollution, turmoil and climate change potential?

 

[Electric Scooter]

1 hour ago, Tatetopa said:

What commodity that you control will you exchange for your income then?  So far, no manufacturing company has continued to pay workers it has displaced with automation.    It  is an interesting question and you do bring up some alternatives.

Here is one for you.  If I were one of the top 10% shareholders and all of my needs were supplied by robots and AI, why would I want the other 90% of the population on earth with all of their pollution, turmoil and climate change potential?

I see it as something yet to all be figured out.

Maybe we will spend all our time in various types of competitions from sports to online gaming to art and gardening, who knows?

[pellinore]

4 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

Here is one for you.  If I were one of the top 10% shareholders and all of my needs were supplied by robots and AI, why would I want the other 90% of the population on earth with all of their pollution, turmoil and climate change potential?

6 hours ago, L.A.T.1961 said:

It is already a reality with the basic state pension. This pays out to huge numbers of folk but less per week.

If so I can see no reason for individuals to go out on a limb and start a business, might as well sit back and enjoy the largess of the state.  

This article addresses some of the points raised by you both. You are spot on LAT, mentioning pension as a form of basic income. As for affordability, the article suggests automation and AI may bring such increased wealth that it will be affordable. And as to Tatetopa's point about the wealthiest 10% not needing the poor 90%, I think that is not valid. They will still want to live in a society ( In fact, Tatetopa reminds me of Michael Moorcock's The Dancers at the End of Time).

From the article:If it is to be reformed, to adjust to the changing ways we work and live, then an element of basic income could be a step forward. Indeed, its critics might be surprised to learn that a limited version already exists in the form of the state retirement pension and, to a lesser degree, in child benefit payments.

Basic income should ideally allow a substantial contribution to basic subsistence, either at or near some accepted poverty line (itself a hotly contested concept). But it need not be paid at anything like, say, median earnings....

In a society, perhaps not so far distant, where a relatively few create enormous amounts of wealth and generate much of the nation’s GDP, this gifted (or lucky) minority, who will possess the scarce skills or own the capital assets of the future, will become fabulously wealthy, and the economy would be larger than ever before.

Yet the majority of the people, dispossessed of their livelihood by AI and robots, will earn little to nothing, perhaps subsisting as a servant class for the mega-rich. Such a world could be a placid, peaceful, harmonised leisure society, where tedious clerical and onerous manual tasks were the jobs of obedient machines.

Universal basic income may not be popular but it could soon be necessary | The Independent (archive.ph)

Edited June 5 by pellinore

[Tatetopa]

31 minutes ago, pellinore said:

And as to Tatetopa's point about the wealthiest 10% not needing the poor 90%, I think that is not valid.

Yeah, I did think of that as kind of worst case.  On the whole, I see the necessity,  but I don't think we will get there easily.

 The article brings up several points that  I think will cause friction and controversy.  First, people are talking about UBI like unemployment insurance or welfare which  it is not, as far as  I can tell.  The resentment will focus on those receiving the benefit who are lazy good for nothings who won't go look for work and lay about all day.    People who do work are going to get testy about that. It seems like a major shift in attitudes  will need to happen. 

I'm still not sure where the money will come from.  If current practice were to hold, the working middle class would be paying for it out of taxes.  As AI replaces jobs, that working middle class will shrink and more people will need UBI,  it seems tax revenue based on working people's incomes  will decrease below necessarily levels. At some point, a larger share of the GDP will need to go directly to middle class citizens on UBI.  There is my question, what will be used to fill that gap?  The productivity is there to do it, the goods and services exist, but they belong to somebody else.  Is it going to be an AI  or automation tax? 

 

[Eldorado]

1 hour ago, Tatetopa said:

I'm still not sure where the money will come from.  If current practice were to hold, the working middle class would be paying for it out of taxes.

 

Do the working lower classes not pay taxes?

[Tatetopa]

1 hour ago, Eldorado said:

Do the working lower classes not pay taxes?

You might be better at answering that than I.  I think they do.   My point is that unless more comes from upper income levels, there won't be enough funding.

[Eldorado]

2 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

You might be better at answering that than I.  I think they do.   My point is that unless more comes from upper income levels, there won't be enough funding.

Or the self-serving professional BSers we elect to govern us could spend what we have more prudently.

(The UK bought £4billion worth of unusable PPE during the first year of the covid pandemic)

UK Parliament

(£21bn of public money lost in fraud since COVID pandemic began and most will never be recovered)

Sky News

[odas]

22 hours ago, pellinore said:

A universal basic income of £1,600 a month is to be trialled in England for the first time in a pilot programme.

Under the pilot programme, 30 people in two areas will be paid an unconditional lump sum each month for two years, with the participants observed to better understand the effects on their lives.

Two places in England have been selected for the micro pilot scheme, central Jarrow in north-east England and Grange, East Finchley in north London.

In the pilots, 15-30 people would receive £1,600 a month for two years.

Universal basic income of £1,600 a month to be trialled in England | Universal basic income | The Guardian

Would this basic income be a part of a monthly payment to every citizen regardless of other income thru work or would that be a sub for unemployment, sick benefits, pensions only?

[pellinore]

11 minutes ago, odas said:

Would this basic income be a part of a monthly payment to every citizen regardless of other income thru work or would that be a sub for unemployment, sick benefits, pensions only?

AFAIK, the following criteria have been set:

The money does not come out of taxation, it is purely academic funds allocated just for these studies; similar schemes have been run in Switzerland (again time-limited) and one is being run in Wales at present for people leaving care; the money has been set at median income (so higher than any benefits); it does not replace any other benefits; the trial areas are low-income; it does not preclude the recipients taking other paid work; it is just for academic research, just to see what happens.

[Electric Scooter]

13 hours ago, pellinore said:

This article addresses some of the points raised by you both. You are spot on LAT, mentioning pension as a form of basic income. As for affordability, the article suggests automation and AI may bring such increased wealth that it will be affordable. And as to Tatetopa's point about the wealthiest 10% not needing the poor 90%, I think that is not valid. They will still want to live in a society ( In fact, Tatetopa reminds me of Michael Moorcock's The Dancers at the End of Time).

From the article:If it is to be reformed, to adjust to the changing ways we work and live, then an element of basic income could be a step forward. Indeed, its critics might be surprised to learn that a limited version already exists in the form of the state retirement pension and, to a lesser degree, in child benefit payments.

Basic income should ideally allow a substantial contribution to basic subsistence, either at or near some accepted poverty line (itself a hotly contested concept). But it need not be paid at anything like, say, median earnings....

In a society, perhaps not so far distant, where a relatively few create enormous amounts of wealth and generate much of the nation’s GDP, this gifted (or lucky) minority, who will possess the scarce skills or own the capital assets of the future, will become fabulously wealthy, and the economy would be larger than ever before.

Yet the majority of the people, dispossessed of their livelihood by AI and robots, will earn little to nothing, perhaps subsisting as a servant class for the mega-rich. Such a world could be a placid, peaceful, harmonised leisure society, where tedious clerical and onerous manual tasks were the jobs of obedient machines.

Universal basic income may not be popular but it could soon be necessary | The Independent (archive.ph)

It just seems so fundamentality wrong to me.

That the peasantry could be elevated to comfort due to AI. It seems communist. I propose an alternative future where robot/AI citizens receive a wage based on the job that they do. And so do the humans.

Imagine the huge economic growth we could create by saying, right next week lets print another million robotic/AI citizens?

[Tatetopa]

It takes on some aspects of a board game.  All of the citizens are players  and every time they go around the board and pass GO they get their UBI.  Then as they move from square to square, they buy, they work, they invest, they contribute something and receive greater rewards.  They grow their wealth and resources and improve their lives.  Or they don't and just plod around the board  collect their UBI and just spend it all to survive.  In that case, all of their UBI winds up in the hands of the other players.  they accumulate nothing, but they don't starve or sleep on the street.

[itsnotoutthere]

https://phys.org/news/2021-06-finnish-basic-income-short-term-employment.html

[Occult1]

UBI makes for lazy people. I wouldn't be surprised if the mental health of the participants plunges in this study.

Get paid to sit on your a**, watch netflix (or what else), play video games and sleep all day.

A great way to destroy society.

Edited June 6 by Occult1

[acidhead]

UBI has already been trialled when the government paid individuals to stay home because of Covid.  The results were as expected.  Those who didn't want to work gladly kept taking the money even when restrictions were lifted and they could go back to work and earn more.