Money for nothing: Universal basic income to be trialled in England for first time

[Social Media]

Auniversal basic income of £1,600 a month is set to be trialled in England for the first time under “exciting” plans drawn up by researchers.

Under the pilot programme, 30 people in two areas would be paid an unconditional lump sum each month for two years, with the effects monitored to understand how it affects their lives.

Advocates of a basic income say the policy would provide security to people both in and out of work and eradicate poverty for good, while critics say it is expensive and that support should be targeted.

More about

Universal Basic Income

 

[peter zwart]

This should be implemented worldwide as soon as possible. A lot of problems will disappear and prosperity and well-being will take a big leap.

[save the frogs]

10 minutes ago, peter zwart said:

This should be implemented worldwide as soon as possible. A lot of problems will disappear and prosperity and well-being will take a big leap.

they have to wait until the robots are rolled out in sufficient numbers. 

 

it will solve some problems and create different ones. 

people who studied many years like doctors might get depressed and lose their sense of purpose when Robbie the Robot starts taking over. not to mention won't be making 250K anymore. people with crap jobs might be happy. 

 

maybe lots of people won't know what to do with all that free time and get stoned all day. 

 

not saying it's a bad thing. depends who is affected and how they deal with it. 

 

Edited June 5, 2023 by save the frogs

[Gsxrnz]

I'm guessing that the entire tax take from approximately 50 average wage working individuals will be required to fund this scheme.  Extrapolate that out to the entire population and there is a slight problem with the math. I know socialism has it's own version of math, but eventually reality has a way of kicking you in the rear end.

[stoner]

17 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

it will solve some problems and create different ones. 

people who studied many years like doctors might get depressed and lose their sense of purpose

some guy started a thread the other day talking about this issue :)

[stereolab]

£1600.00 will be spent by some, not all, on alcohol, cigarettes and lottery scratch cards. We already have, in the UK, a UI scheme, as for years individuals have been able to play the system into receiving dole money, whilst perfectly able to work, they also received free housing and house improvements, including new showers, external ramps and decking. Once they fritter away their £1600.00 they will go and apply for emergency assistance. 

[KhunLA]

Sooner or later, you run out of other people's money. 

 

Those that contribute the most (such as myself when in USA), will eventual think they had enough, and simply leave the country.  Taking their future tax revenue with them.

[ozimoron]

First it was automation and jobs coming for our jobs and now it is AI. The choice is simple. Ban progress or implement a living wage paid for by corporate taxes.

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

Smart move to do the research now.

 

AI is already stripping jobs out, if AI lives up to expectations it’s going to put millions out of work.

 

How to deal with mass permanent removal of jobs across all sectors of the economy is going yo need solutions.

 

Universal income is one, changes to taxation of businesses making vast profits in societies while employing very few people is going to be another.

 

 

[ozimoron]

4 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Smart move to do the research now.

 

AI is already stripping jobs out, if AI lives up to expectations it’s going to put millions out of work.

 

How to deal with mass permanent removal of jobs across all sectors of the economy is going yo need solutions.

 

Universal income is one, changes to taxation of businesses making vast profits in societies while employing very few people is going to be another.

 

 

It's coming. Worldwide corporate tax agreements are already in place. Next will be the universal basic income.

 

45% of Americans support it, including a fifth of Republicans.

 

Nearly eight-in-ten Republicans and Republican-leaning independents (78%) oppose the federal government providing a universal basic income of about $1,000 per person, with 62% strongly opposed. A smaller share of Democrats and Democratic leaners (66%) favor a UBI, with just a third supporting the proposal strongly.

 

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2020/08/19/more-americans-oppose-than-favor-the-government-providing-a-universal-basic-income-for-all-adult-citizens/

[ozimoron]

The same conservative opposition is prevalent in the UK as well. A classic example of how low income blue collar workers who are most prone to be conservative vote against their own best interests.

 

Recent data from the Pew Research Center (2020) show that most American conservatives opposed UBI: while 72% of liberals favored it, 84% of conservatives opposed it. Such opposition, however, is not necessarily rigid because political elites can often deploy frames to sway public opinion in specific ideological directions

 

the negative stereotypes of welfare recipients are especially strong among American conservatives. As many conservatives believe that welfare programs disproportionately benefit Black Americans, they regard welfare with fundamental disdain

 

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11109-022-09824-z

Edited June 6, 2023 by ozimoron

[NotEinstein]

Where is the money for this supposed to come from?

Governments always complain that they haven't got enough to solve the problems of their poor.

Does the new-fangled digital money conjuring from nothing just need the hoops to be jumped through developed to their liking?

[ozimoron]

1 minute ago, NotEinstein said:

Where is the money for this supposed to come from?

Governments always complain that they haven't got enough to solve the problems of their poor.

Does the new-fangled digital money conjuring from nothing just need the hoops to be jumped through developed to their liking?

Corporate taxes on companies who are making increased and windfall profits from the use of technology to reduce employment costs.

[NotEinstein]

5 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Corporate taxes on companies who are making increased and windfall profits from the use of technology to reduce employment costs.

Companies have been doing that for decades and have been receiving ever increasing tax discounts - why should it change now?

[ozimoron]

8 minutes ago, NotEinstein said:

Companies have been doing that for decades and have been receiving ever increasing tax discounts - why should it change now?

It will once unemployment and wealth inequality reaches exhaustion levels of critical mass. In other words when enough people decide it's a good idea. The rate of job loss is expected to increase dramatically in the coming years with self driving vehicles (over 3% of US workers drive for a living) and AI taking many white collar jobs which is a new phenomenon.

 

There are over 1,419,427 delivery drivers currently employed in the United States.

 

https://www.zippia.com/delivery-driver-jobs/demographics/

 

In 2018, 1.7 million workers – 2.1% of all hourly paid workers – had wages at or below the current federal minimum wage

Edited June 6, 2023 by ozimoron

[NotEinstein]

15 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

It will once unemployment and wealth inequality reaches exhaustion levels of critical mass. In other words when enough people decide it's a good idea. The rate of job loss is expected to increase dramatically in the coming years with self driving vehicles (over 3% of US workers drive for a living) and AI taking many white collar jobs which is a new phenomenon.

 

There are over 1,419,427 delivery drivers currently employed in the United States.

 

https://www.zippia.com/delivery-driver-jobs/demographics/

 

In 2018, 1.7 million workers – 2.1% of all hourly paid workers – had wages at or below the current federal minimum wage

So, when a large chunk of the workforce is unemployed, they, along with everyone else, will get paid from the tax on their previous employers?

[ozimoron]

Just now, NotEinstein said:

So, when a large chunk of the workforce is unemployed, they, along with everyone else, will get paid from the tax on their previous employers?

No, from general taxes. Most large corporations pay little to no tax and make huge profits. There is no proposal to correlate liability for job losses to individual companies to pay their terminated workers.

[NotEinstein]

3 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

No, from general taxes. Most large corporations pay little to no tax and make huge profits. There is no proposal to correlate liability for job losses to individual companies to pay their terminated workers.

Yes, I didn't mean direct company liability, but as the supposed additional profits are going to come from this technological unemployment, tax would need to be applied to these companies to generate enough additional general tax to fund UBI in it's entirety, which would be a huge amount.

Can you honestly see these corporations operating so as not to be able to pay shareholder dividends etc?

 

 

[ozimoron]

1 minute ago, NotEinstein said:

Yes, I didn't mean direct company liability, but as the supposed additional profits are going to come from this technological unemployment, tax would need to be applied to these companies to generate enough additional general tax to fund UBI in it's entirety, which would be a huge amount.

Can you honestly see these corporations operating so as not to be able to pay shareholder dividends etc?

I will repeat, most don't pay significant taxes at all and make obscene profits. Additional profit tax would only be a component. Tax on existing profits must be applied under a new international agreement.

 

If the imposition of any reasonable corporate taxes, say similar to individual taxes, was enforced on companies and that caused a shareholder exodus that wouldn't be a bad thing. The economic and stock market monopoly enjoyed by ever fewer corporations (monopolies, mergers and acquisitions) is the primary driver of this automation fueled job losses. Mega corporations are what is essentially wrong with society.

[James105]

2 hours ago, ozimoron said:

No, from general taxes. Most large corporations pay little to no tax and make huge profits. There is no proposal to correlate liability for job losses to individual companies to pay their terminated workers.

Well lets say this little scheme is implemented and everyone gets £1,600 per month tax free.   That would cost (if there are 55 million adults) over £1 trillion pounds a year.    The UK currently only collects taxes in total of about £768 billion per year, with the majority collected being income tax, NIC and VAT.   That will clearly reduce significantly if millions of people no longer worked.   

 

There will have to be different kind of jobs invented as there is no way to make the numbers work on this just by squeezing corporations.   

 

Also, can you imagine what it would be like with too many humans in society without anything productive to do with their days?   It would probably become a drink and drug fuelled hellscape.  

[NotEinstein]

15 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

I will repeat, most don't pay significant taxes at all and make obscene profits. Additional profit tax would only be a component. Tax on existing profits must be applied under a new international agreement.

 

If the imposition of any reasonable corporate taxes, say similar to individual taxes, was enforced on companies and that caused a shareholder exodus that wouldn't be a bad thing. The economic and stock market monopoly enjoyed by ever fewer corporations (monopolies, mergers and acquisitions) is the primary driver of this automation fueled job losses. Mega corporations are what is essentially wrong with society.

I totally agree with you.

What capitalism has evolved into (The Cancer Stage of Capitalism by John McMutry 1998) needs to be undone, but as they have developed so much control over the mechanisms of control, I don't think our understanding of what UBI is for fits their agenda for introducing it. I guess we will find out.

[ozimoron]

49 minutes ago, James105 said:

Well lets say this little scheme is implemented and everyone gets £1,600 per month tax free.   That would cost (if there are 55 million adults) over £1 trillion pounds a year.    The UK currently only collects taxes in total of about £768 billion per year, with the majority collected being income tax, NIC and VAT.   That will clearly reduce significantly if millions of people no longer worked.   

 

There will have to be different kind of jobs invented as there is no way to make the numbers work on this just by squeezing corporations.   

 

Also, can you imagine what it would be like with too many humans in society without anything productive to do with their days?   It would probably become a drink and drug fuelled hellscape.  

Mass unemployment is coming and the primary justification for a UBW is to reduce drinking and drug abuse as well as mental illness. We of then hear this "too many people" mantra, it's very reminiscent of the "final solution".

[GroveHillWanderer]

Finland already trialled this over a two year period. 

 

As the McKinsey & Company analysis of this says, the results were intriguing.

 

For instance, despite fears that people would just take the money and not bother working, the opposite was true.

 

Quote

 the final results of Finland’s program, released this spring, found that a basic income actually had a positive impact on employment. People on the basic income were more likely to be employed than those in the control group, and the differences were statistically significant, albeit small.

In addition, the basic income scheme:

 

Quote

 significantly boosted multiple measures of the recipients’ well-being, and reinforced positive individual and societal feedback loops.

An experiment to inform universal basic income

[Denim]

On 6/5/2023 at 5:37 AM, Social Media said:

30 people in two areas would be paid an unconditional lump sum each month for two years, with the effects monitored to understand how it affects their lives.

I am petitioning to have Wichien Buri made 1 of those areas.

[ozimoron]

6 minutes ago, Denim said:

I am petitioning to have Wichien Buri made 1 of those areas.

Will one signature be enough? ????

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, James105 said:

Well lets say this little scheme is implemented and everyone gets £1,600 per month tax free.   That would cost (if there are 55 million adults) over £1 trillion pounds a year.    The UK currently only collects taxes in total of about £768 billion per year, with the majority collected being income tax, NIC and VAT.   That will clearly reduce significantly if millions of people no longer worked.   

 

There will have to be different kind of jobs invented as there is no way to make the numbers work on this just by squeezing corporations.   

 

Also, can you imagine what it would be like with too many humans in society without anything productive to do with their days?   It would probably become a drink and drug fuelled hellscape.  

If people are given a UBI of £1600, what do you think they’ll do with it?

 

 

Edited June 6, 2023 by Chomper Higgot

[Denim]

31 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Will one signature be enough? ????

It's a start in the right direction. Hopefully it will snowball.

[James105]

28 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

If people are given a UBI of £1600, what do you think they’ll do with it?

 

 

Well if its given to me I won't do much with it as I don't need it.   The existing benefits system is provided on need, so someone who is disabled and needs extra assistance gets a bit more than someone physically fit.  A "universal" system would then treat everyone the same regardless of need.   

 

I think people who say they want UBI don't really want UBI.   They would still want a system based on need rather than a system that gives free money to those who don't need it, and would still want people who need the extra help receive more than those who don't.  

[ozimoron]

1 minute ago, James105 said:

Well if its given to me I won't do much with it as I don't need it.   The existing benefits system is provided on need, so someone who is disabled and needs extra assistance gets a bit more than someone physically fit.  A "universal" system would then treat everyone the same regardless of need.   

 

I think people who say they want UBI don't really want UBI.   They would still want a system based on need rather than a system that gives free money to those who don't need it, and would still want people who need the extra help receive more than those who don't.  

I think common sense would see it income capped.

[James105]

Just now, ozimoron said:

I think common sense would see it income capped.

Like I said, the people who say they want UBI do not really want UBI.   If it is income capped it is not universal, it's what the UK currently has - a welfare system for those who need it.