Universal Basic Income

[bobnewboy]

As many jobs in the future are replaced with automation something needs to replace lost income. I’m broadly in favour of it but I’m not sure just giving the unemployed money is a good idea. I think instead that the basics should be provided, such as housing, food and transport. Above and beyond a basic “income” should be extra benefits of some sort to those that choose to do something of benefit to the wider community. It will need some considerable thought to make it as fair as possible though.

I’m not sure that so many jobs will be replaced by automation. We’ve had robotics and other automation for many decades now, but still a lot is done manually. I think it’s more likely that the nature of work will evolve over time rather than be replaced in wholesale chunks, and it seems that people need something to do whether it pays well or not. Perhaps there will be a huge surge in hand-made and handicraft products to add some spice to an otherwise bland and grey over-standardised life, if computers make everything else

 

[Paul_B]

Not sure if minimum wage discussion is off topic but since it's been broached already I'll make my point about it.

When you lift the money the lowest paid members of society there's an knock on with those just a bit better off. Lift minimum wage that's the least you'll get paid but you were above minimum rate before by a little so now minimum wage had risen to what you get paid. Do you increase your pay too? No! You now become minimum wage and resent it because you've possibly got more responsibility for what was above minimum pay level.

What if a supervisor ends up being paid the same as the operators he/she supervises? Will they want to continue with the extra responsibility for the same money? I know of a supervisor who quit it when his pay wasn't increased in line with minimum wage increases. He became an operator and didn't fulfill potential for the company.

I'm not saying you need to increase differentials right through to the CEO. I'm just saying that whatever boost you give to the lowest it might be best to boost those just above too. I have no idea how UBI works but if it's a minimum take home money like some countries have trialled then do you work hard for the same money or only a little more or do you quit and live off the UBI which is not much of a drop in money? Perhaps use it to be there for your kids or parents?

I personally think nobody is worth more than anyone else. I don't see worth in what you do for a living but in the effort you put in to that living and other things. Should an executive get millions for 2 days a week but a cleaner who can only work 15 hours a week for family commitments doesn't? The cleaner could be making the work environment of the executive a place he/she can work in. How much of the executives contribution is affected by every human piece in that organisation?

This view kind of got into my head from a feminist who argued a usually woman who stays at home to look after kids so their partner can work isn't paid what their role provides society. They are afterall potentially developing the future doctor, lawyer, research scientist, developer of a cure for cancer, etc. Take their role away and you haven't got that doctor in the future.

Money is important in our society but humans are worth more. I don't think some people get valued enough. Instead of UBI perhaps what we need is everyone on the same pay full stop??!!

 

[TeeDee]

Not sure if minimum wage discussion is off topic but since it's been broached already I'll make my point about it.

When you lift the money the lowest paid members of society there's an knock on with those just a bit better off. Lift minimum wage that's the least you'll get paid but you were above minimum rate before by a little so now minimum wage had risen to what you get paid. Do you increase your pay too? No! You now become minimum wage and resent it because you've possibly got more responsibility for what was above minimum pay level.

What if a supervisor ends up being paid the same as the operators he/she supervises? Will they want to continue with the extra responsibility for the same money? I know of a supervisor who quit it when his pay wasn't increased in line with minimum wage increases. He became an operator and didn't fulfill potential for the company.

I'm not saying you need to increase differentials right through to the CEO. I'm just saying that whatever boost you give to the lowest it might be best to boost those just above too. I have no idea how UBI works but if it's a minimum take home money like some countries have trialled then do you work hard for the same money or only a little more or do you quit and live off the UBI which is not much of a drop in money? Perhaps use it to be there for your kids or parents?

I personally think nobody is worth more than anyone else. I don't see worth in what you do for a living but in the effort you put in to that living and other things. Should an executive get millions for 2 days a week but a cleaner who can only work 15 hours a week for family commitments doesn't? The cleaner could be making the work environment of the executive a place he/she can work in. How much of the executives contribution is affected by every human piece in that organisation?

This view kind of got into my head from a feminist who argued a usually woman who stays at home to look after kids so their partner can work isn't paid what their role provides society. They are afterall potentially developing the future doctor, lawyer, research scientist, developer of a cure for cancer, etc. Take their role away and you haven't got that doctor in the future.

Money is important in our society but humans are worth more. I don't think some people get valued enough. Instead of UBI perhaps what we need is everyone on the same pay full stop??!!

Agree on your comments ref the Minimum wage scenario.

Cannot see how paying everyone the same would actually work in practice and reality.

 

[Fadcode]

Just been thinking about this, as the Rich get richer off the backs of the poor( or am I being cynical?) then the rich have to ensure the poor have the money to spend that will make the rich richer.

 

[TeeDee]

Just been thinking about this, as the Rich get richer off the backs of the poor( or am I being cynical?) then the rich have to ensure the poor have the money to spend that will make the rich richer.

Do they ?

Has Elon Musk abused the poor in his business?

 

[Fadcode]

You tell me, he used to own Paypal, so he had a nibble at everything virtually sold on Ebay

 

[Silverclaws2]

I don't know if anyone has observed the TV production ' The Expanse ' or read the books but a UBI termed ' basic ' potential future is described in the works, to say, it doesn't look very appealing

 

[Fadcode]

I haven't worked out the sums, exactly, but if everyone got £500 a month each, that is a big amount per year, about £150Bn, (assuming 30million would get it) now even allowing for tax to be paid on it at 20%, and if the rest was spent the 20% Vat the Govt would get, that is a massive amount of money, and questions need to be asked where does that money come from.
And the second question would be, what would it be actually worth, as everything else would go up in price, due to market forces, the more demand the higher the price.
And overall would it be worth doing,? because the damage it could do is tremendous,

 

[Silverclaws2]

I haven't worked out the sums, exactly, but if everyone got £500 a month each, that is a big amount per year, about £150Bn, (assuming 30million would get it) now even allowing for tax to be paid on it at 20%, and if the rest was spent the 20% Vat the Govt would get, that is a massive amount of money, and questions need to be asked where does that money come from.
And the second question would be, what would it be actually worth, as everything else would go up in price, due to market forces, the more demand the higher the price.
And overall would it be worth doing,? because the damage it could do is tremendous,

Well there's one potential source of money ; the benefits bill, where what that worth, about 190 billion?

 

[Lean'n'mean]

That being said I imagine there will be some cracking bargains to be had on new Diesel cars during the latter part of 2029....

I doubt it, chances are the price of diesel at the pump will be so high by then to deter it's usage that it will become unaffordable for the average Johnny & you'll likely be fined after 2030 for driving a diesel vehicle anyway.
Also it wouldn't make good business sense for car manufacturers to produce new diesel vehicles right up to 2029. Unless of course they are for export to countries which won't be following the trend.

 

[Lean'n'mean]

Money is important in our society but humans are worth more. I don't think some people get valued enough. Instead of UBI perhaps what we need is everyone on the same pay full stop??!!

Although the concept of everyone on the same wage sounds fair & workable to the communist inside each of us, it will ineviatbly lead to some having more same than the others.........Human nature being what it is.
Of course we are kidding ourselves if we think all lives are equal. The 8 hours of life a day a minimum wage earner puts in is worth less than that of someone earning a great deal more for the same 8 hours. Everyone accepts pay discrepancy. because they been conditioned to consider it normal. Some people are valued, many are not & those that ain't can go whistle Dixie 'cause if they ain't happy, there's plenty more ready to take their place
If someone sacrifices & third of their life to an employer, then they should, in all justice, regardless of the work they do, earn enough to live comfortably but that's the stuff of fantasy..

 

[Oliver G]

I would be certain that my wife and I would put it into housing savings, it's next to impossible to save for a house when a vast chunk of your money goes into your landlord's pocket. As for who would pay for UBI, we just need to tax the richer elements of society. Over the last 70 years the amount of tax paid by the richest has been falling while tax paid by the poorest has been raising. We must remember that the money owned by the poor is more valuable to society as it is actually used where as the money owned by the rich tends to stagnate in off-shore bank accounts.

 

[Danqrl]

I would use it on a mortgage to buy some private woodland

 

[Kadushu]

As I understand it, the basic idea behind a UBI is to give everyone enough money to meet basic needs: food, water, electricity and housing, for example. But the cost of everything varies across the country, especially housing. £500 per month would be pocket money in London.

 

[slowworm]

Money is important in our society but humans are worth more. I don't think some people get valued enough. Instead of UBI perhaps what we need is everyone on the same pay full stop??!!

I thought you answered that in your post. Why would anyone take on risk and responsibility if all pay was the same?

Like many people I've done quite a few different jobs in my time and I think in all the companies I've worked at you get people who work and people who try and avoid doing much. It seems entirely reasonable to me to give a greater reword to those who work the hardest.

The same when people moan about wealthy company owners, there's nothing stopping people setting up their own company.

 

[slowworm]

I would use it on a mortgage to buy some private woodland

Nice idea but it leads me onto another problem.

One would expect more people to want to do this sort of thing which would drive up prices. Just look at what the current stamp duty holiday has done, driven up prices by the same, if not more, that the savings in stamp duty.

 

[C_Claycomb]

There are a couple of videos that I saw, not really recent any more, that I thought helped set the scene for the idea of a basic income.

The latter was an edit of the full interview here, which is well worth listening to in its entirety, but is long. I think that the highest density of interest is in the first 50 minutes, YMMV.

 

[C_Claycomb]

I would be certain that my wife and I would put it into housing savings, it's next to impossible to save for a house when a vast chunk of your money goes into your landlord's pocket. As for who would pay for UBI, we just need to tax the richer elements of society. Over the last 70 years the amount of tax paid by the richest has been falling while tax paid by the poorest has been raising. We must remember that the money owned by the poor is more valuable to society as it is actually used where as the money owned by the rich tends to stagnate in off-shore bank accounts.

Do you have a citation you can share for the trend in tax paid by the richest vs poorest? The reason I ask is that I have seen headlines about the top 1% paying nearly 30% of total income tax, and I have seen headlines that the bottom 10% pay nearly 50% of their income on tax. They are just current snap shots.

UK increasingly reliant on super rich for tax income

A disproportionate number of the top 1% of taxpayers are male, middle-aged, and based in London – and receive around 14% of national income, according to new research by the Institute of Fiscal Studies (IFS)

www.icaew.com

Do the top 1% of earners pay 28% of the tax burden? - Full Fact

There aren’t any readily available figures for what proportion of all taxes the top 1% pays. This claim is just referring to income taxes.

fullfact.org

ONS Statistics show bottom 10% of earners pay nearly half of their income in tax

Britain's non-partisan, grassroots campaign for lower taxes and better government

www.taxpayersalliance.com

 

[Oliver G]

In fairness I stand corrected, the income tax on the basic rate has dropped and I hadn't clocked the higher tax rate increase from FY10-11

 

[TeeDee]

I doubt it, chances are the price of diesel at the pump will be so high by then to deter it's usage that it will become unaffordable for the average Johnny & you'll likely be fined after 2030 for driving a diesel vehicle anyway.
Also it wouldn't make good business sense for car manufacturers to produce new diesel vehicles right up to 2029. Unless of course they are for export to countries which won't be following the trend.

Agricultural machines will still use heavy amounts of Diesel so no obvious reasoning for diesel supply costs to increase dramatically. Just needs to be thought through.
No I doubt Car manufacturers will be building right upto the end of 2029 ( and I didn't say they would be... ) but that they will still have standing stock on their books that they will be incentivised to dump before the deadline.