Universal Basic Income - a good idea?

Well if we accept that the "37/40 hour week job for life retiring at 65 with a pension" is rapidly disappearing, this might be a long term solution.

As increased automation comes in and we have fewer traditional jobs, a basic income scheme would free people up to become innovative and creative in setting up self employed projects.

It should stimulate the economy too.

Quite exciting perhaps?

Politically difficult to introduce though.

That's an interesting point about the time between elections humpty. Oh for cross party working on these things.

DurhamJen mentioned Finland earlier on and this article tells a bit more about their trial.

GracesGranMK2, I'm very glad I started this thread as it has made for informative and interesting reading. It's an idea that I hope will come in the UK, though I feel that the 5-year term between elections may not be long enough, and I foresee politicians to be too concerned about their electorate to grab the bull by the horns and introduce (the starting of) it.

Quizqueen, no one knows what would actually happen re pensions but only what they think may happen. There are so many different schemes being looked and no doubt some will be put in place and then develop.

I don't want to take this off track but the government do see the amount of the state pension as a benefit and NI as a tax . It is 12% or 14% of income and that does not buy a relatable pension as 12% of income into a pension scheme would. The government decide on a basic pension for all, no matter what you have paid. What paying NI does buy you is entitlement to that pension or a proportion of that pension. It would be different under UBI. Entitlement to UBI would simply be citizenship; it is sometimes referred to as Universal Citizens Income.

Imagine that we had got to the level where there was child UBI, adult UBI and senior UBI. You would have a very different scheme in place. If, for instance, you had reached the level for an adult UBI of between £11,500 to £15,000 (my thoughts would be that it would be nearer to the £11,500 in today's money) then you have a completely new situation. When do you bring in a higher Senior UBI? You could actually do this much later than we do now as people would be in a position underpinned by their Adult UBI, to continue working part-time, or for a lower reward or topped up by a personal pension.

It really is a very different mind-set and it has taken me ages to think it through to the extent I have and you find that frequently another idea is thrown in the pot. As I said, there are many different ideas of how it would work too - so nothing is defined at this point.

No large families get £40,000+. There is a cap on benefits of £23,000 now, £26,000 in London, I think.

I'm generally against all benefits except as a short term cushion for those who have lost their job through no fault of their own and for those who are genuinely too severely disabled to work (and their carers). I am very anti giving benefits to enable families to produce multiple children they cannot afford to support through their own endeavours or to those who choose to spend it on drugs/ ciggies/sitting at home all day and the like. However, it would save a lot on administration, for sure, as everyone would just get this standard amount with no need for assessments so the DWP could go for a start.

So, if this 'income' were to be given to ALL citizens regardless of whether they are in work or not then will it be given on top of the state pension which is NOT A BENEFIT as it has been paid for from paying national insurance for 30 years.

Would it be given to children too from birth or just when you reach 18 years? I would be all for giving those on benefits now the maximum of £150 a week per adult and nothing more as you read of some with large families getting £40,000+ tax free but if it was paid out to children too then it would just encourage large families as benefits do now.

My two hard working, low earning daughters would certainly benefit from this extra payment as it would help them get on the property ladder or enable them to be stay at mums for longer. If you are rich you could always refuse the extra payments or give it charity or to someone else who may need it more. Michelle Dewsbury ( ex Apprentice winner) said it could be paid for by taxing big businesses more especially those who will benefit from new AI technology which will put many people out of work. They would find a way to get out of paying that though, I'm sure.

I do think it could work if offered to people on benefits already. Much simpler to operate than Universal Credit.

People could then take part-time or temporary or seasonal jobs more easily (which would be useful after Brexit picking fruit, veg etc). Our present system doesn't make taking temporary work easy at all.

This could be a way into full time work for some people.

I also like the idea of people taking on more community roles.

Eventually this could be extended to everyone, not just those on benefits.

Great thread and it certainly has me thinking. It could work.

Interesting link Jen.

Rise above it radicalnan. She is only one person. If you would like to see the countries that are interested in it (other than Scotland) have a look at Bien Some of us have been watching the interest grow in this for some time but it is always good to have extra input because we will miss articles, etc.

Has it worked anywhere? I know it has been tried but I am not aware of any long term successs.

Nicola Sturgeon exploited the child of a friend during the election, apeared at his special needs school all smiles having ignored e mails for help from his parents. Her own constituency is prertty run down............not sure I would trust anything she approved of.

It is an interesting concept isn't it Chris and the times they are definitely a changing.

I must say I have enjoyed this thread thanks to humptydumpty for starting it off and thanks to everyone for your opinions. It has got me thinking.......

If you really think taking from the poor and disabled is a foolproof economics you have swallowed an awful lot of brainwashing Cardiff. It isn't working; people have had enough and will eventually through out the government that inflicted it on them.

However, if you look back in global economic history the countries that have got out of debt have spent their way out. Not on just any old thing like bankers bonuses of overpaying people who are making a disastrous mess of things but on investment in people, infrastructure and housing.

I wouldn't necessarily suggest it Cardiff but even debt can be ignored. Iceland did and they have survived.

www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2017/10/28/you-cannot-harm-billionaires-by-raising-interest-rates-whatever-the-ft-might-say/

One way to pay for it.

www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2017/10/28/increasing-top-income-tax-rates-would-increase-economic-growth/

I'm happy to ignore the economic arguments at the moment and work on the probably incorrect assumption that people who get means-tested benefits would get the same as they do now and those in work would lose the 'extra' via taxation.
I agree that printing money for this is not the answer, but that's different to the principle of UBI.
Everything I've heard about it to date has not been about replacing all means-tested benefits, when the RA crunched the numbers they used JSA/pensions as a UBI figure and no trials to my knowledge are at this level. That's why I made the assumption that we were talking about that style of UBI.

Is there a link to something which explains how this variant of UBI works? One where there are no means-tested benefits? I don't want to spam the thread with thousands of questions!

GGMK2: No there are too many views of economics and mine is just one. As the saying goes, ask two economists a question and you get three answers! I base my opinion, which I believe you will allow me, on what we can expect our politicians to do. There is one major factor that no economist can ignore - our massive debt. Spending has to be our top priority. Unless someone can come up with a foolproof plan to spend and accumulate. Please note that foolproof.

Cardiff, we seem to be back to "there is only one view of economics" and that just isn't true and cannot be true as the world changes. I am sure that when we had serfs or when our economy was reliant on slavery some people thought that a) that was natural and b) the economy would collapse if things changed. It didn't though did it.

Any natural increase in tax income will not cover the cost of paying out the basic income: more debt?

I do sometimes wonder if people read any of the other posts before they write. No one, at any point, has said this will be paid only from a natural increase in tax income - whatever that might be.

How much do you think that people on universal credit will be saving, Cardiff?

Government creates money. Read anything about QE. You will see where it comes from.
The whole idea of universal basic income is to put money into the local economy. It's only rich people who save, and they'll do that anyway. Rich people complain about the amount of tax they pay, because poor people don't have enough money to pay tax. That will still happen whatever level UBI is at.

Re HumptyDumpty's post, I'm not sure how free housing, food, transport, etc to all UK citizens would work, not just because of the disparity in housing, but who would pay for it? It would cost a huge amount of money, and in order to pay benefits, especially to everyone in the UK, there needs to be a lot of tax payers. How on earth would it work?

The obvious point is the economics - where will the money come from? No government has money; the money it spends comes from taxation in the main. At present our fisal deficit is coming down due to cuts in spending but even when that is achieved we have to start repaying the debt- the national debt.

That means there is a lot of financial wrangling to be done before any government can fund a basic income. Then there is the gamble that those funds will be spent thereby increasing GDP, but my feeling is that much of it will be saved. Any natural increase in tax income will not cover the cost of paying out the basic income: more debt?

I think you are right with the cost of admin Coco. I would be interesting to know how much it is

I don't think all people will work just because they want more money. People get a lot more than that out of work. If you look at areas of high unemployment people 'work' by making urban garden - for fresh vegetables or by running clubs for the young, for the old. There are many ways in which people work and improve society that are not currently rewarded or rewarded enough to bring up a family, etc. Some may choose caring jobs that just don't pay enough now - heaven knows how carers make ends meet, I am just grateful the do.

It's all very exiting and could give us a very different world while the robots and AI do the work people have slaved over in the past.

Many existing jobs will go to new technology and AI. People have to live and if there are not enough jobs to employ everyone, what are those without jobs supposed to do? There will always be people who are dissatisfied with the amount of money they get. Those people will work for a better lifestyle, and those who don’t work will have less. Think of all the admin costs underpinning current assessments for benefits and the universal element makes sense. Governments don’t actually have to have gold to back the currency any more - they can just print it as they have done with QE, only this time the printed money will be for the benefit of all instead of just the wealthy few who have benefitted enormously whille the test of us tag along paying the price of the bankers’ gambling shop.