The Budget

One idea is that you would no longer get personal tax allowance - it would be replaced by the UBI. This would mean a greater tax take. There have been quite a lot of ideas when it comes to the details but there are some basics.

1. Periodic—It is paid at regular intervals (for example every month), not as a one-off grant.

2. Cash payment—It is paid in an appropriate medium of exchange, allowing those who receive it to decide what they spend it on. It is not, therefore, paid either in kind (such as food or services) or in vouchers dedicated to a specific use.

3. Individual—It is paid on an individual basis—and not, for instance, to households.

4. Universal—It is paid to all, without means test.

5. Unconditional—It is paid without a requirement to work or to demonstrate willingness-to-work.

basicincome.org/about-basic-income/

Presumably it is added to income and therefore many people will pay much of it back in tax - which is fair so it is sort of income related.

I think so, Urmstongran but many people seem to have a problem with the concept of it being unconditional.

but there have been

Thanks for that PippaZ. It’s a really interesting concept isn’t it?

It might have been Finland you are thinking of Urmstongran. It was a very short trial - cut short by a change of government I think. Some of the trials have not really been UBI but more like benefit systems but there have been They seem to do quite well in very (very) poor countries where there are not enough jobs. As the idea is that it is paid without means-testing or a demonstration of willingness to work people are pulled out of poverty and, of course, with more money available new businesses spring up.

There have been six trials in North America, three in Africa, three in Asia, two in Latin America and seven in Europe according to Wikipedia - which seems to be well referenced.

You can still use your card for purchases more than the current limit but just need to put your code in. I am not a great fan of contactless payment because of the security risk if it goes missing.

PippaZ I just don’t get it with your aversion to raising the contactless limit. It costs £60 to fill up the car, if there’s more than one of you it costs over £50 to pay for your supermarket shop - it’s not a sign of extravagance. If you prefer to use cash that’s fine, but please don’t try to justify your views by saying the rest of us are profligate, that’s just silly.

A sincere thank you from me MaizieD for such a comprehensive answer to my question. I understand it better now.

I like the idea of a universal basic income. I think one of the Scandinavian countries trialled it? I can’t recall whether it’s ongoing or not. Google is my friend.

Polarbear2

MaizieD. Agree with all you say re ‘debt’. It’s a massive misunderstanding that running the country is like a household budget. It’s not. Personally I’m a big fan of the idea of Universal Basic Income. That, to me, is proper levelling up.

This would actually be a good time to trial it. A minimum level of economic security that is not going to be taken away will see entreprenuers springing up and people throwing themselves even more into community projects. It must be easier to grow a business too if you know you have an unconditional basic income coming in.

A full tank of petrol or a supermarket shop for a family is hardly "flinging their money around" PippaZ.

Ellianne

All I know is that an increase to £100 contacless it great for me.
I think contactless has become far more popular during the pandemic and the fears about it have proved to be unfounded. Good move.

Goodness. I suppose there must be some flinging their money around to make up for those of us who don't.

Completely agree Welshwife. Singles are much discriminated against. And there’s lots of them!

Not sure about continuous but there’s been a lot of trials done. They’ve completed one in Stockton, California and it had very positive results. www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/03/stocktons-basic-income-experiment-pays-off/618174/

One area that is still not being addressed is single households. People live on their own for a variety of reasons and often not of their own choosing. These people still have housing costs and utilities to pay besides things such as internet access and only one pay packet to cover these costs. Many will have lost their jobs or may have been on furlough if they are lucky but within a few months will be jobless. Where was help for these people announced - I never heard any. These people are allowed less than £400 per month if they qualify for benefits. They may have help for rent but not for mortgage payments. Most of them will have paid into the system for years - how is this fair?
I think there should be a basic amount paid per HOUSEHOLD and then personal payments as these costs are not multiplied by the number of people except maybe the cost of hot water for more showers!
Will this inequality ever be addressed do you think? A basic income for all would help but not address the big gap single people face.
I feel lucky I have not been in that position but do know people who have.

Blondiescot

rosie1959

PippaZ

Why don't the Conservatives like the self-employed?

They must like some of them with grants paid to keep them going

And yet there are more than three million of us - all tax payers - who haven't received a penny in support from the government. How is that fair?

I couldn't agree more Blondiescot. It's as though we're invisible. Fortunately, I've picked up some work and my state pension starts soon and I've been eligible for a small amount in UC, but I've spent thousands of my savings just to keep afloat. I was hoping to go on holiday one day, but I can forget that. Meanwhile, some people don't know what to do with the money they've saved. It's bonkers!

Polarbear2

MaizieD. Agree with all you say re ‘debt’. It’s a massive misunderstanding that running the country is like a household budget. It’s not. Personally I’m a big fan of the idea of Universal Basic Income. That, to me, is proper levelling up.

I’ve always been interested in Universal Income and know that various countries have trialled it. Have any done it successfully continuously?

Thanks, Polarbear2

I think we're a growing band.

MaizieD. Agree with all you say re ‘debt’. It’s a massive misunderstanding that running the country is like a household budget. It’s not. Personally I’m a big fan of the idea of Universal Basic Income. That, to me, is proper levelling up.

Why not create Utopia?

There are different ideas of what Utopia might be like, Ug.

The real problem is that, until the early 1970s, our currency was backed by gold and silver. So if the country ran out of money there was no option but to borrow it from a third party. Once we came off the gold standard there was no limit to what the government could issue, so long as the money issued had the confidence of the people using it for transactions. That was both domestically and internationally. But, the full implications of this weren't understood by politicians or, I think, many economists. We needn't have gone cap in hand to the IMF as Callaghan's government did. We could have just issued more.

So, we were all ready for Thatcher's 'handbag' economics in the 80s because it chimed with the beliefs about the country having a finite amount of money, reinforced by the IMF episode.

She was absolutely wrong with her statement that there was 'only taxpayers money'. No government in recent times has existed solely on tax revenues. and all our money is initially issued by the government, via the Bank of England, or by commercial banks under licence from the BoE. If the money didn't come from the government nobody would have any to tax!
Taxation is a method of making sure that there isn't too much money swirling round the economy and causing inflation. Taxation destroys excess money.

It's a mind blowing concept, I know. But it's absolutely true.

And it's true that governments are limited solely by their own ideologies. Tories don't like public services, they'd rather everything was privatised so people could directly make money from them. So they don't put enough money into them to run them effectively. And they justify this by Thatcher's 'taxpayers' money' mantra.

Labour would go for a mixed economy, funding public services which would inevitably support private enterprise. It makes sense to me... But they are stymied by the 'How are you going to pay for it?' question and painted as profligate.

I don't know about the LibDems, perhaps varian can tell us. But they did support needless austerity.

timetogo2016 There is a lot you can do. sign petitions for a start, such as 38 degrees. The govt does sometimes listen. Engage with your MP perhaps. if enough people told their individual MPs what they thought, the MPs might change some of their attitudes!

MaizieD "But it won't because it doesn't care"

For once I was trying not to antagonise all those govt supporters on here and also to persuade them, just a little, that there is another way. I doubt if I succeeded however

Same here Jaxjacky.
The rest goes straight over my head as it mostly doesn`t affect me or if it does,theres nothing i can do about it.

Why would inflation increase Urmstongran? I'm not saying it wouldn't just what do you think will drive it up?

My greatest worry is that they are taking it for granted that Covid is coming to an end - but it wont and it may go on influencing our economy for a lot longer than they are allowing for. The whole budget seems to be predecated on this.

Yes, they could spend £100 with my card, but it's the bank that takes the risk.
It was the tone of the "some people have no problem" comment that was odd.