Universal basic income

£240 a week works out at (if my maths is right) at £12,480 a year. I think this is more than either the basic new state pension or the old state pension plus Pension Guarantee Benefit. The new pension will outstrip the old + Pension Guarantee increasingly year by year. The figure I quoted was only an example but you are right, it would have to be more than that if it were to cover the additional benefits that someone only getting that income might get.

It's worth remembering that I do not work in this area nor do I have any specialist knowledge, just a long term interest in it. My figures are not those others may chose to use if they go ahead with this.

Do you know how little working age benefits are?

They are less than half the new state pension.

That's what needs sorting.

Is that what you were saying. I misread it then. I'm tired and will stop posting now.

growstuff

How would you cap housing costs?

Housing benefits are already capped, but rents have continued to rise.

I think I mean capping rents. If there weren't such profits to be made, rents would have to come down, or landlords would sell, so putting more houses onto the market and prices would fall.

It is wrong that young people can't afford to buy because their rents are so high that they can't save, and that housing costs in some parts of the country are so much higher than in others. People in the SE can make a fortune by doing nothing, whilst those in the regions have their geographic mobility limited bu the differentials, and are stuck in low wage/low capital lives. Parents in the SE* can release equity from their houses to fund education and other experiences for their children that are way out of the reach of people doing the same jobs in other areas.

If we are looking at 'levelling up' and introducing UBI, then why not grasp the nettle now, and cap rents? It could be done if there were a will - just bring in a law saying that they can't be above £x per sq metre, or some other measure. When everything else is up in the air, and landlords would be richer to the tune of £250 a week with UBI, it could make things fairer all round?

*and other property price 'hotspots'.

I'm not sure how you could cap the rental levels without it causing chaos. In areas where rental prices are low, the rents would probably shoot up to the level set and areas where the rents are high would cause financial chaos for anybody who has bought properties with buy to let mortgages. We are in the lucky position where we bought our properties outright but the costs of running them are high, especially now the electrical rules have kicked in. We only ever charged the LA rental amount because you take food out of people's mouths if you charge more than HB allows. I would like to see a fairer system whereby people who fall on hard times and need benefits do not pay rent out of their food money. It has always seemed harsh to tenants that if they have an extra room but fall on hard times, their rent benefit will be reduced without being given any time to change their living circumstances.
PippaZ, yes it was my opinion...I thought that was allowed on these threads.

But Doodledog, having houses on the market for sale doesn't help people who can't get a mortgage and are forced to rent.

Just a quick note about a few of my thoughts.

In my opinion you will not make the cost of housing easier to meet until you have enough housing. Anything where you maintain a shortage will keep prices high. As far as I can see the majority of house building taking place is for large/expensive properties. However, this cannot, as far as I can see, be solved by UBI which is why I suggest it will have to be outside the consideration for the amount UBI needs to be so you can live on it, free of the state - initially.

The same goes for Council Tax. I believe the only way it can be incorporated - and I believe it should be as it adds to our responsibility as citizens - is if it becomes a local income tax. Until then I believe it will have to be outside UBI, sadly.

I would say the same applies to NI - until we get rid of this strange tax on work - it needs to be outside the amount and claimed although I would like to see it rolled into the tax system and pensions paid as UBI. In some systems of UBI it has been suggested that there are different amounts at different stages of life - including UBI for children.

This is all just my opinion. Others will approach this from a different angle with different knowledge to me and, although I am prepared to contribute what I have learned over the years because I believe in UBI as a move forward as a civilised community meeting the needs of a very different society to that which has gone before.

So questions such as "Do you know how little working age benefits are?" are just too personal and unnecessary. Why do I need to "know"? I am not setting the level. What we need is to set a figure for UBI which is enough to live on with no other claim on the state (eventually) and knowing that all state claims on the person have been taken into account with a minimum number of exceptions until those have been worked through.

I can only guess, suggest, read and learn - the same as anyone interested in this.

UBI does that mean I receive money for doing nothing ?
On top of salary and dividends

In areas where rental prices are low, the rents would probably shoot up to the level set and areas where the rents are high would cause financial chaos for anybody who has bought properties with buy to let mortgages.

So, in effect, you are saying that a number of landlords are grasping opportunists?

As far as I can see, rents tend to be based on what the market will bear. Is there a difference in landlord's costs which make them far higher in some areas? Or is it just scarcity that inflates rents?

(Sorry to deflect from UBI, which I think is a perfectly reasonable strategy)

As far as I can see you are not deflecting Maizie. See my last post, first main paragraph (you don't want me repeating myself )

rosie1959

UBI does that mean I receive money for doing nothing ?
On top of salary and dividends

I think that your income tax would mop it up.

And, before anyone starts complaining about something for nothing paid for by 'taxpayers', I'd just point out that even people who don't pay income tax are taxpayers; nearly everything we purchase has a tax element.

I could also point out that tax doesn't fund government spending... zzzzzzz

Pippa The point I was making about working age benefits is that many of the problems associated with poverty could be solved by increasing the level of benefits for working people to something which is realistic. That, along with building more council housing (where rents can be controlled) and reforms to council tax would be more efficient in helping those who really need help then UBI.

MaizieD

^In areas where rental prices are low, the rents would probably shoot up to the level set and areas where the rents are high would cause financial chaos for anybody who has bought properties with buy to let mortgages.^

So, in effect, you are saying that a number of landlords are grasping opportunists?

As far as I can see, rents tend to be based on what the market will bear. Is there a difference in landlord's costs which make them far higher in some areas? Or is it just scarcity that inflates rents?

(Sorry to deflect from UBI, which I think is a perfectly reasonable strategy)

Yes, there's a huge difference if landlords are buying with a mortgage.

BTW The people who moan most about rolling tax and NI into one are pensioners because they don't have to pay NI, which is currently in effect a 12% tax in addition to income tax.

*And, before anyone starts complaining about something for nothing paid for by 'taxpayers', I'd just point out that even people who don't pay income tax are taxpayers; nearly everything we purchase has a tax element.

I could also point out that tax doesn't fund government spending... zzzzzz*
People might not get the nomenclature right, but the principle is that on the whole, people don't like to see others getting for free what they have had to work for, and I understand that way of thinking.

Also, it may well be the case that everyone pays purchase tax, but if someone hasn't earned the money from which it is paid, it is not quite the same as for someone who has earned, been taxed and is taxed again on purchases. It's not just about money, it's about contributing to society, but that's a whole different argument.

My thinking about rents and caps is that if landlords are not making a fortune from renters they will sell the houses, thus increasing the number for sale, and therefore the prices that everyone (but particularly young people) will have to pay.

It would possibly also even out the differentials between geographical areas. If renting in London cost the same as, say, Liverpool there would be more geographical mobility, and fewer 'hotspots' which price out anyone who has not (or whose parents have not) made a fortune by buying a discounted council house or being lucky enough to buy on the open market in an area where prices have rocketed.

As I'm sure is very clear, however, I am not an economist or an expert in housing or benefits. I am just offering my thoughts on what might make for a fairer society.

Growstuff, I really don't see the point in blaming any one group when this is only in the design stage in Wales as yet and doesn't seem to be even a twinkle in the government's eye. I am very taken by the idea of "the common good" and think this could be part of it. If it is rolled out people must be able to have knowledge not rumour - Citizen's Assemblies might help.

My thinking about rents and caps is that if landlords are not making a fortune from renters they will sell the houses, thus increasing the number for sale, and therefore the prices that everyone (but particularly young people) will have to pay.

I suppose it comes back to whether you see a house as a home or an asset - or rather whether the government does. It's both when you own one but after that, it is only an asset. No one can live in two homes at the same time although you would always have to allow for changes of circumstance.

PippaZ

^My thinking about rents and caps is that if landlords are not making a fortune from renters they will sell the houses, thus increasing the number for sale, and therefore the prices that everyone (but particularly young people) will have to pay.^

I suppose it comes back to whether you see a house as a home or an asset - or rather whether the government does. It's both when you own one but after that, it is only an asset. No one can live in two homes at the same time although you would always have to allow for changes of circumstance.

My post was meant to read 'therefore the prices . . . . .*would fall*'

I agree with your post, and think that landlords buying up houses and renting them at a profit is at least partly responsible for the housing shortage, and definitely responsible for the fact that however hard they work a lot of young people will never be able to buy a house of their own, never mind more than one.

Pippa Where have I "blamed" any group?

Doodledog

PippaZ

My thinking about rents and caps is that if landlords are not making a fortune from renters they will sell the houses, thus increasing the number for sale, and therefore the prices that everyone (but particularly young people) will have to pay.

I suppose it comes back to whether you see a house as a home or an asset - or rather whether the government does. It's both when you own one but after that, it is only an asset. No one can live in two homes at the same time although you would always have to allow for changes of circumstance.

My post was meant to read 'therefore the prices . . . . .*would fall*'

I agree with your post, and think that landlords buying up houses and renting them at a profit is at least partly responsible for the housing shortage, and definitely responsible for the fact that however hard they work a lot of young people will never be able to buy a house of their own, never mind more than one.

But more houses for sale wouldn't result in lower rents. If anything, it would lead to higher rents because there would be a shortage of rental properties. The only solution is council-owned properties.

PS. It isn't just young people who can't afford mortgages. There are many people, like me, who "fell off" the property ladder (through divorce, illness, etc.) and can't get back on.

People will continue to buy BTL properties as long as rentals give a higher return on investments than most other sources.

growstuff

Pippa Where have I "blamed" any group?

Sorry growstuff perhaps "spotlighting" would have been better than "blamed". It was re ... The people who moan most about rolling tax and NI into one are pensioners ...

I think I have "whole-groupitus"

growstuff

BTW The people who moan most about rolling tax and NI into one are pensioners because they don't have to pay NI, which is currently in effect a 12% tax in addition to income tax.

AND????? I am a working pensioner yes I don't pay NI however the tax I DO pay now is twice the amount of tax and NI combined taken from my wages when I was working age, I have no objection of course to paying tax on my private pension as I had tax relief when I paid into it, however my state pension is also taxed, so yes I will object very strongly to having to pay an extra 12% tax on top of what I am already paying and I make no apology for saying that

the tax I DO pay now is twice the amount of tax and NI combined taken from my wages when I was working age,

Why is it more? Because your income is more?

growstuff

Doodledog

PippaZ

My thinking about rents and caps is that if landlords are not making a fortune from renters they will sell the houses, thus increasing the number for sale, and therefore the prices that everyone (but particularly young people) will have to pay.

I suppose it comes back to whether you see a house as a home or an asset - or rather whether the government does. It's both when you own one but after that, it is only an asset. No one can live in two homes at the same time although you would always have to allow for changes of circumstance.

My post was meant to read 'therefore the prices . . . . .*would fall*'

I agree with your post, and think that landlords buying up houses and renting them at a profit is at least partly responsible for the housing shortage, and definitely responsible for the fact that however hard they work a lot of young people will never be able to buy a house of their own, never mind more than one.

But more houses for sale wouldn't result in lower rents. If anything, it would lead to higher rents because there would be a shortage of rental properties. The only solution is council-owned properties.

PS. It isn't just young people who can't afford mortgages. There are many people, like me, who "fell off" the property ladder (through divorce, illness, etc.) and can't get back on.

Sorry for nested quotes, but this conversation goes back a while, so have done it for context.

My point is that if there were rent caps there would be less incentive for landlords to buy up houses, so they would sell up. This would mean that as well as lower (capped) rents for those who want or need to rent, there would be lower house prices for those who want to, and are able to buy. All of that applies to people of any age, although it tends to be younger people who struggle to buy their first house because of the need for large deposits as a result of high prices.

And yes, I think there should be more council houses, but would only support that way forward if they were guaranteed to be excluded from 'right to buy' schemes, and there was an overhaul of the allocation system.