Universal basic income

Universal Credit is not taxable

It's noticable that the maximum you can recieve for this is on or very close to the personal tax allowance.

I would be interested to know what it would cost to make that a Basic Income instead - getting rid of most of the people and paper involved with Universal Credit - which isn't universal of course. It would get rid of the stress too but you can't put a price on that. I don't mean they should do it; that may not be the place to start (or it may be but it would need to be worked out) but at least we should know the compartive costs.

So, the only one being phased out is the JSA? And in many of those cases, if someone dies mid-tax year, and the carer/spouse manages to get a job on or above the personal tax allowance you may be "charged" for what they got while caring for them in the early part of that year?

I am so sorry that our country does that. It just makes me think the sooner the better with a UBI which negates the need for any earnings-related benefits.

PippaZ

^Yes, you would pay tax on some working age benefits, if you only received them for part of the tax year and your income increased for the rest of the year. This happens frequently to people who are unemployed for just a couple of months.^

I didn't know that. So it's really only a loan unless you can are out of work for the whole tax year ... could you imagine a few expletives. That does not seem at all right.

That's correct.

Universal Credit is not taxable, but the old Jobseeker's Allowance is/was taxable. Although most newly unemployed people go on to Universal Credit, there are still people claiming the legacy Jobseeker's Allowance. If those people claim for the first part of the tax year, then find a job, tax is calculated on the total income, including the Jobseekers' Allowance and any other taxable benefits.

The most common benefits that you pay Income Tax on are:

- Bereavement Allowance (previously Widow’s pension)
- Carer’s Allowance
- Contribution-based Employment and Support Allowance (ESA)
- Incapacity Benefit (from the 29th week you get it)
- Jobseeker’s Allowance (JSA)
- Pensions paid by the Industrial Death Benefit scheme
- the State Pension
Widowed Parent’s Allowance

Only over citizenship Maizie but the government needs to stop blaming citizens and sort their system out so perhaps that would be no bad thing. Although any fraud is not a good thing I do wonder about the overpayments and underpayments being chucked in to make the figure look bigger, pushing it up to 1.9%. I would love to know what it actually is - less than 1.9% obviously

If there was UBI there would be no fraud because it would be a flat rate for all and received by all. No benefits.

How would anyone be able to defraud that?

Yes, you would pay tax on some working age benefits, if you only received them for part of the tax year and your income increased for the rest of the year. This happens frequently to people who are unemployed for just a couple of months.

I didn't know that. So it's really only a loan unless you can are out of work for the whole tax year ... could you imagine a few expletives. That does not seem at all right.

Mollygo

The fraud proofing is about those who know how to work the system. It didn’t stop fraud during furlough, it doesn’t stop fraud with disability benefits.
Even if the majority of people claim honestly, a huge amount will still lost through fraud. Perhaps this should be built in to the funding planning for UBI.

As a matter of interest, what do you mean by a "huge amount"?

Chakotay Yes, you would pay tax on some working age benefits, if you only received them for part of the tax year and your income increased for the rest of the year. This happens frequently to people who are unemployed for just a couple of months.

People receiving benefits only receive it tax-free if their total income for the tax year is very low.

PS. I'm paying more tax since my state pension started. As others have stated, my income has increased, so I don't see why that's unfair.

PippaZ I don’t know what your problem is either. You seem determined to argue but you’ll have to do it alone. Sorry.

Mollygo, I don't know what your problem is. There is a very low rate of fraud. That gives us no insight into whether we should or shouldn't have UBI; it's totally off topic.

If you have been dealing with it it will have felt large because you were only in one part of the pie - the part that is 1.9% of the whole benefits pie and includes user and government errors.

You seem to be trying to have an argument about something we weren't discussing after I have tried to help by giving you some stats. Why not start a thread on fraud if it means so much to you?

As foolproof as possible, yes. But a system is only foolproof until it is put into practice.
After it comes into practice, it doesn’t actually matter how you dress it up. In my considerable experience of dealing with fraud, there are those who will work out a way to defraud whatever system is put in place.
If your experience is different, I’m happy for you.

Mollygo

The fraud proofing is about those who know how to work the system. It didn’t stop fraud during furlough, it doesn’t stop fraud with disability benefits.
Even if the majority of people claim honestly, a huge amount will still lost through fraud. Perhaps this should be built in to the funding planning for UBI.

Benefit fraud is a misnomer as it includes both "fraud and error". In the year 2019/20 the net loss was 1.9% of the benefit expenditure (this, remember, includes errors as well as fraud). I don't see less than 1.9% as "huge". if you have ever had to fill in a benefits claim form you would not be surprised that people make errors - Age UK has special people who go out to help with the forms for very good reason. Under Citizen's based UBI these forms would/should disappear. It can be set up - and in my personal view, should be - so that no earnings-related benefits are needed - imagine the savings on paperwork and postage!

The increase in fraud during 1920/21 was mainly due to identity fraud. If the system is based on citizenship I'm not sure if that could have happened. Everyone would already be receiving it when a catastrophe arose, except for new citizens who would be mainly babies. You would have a much smaller cohort to check on and I would have thought that the department citizenship came under would have already worked on making that as foolproof as possible - wouldn't you?

The fraud proofing is about those who know how to work the system. It didn’t stop fraud during furlough, it doesn’t stop fraud with disability benefits.
Even if the majority of people claim honestly, a huge amount will still lost through fraud. Perhaps this should be built in to the funding planning for UBI.

Every citizen would get it Mollygo. How you decide who is a citizen would vary from country to country.

Currently we have a system which says that if you or your parents were born in the UK, you might automatically be a British citizen and then it gets more complicated. www.gov.uk/check-british-citizenship.

The idea is that each person receives exactly the same amount as a periodic cash payment, unconditionally delivered to all on an individual basis, without means-test or work requirement.

The fraud-proofing would be about citizenship which is sadly a bit of a minefield currently, as far as I can see.

The amount would be set by the government who might set it too low just to prove it doesn't work ... or not

I’d vote for UBI. It would benefit every member of our family who is of working age. I would like to see how it could be ‘fraud-proofed’.

Chakotay

MaizieD

The amount of the State Pension has increased Chakotay's income and it's clear that she was already using her personal allowance, so the whole of that increase will be taxed. What I don't understand is what exactly is wrong about that?

Well, I was rather wondering if that had been the case and, like you, I couldn't understand what was the problem.

See my answer above, people on working age benefits do not pay tax on those benefits, their income is not added to their benefits for tax, their personal allowance is not deceased by the amount of benefits sorry you don't see the problem in that

Just to come back to this. The reason those on working-age benefit do not pay tax is that they do not earn above the tax threshold. Any income they have reduces the benefit so they will not be above the tax threshold even then.

I don't know where you are getting the idea from that you can earn, and then receive a benefit that brings you above the threshold. Perhaps you are not taking into account the fact that many benefits are calculated on a household where there may be two adults - both of whom are entitled to a personal allowance. If there is only one adult they will not receive as much so will still be below the personal tax allowance.

The tax system is too complicated (one of the worst in the world) and the benefits system is too.

That's why many of us want UBI.

That seems to be where our governments are going sadly. That would then be another "layer" in our system because some would then still need benefits to top this up. Madness. But then our whole system is overburdened with tweaks from one era or another.

There is no set amount for UBI, Maizie.

I din't think it was a fixed rule, Pippa. I just got the impression from reading about it that the amount would be like 'subsistence' level rather than particularly generous.

could/should mean

As far as I understand it, UBI is below the threshold, so untaxed. If the recipient is earning then any additional income which takes them over the tax threshold is taxed in the normal way.

There is no set amount for UBI, Maizie. It is a "thing" like "a pension" is a "thing" not a set amount. However, in this country it is unlikely to be set above the current personal allowance of £12,570. Some argue that giving UBI could/should me the removal of the personal allowance. This would only make sense (to me) if the adult UBI was £12,570 or above. I don't think Wales will go that high though.

People on benefit, people on benefits ... I thought you would realise just how little you would have to live on Chakotay. If you had little enough to get pension benefits you would be below the income that would pay tax anyway.

As for not getting tax deducted when paying into the State Pension, in actuality, each person does not get back from the small pot some believe they paid into. You get it from current taxed income which means you will always get enough to live on and, in your case, enough to pay tax on. There is a cost in doing that.

As I say, if you want change, lobby parliament don't whinge about not getting enough by comparing yourself to those getting under the tax threshold.

People on 'working age benefits' only get them because they have very low, or no, income from paid employment. So, no, they don't pay tax on it because it's below the tax threshold.
I still have no idea why someone of retirement age with 3 income streams is complaining about being taxed on it all.

As far as I understand it, UBI is below the threshold, so untaxed. If the recipient is earning then any additional income which takes them over the tax threshold is taxed in the normal way.

I can see how this would promote cries of 'unfair' from those who think that making money or working all hours is the only point of human existence if the humans in question have not been born into a wealthy family (because, of course, other rules apply to wealthy people; they're under no obligation at all to struggle in any way to exist, only 'the poor' are expected to 'work hard' for their money)

MaizieD

^The amount of the State Pension has increased Chakotay's income and it's clear that she was already using her personal allowance, so the whole of that increase will be taxed. What I don't understand is what exactly is wrong about that?^

Well, I was rather wondering if that had been the case and, like you, I couldn't understand what was the problem.

See my answer above, people on working age benefits do not pay tax on those benefits, their income is not added to their benefits for tax, their personal allowance is not deceased by the amount of benefits sorry you don't see the problem in that

PippaZ

MaizieD

Chakotay

MaizieD

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?

And part of that income is my state pension, if I was working age and my state pension was UC or tax credits then I wouldn't pay so much tax and those are tax free and I REPEAT there is no way I am going to pay an extra 12% on top of that to incorporate NI, and as due to the new flat rate rules I paid NI from between April 2016 and April 2021 without a penny going towards my pension I am not about to start paying it now not unless my pension increases in pro

Nope. I still don't understand why you're paying more tax, unless you are receiving more income.

The amount of the State Pension has increased Chakotay's income and it's clear that she was already using her personal allowance, so the whole of that increase will be taxed. What I don't understand is what exactly is wrong about that?

Because as I KEEP saying if my income was increased by working age benefits instead of my contribution based state pension I wouldn't be paying more tax, as I have said before quite rightly my private pension is taxed, I got tax relief when paying in.

Welshwife

I thought that if UBI was introduced it would be taxed -possibly at a higher rate.
Single people who lose their jobs are entitled to £73 a week benefit - nothing else at all. That is a disgraceful amount particularly for people who have claimed nothing all their working life.
The benefits system certainly needs to be looked at to be fairer.

Chakotay is not talking about UBI but about what she is paying in tax now.

The description of a Universal Basic Income is that it is a periodic cash payment, unconditionally delivered to all on an individual basis, without means-test or work requirement - nothing about tax. As everything being done re UBI is a trial at the moment this will be worked out by the country bringing it in.

Personally, I feel that a UBI system would be fairer but many (if not most) governments are yet to be persuaded. (and thank you for bringing us back to the OP)