UNIVERSAL BASIC INCOME 1600.00 PER MONTH

As I said upthread I think there will have to be a huge collective psychological mindshift for this to work, but that will have to happen anyway if AI is going to change our lives the way it seems it will.

I love the idea of nobody being in poverty, it would double the state pension and as has been said, it would stop the horrible PIP application process. Maybe it would also do away with some of the unfairness of means testing, too.

I still think that the devil is in the detail, though, and am not convinced that letting a few people 'trial' it will prove anything at all. It feels like those TV series where a family live as though they are in the Victorian age, when actually the whole support system is 21st century, and you can't possibly get a feel for a different era by living on the periphery of it for a couple of weeks.

Cossy- the huge trial of 30 should have shown them that it DOES NOT work for disabled people nor will it work for pensioners!- and 30 is hardly enough to trial to see if will work for thousands of people is it??!!- the Tory gov't is beyond belief it really is!- the 'trial' soon grew to "oh lets just move them onto it if they change anything slightly" didnt it??! (Like a change of address- or a 'child' leaving education etc etc.) Dont try to stick up for UC it does NOT work in all circumstances!!!One umbrella benefit cannot cover all.

Why won't it work for pensioners? It will double the state pension.

Nanna2 I completely agree that the “trial” is ridiculously small - why do you think it wouldn’t work for pensioners ?? I can see why it might not work for disabled people but this amount is per person over 18 not per household ?

Nanna2 this is UBI (Universal Basic Income) not UC (Universal Credit)

Doodledog I’m with you in theory and means testing is ridiculously unfair !

I read about this several years ago. I think it was first trialled either in a community in Canada or the USA. The research was very positive but a change to a conservative government meant it was quietly shelved...

Well Bea…maybe that includes us pensioners too…..I would blossom on that income ….immediately double mine!!

Acouple of ither countries are trying this out, different level of payment. Finland tried it for two years then gave it up, non viable.

I’ve read about the concept of a UBI in quite some detail in the past. I’ve forgotten a lot of it but I do remember that none of the trials has applied it as the original concept envisioned, which is why results have been varied.

The idea is that everyone gets £XXX which is enough for a minimum standard of living. If you want more eg a bigger home, nice cars, foreign holidays etc then you can work as well. Plenty of people will want to work as well because they don’t want to sit on their bottoms all day and have things they want to pursue.

As Doodledog says, the devil is in the detail but it’s not insurmountable. It would also remove the need for layers of bureaucracy in means testing and so on which would be a huge saving.

Well i doubt a Tory govt would pay it per person or pay that without it including your rent/mortgage- they always SAY this is how something is...then throw in a load of extra rules that were'nt mentioned in outset- i can't see the Tories actually doling out extra 'free' dosh to folk just like that and there's no clauses to it- i can't see them just 'doubling' pensions by it either.Or any other payments to those who are not working to begin with! Or it Not be means-tested!Its not the Tory way! I suspect this is somethng they are planting in our minds so we will vote them in for next general election- believing we will all have our money doubled.(mistakenly) Then once in (again!) it would be "oh the trial did'nt work so we're cancelling that idea" but it would be too late then, and we would be stuck with Tories again! So no- im not falling for it!

Well presumably you would have to pay housing costs out of it. I don't think anyone is suggesting £1600 per person per month after housing! That would be the thing that levelled up areas where housing is cheaper.

I don't know that this is either a Tory idea or an election pledge, is it?

Doodlebug If sticking to the absolute principle of UBI then yes, everything incl housing costs is paid out of UBI

@Nannan2 Have you applies for a CTR? I am on UC and disability benefits, total income of 1400 a month for hubby and I since the increase in April and I only pay 22 a month in C Tax. This includes my water and sewage. I had believed that you could not get CTR on top of UC as I was under the impression UC is a "catch all benefit". Maybe worth phoning a benefits advisor, your council will have one, or Citizens advice

Not read all the posts, but interesting that 20% of the recipients are disabled.

Sadly, although the money would be good - if you need Social Care at home, the LA will take all that money to pay for it - which is a CHOICE, they do not have to charge, it is discretionary. They only have to leave you with £156 per week.

Scope's 2023 Disability Price Tag Report states that on average, a disabled person needs an extra £975 per month in order to live an equal life to that of a non-disabled person - we get £1181.30, just over half that amount ... and then the Telegraph provided an online calculator to help its readers work out how much of their taxed salary goes on “bankrolling the welfare state”. As the article accompanying it insisted, “millions are claiming benefits without ever having to look for work, helping to push the tax burden to the highest point since the Second World War". It's a calculator of hate to pander to the whims of this Tory Government in order to try to win votes.

bylinetimes.com/2023/06/06/the-price-of-sausages-the-telegraphs-calculator-of-hate/

Disability Rights UK complained ....

www.disabilityrightsuk.org/news/press-complaint-independent-press-standards-organisation-disability-rights-uk

It's just awful, and is about to get worse when the new Disability White Paper comes in - we have no hope of having anywhere near what we get now and will be sanctioned and have to go without anything if we don't look for work. Who will employ someone who has been off work for 13 years, is more often than not in hospital undergoing some more nasty surgery (the next will be my 25th) and has a window f a few hours in the afternoon where I MAY be okay to do something on a computer, depending on how nauseated I feel and the amount of pain I'm in. I know I certainly wouldn't have employed me with a record like that - it's precisely why I had to stop work in the first place!

I can see both sides of the argument, but I do think it is worth trying, and not just with one test of 30 people. If it could be tried out on different groups of people in different locations, of different ages, different family circumstances etc. over, say, the next five years, it could be very useful. It has long been an idea in circulation and just because it didn't seem successful in one trial doesn't mean it's not worth trying it again.

I think that more and more low paid jobs will be done by AI; it seems as inevitable as the effects of climate change! If we could find a really good way of running the scheme with the least loss to the poorer parts of society, it would be very worthwhile. It could improve the lives of the disabled, carers, fostered children leaving care, and the mental health of many.

I know a couple who have fallen through the net with an abusive former partner, child benefit being wrongly claimed by other family members, a child with a severe illness, which means frequent hospital visit with all the expense that entails. They work their socks off to keep going, and at the same time are kind and helpful to others. Having some money coming in would remove or at least reduce the daily stress and worry they have.

Yes, that is the point of it, as I understand it. No more different benefits to claim, no more means tests and so on. A lot of the money to pay for it will come from the abolition of those things.

Probably as it is phased in there would have to be interim arrangements for those who already claim more than that in benefits, but the idea would be that it is enough to live on, and people could top it up with earnings or personal pensions from when they did work.

What we don't know is how things like the NHS would be funded though. If significantly more people opted out of working, and didn't pay tax or NI, would that mean more tax for those who continue to work?

I don't know that this is either a Tory idea or an election pledge, is it?

Strangely, the only discussions/suggestions I've seen of UBI is from MMT (Modern Monetary Theory) proponents and they seem divided on it; some prefer a Job Guarantee.

Despite supporting MMT I can't see how UBI 'works' and I'm dubious about it. Though the idea of every adult having sufficient money for basic maintenance is an attractive one.

And you make a good point about disability payments, MadeInYorkshire. Would there be additional payments for things that the disabled need to 'break even'?

What we don't know is how things like the NHS would be funded though. If significantly more people opted out of working, and didn't pay tax or NI, would that mean more tax for those who continue to work?

If only people would understand that taxation doesn't fund spending then this worry could be put to bed...

What worries me more is the availability of people to staff the NHS if living on UBI seemed a more attractive proposition...

What worries me more is the availability of people to staff the NHS if living on UBI seemed a more attractive proposition...

Yes, I mentioned that earlier.

But if the NHS doesn't need funding, why isn't it funded? If nobody worked how would any public services be funded? And if no public money is needed to fund things, why do we still have poor countries and rich ones? Surely they could all just fund whatever they needed.

Something will have to be done though, as A I does more and more. I think it is a good idea to have these trials, as long as the results are judged on themselves and not on pre conceived prejudices.

I wonder if there’s ever been any research into how many people would give up work if they had a UBI. That is surely information that is essential before going ahead.

There are plenty of wealthy people who have no need to work but they still do (Elon Musk, for one!) and I suspect lots of ‘ordinary’ folk would still do so. It would also free up people who wanted to do altruistic work or develop the arts etc.

Doodledog

*What worries me more is the availability of people to staff the NHS if living on UBI seemed a more attractive proposition.*..

Yes, I mentioned that earlier.

But if the NHS doesn't need funding, why isn't it funded? If nobody worked how would any public services be funded? And if no public money is needed to fund things, why do we still have poor countries and rich ones? Surely they could all just fund whatever they needed.

All good questions, Dd. To which I have no answers...

Which is why I am dubious about UBI.

After all, money has value only when it is used as a medium for exchange. (all the £squillions that wealthy people have hoarded away have no value at all until they are used to buy something). If people work less, because they don't need to work so much to have sufficient money for their wants and needs, does this mean that there are less things (wants and needs) being produced for for people to buy? Which would render that money valueless.

It's not even as though there is a massive pool of unemployed people who would be happy to work a few hours to make up the deficit in goods and services caused by people already in work wanting to reduce their hours of work. What happens if farmers want to only work five days a week instead of seven? Or medical staff reducing their hours? Or people making consumer goods? It requires a radical rethink that I'm not capable of envisaging.

( I can only see it leading to hyperinflation ATM..)

I must go off and have a good look at the UBI theorists say to see if I can find what I'm missing when I start trying to work out how UBI would fit into our capitalist consumer society.

I think it's Nauru that's the Pacific island where there's so much of some mineral that the whole population is given a good pension and no one needs to work. It would be interesting to hear how that's going. Will try to find out.