UNIVERSAL BASIC INCOME 1600.00 PER MONTH

DaisyAnneReturns

GrannyRose15

Well worth thinking about and exploring the possibilities. But I'm still sceptical about our ability as a nation to make it work. The problem is always that it is more beneficial not to work than to work on low pay. This is the problem universal credit was supposed to address but as yet it hasn't worked.
IMO there would have to be safeguards such as making sure the universal income wasn't a gateway to other benefits such as housing benefit or free school meals and was truly meant to be the only state help that was given. It could be a way of limiting the benefit bill by reducing bureaucracy. It could be a way of helping disabled people work only the hours they were able without further damaging their health. It could be a replacement for the old age pension. But we would still have to ensure there were enough people able and willing to do the jobs AI can't.

^Basic Income is a cash payment unconditionally delivered to all on an individual basis, without means test or work requirement.^

GrannyRose The whole idea of UBI is that it would be the ONLY benefit. No other would exist, so no worries about it being a gateway.

Most people would still go to work, maybe for far less hours and days than they do now. Just look how many tens of thousands of retired people take on volntary work.

If, as you say, Franbern, the £1600 is just a trial and the actual amount would be much lower there would have to be benefits on top. It has already been established that £1600 would not be enough for many disabled people, for instance, and a much lower amount would not be enough to bring up a family.

I approve of doing away with benefits, but only if people have enough to live on. As has also been said, the removal of expensive means-testing would reduce the cost, and it would also stop the unfairness of the race to the bottom that it causes, but the scheme will only work if the UBI is, as it claims, enough for a basic standard of living.

Doodledog

If you read the thread you would see that I am largely supportive, and have definitely pointed out plus points.

You do seem rather obsessed by work though and this is not a designed to deal with that. I'm sorry I miss you thoughts on ghe positives, but it happens. All of us gave a life outside Gransnet.

I do wonder what your list would look like. Mine would include some of the things that have been found in trials that have been done such as:

Mothers choosing to spend more time at home with their children. ( This group has been notable for staying out of the workforce when ubi allowed)

A greater number of teenage boys stayed in school some would have done without ubi (This was the second notable group that stayed out of the workforce in ubi experiments)

People taking a gap and choosing to do some training.

People taking a job which they otherwise couldn't afford to do, such as caring or teaching.

Decrease in poverty

Lower rates of domestic violence, work‐related injuries, farm and motor vehicle accidents, and mental illnesses than in surr areas not using ubi.

Indivual receipt of ubi affected whole communities.

Franbern what is the point of a trial if the conditions would be changed if the scheme was rolled out. It won’t tell you anything and is a complete waste of time.

Franbern I am aware that the whole point is that ini is the only benefit. I’m just sceptical that this will remain its basis if it ever gets rolled out. Britain has a track record of coming up with good ideas and then fluffing the practicalities.

UBI not ini

You do seem rather obsessed by work though and this is not a designed to deal with that. I'm sorry I miss you thoughts on ghe positives, but it happens. All of us gave a life outside Gransnet.

I also have a life outside of GN, but before I accuse others of negativity (or whatever) I have the manners to check out what they've said.

I am not 'obsessed' by work either. I am, like others, concerned about who will do the caring and teaching and nursing - essential roles that are already hard to fill, but would become more so if people had a living income without doing them. I don't know why you are bothered about my positives, but as I have said, they would include (in no particular order)

possibly equalising opportunities across the country (I don't know if this would happen, but if people knew they could live well by moving to where housing is cheaper it might,

allowing people to save or spend without penalty,

giving young people time to think about what they want to do for a living before committing to expensive course,

making it easier for poorer students to compete on a level playing field with those who don't need to work while they study,

allowing couples to share childcare and/or other domestic arrangements - this would usually be good for women, as it would give them financial equality and free them from doing 100% of the unpaid and undervalued things like school runs and sorting 'playdates' etc,

keeping pensioners out of poverty and allowing those who want to to help out with grandchildren,

possible abolition of zero-hours working (although the reverse might be the case if more people just want occasional 'top-up' house. Either way, nobody should have to have the insecurity of working around those contracts,

this one is a bit vague, but I think it might increase a sense of community, as more people would have time to volunteer, or even just to get involved in local activities, which would allow them to flourish. This would also cut down on loneliness.

It may also encourage more people to get involved in local politics, and encourage those who are just doing it as a step up to paid roles as MPs etc

I could go on, but I'm getting back to my life outside of GN

I am not against it as a payment as such I am very wary of schemes that people cheer on which on the whole they wouldnt do in their own lives.
And I am afraid that I dont see enough evidence to know whether this would reduce mental health issues, it may do the opposite. People gain great benefits from work, not just financial. I would be interested in long term studies on the impact on mental health and other issues.

Some work can cause MH problems though. Having to go to a job you hate, day in day out must be soul-destroying, particularly if the pay is poor. Many stressful jobs can tip people over the edge too.

I’m not saying that you are doing this, but a friend of mine who is a social worker is always extolling the virtues of work for the benefit of the MHof her clients, but as I say to her, she’s not standing on a production line gutting fish all day for minimum wage.

i can't see how that would be enough to live on for most people.
a basic studio flat in an old converted house is at least £1000 per month around here.
this is outer burbs, not the most expensive area.
then there is council tax, water, gas/electricity and some food and fripperies like clothing even.
as for moving about the country, to up sticks and go far away from circles of acquaintance, support, mutual aid, known services and activities is not easy, and may cause health problems.

No, it’s not easy, but if people want to live free it would be an option. If they want to stay put they could get a job. It’s already a problem faced by many people priced out of tourist areas.

No that's true doodledog, that's why its complex. A friend of mine has very complex MH issues, I would say her work and her friends have consistently kept her well, or at least functioning when she was very ill. If you look at families where there is third generation of joblessness, I personally am not bothered about the financial cost of that to society but rather the cost of that to those families if you see what I mean.
I am not sure what I would choose between social work and gutting fish but easy to say as I dont have to make that choice.

GrannyRose15

Franbern what is the point of a trial if the conditions would be changed if the scheme was rolled out. It won’t tell you anything and is a complete waste of time.

Obviously, those who know about these thing dont agree with you. Trails are comparitively small in number and those who volunteer will be made well aware that this is to test and assess how it works and that it will end. As to it changing if it is eventually rolled out - isn't it our job to hold any government that did that to account.

I do wonder why some of you worry quite so much about people not working. Would those thinking that not want to work? If you would why wouldn't others?

Galaxy

I am not against it as a payment as such I am very wary of schemes that people cheer on which on the whole they wouldnt do in their own lives.
And I am afraid that I dont see enough evidence to know whether this would reduce mental health issues, it may do the opposite. People gain great benefits from work, not just financial. I would be interested in long term studies on the impact on mental health and other issues.

I have been following UBI for some years Galaxy and writing about them on Gransnet. I does seem that governments, knowing work may become more scarce, have looked at this and continue to look at it. It could also be cheaper than current benefit systems. Life moves on and priorities and necessities change. We can't live in the past forever or, as it appears some would wish, go back to Victorian times.

However we shall have to wait and see what the outcomes of these trials are; we can't just guess. Of the many trials I've read up on, mental health often comes up so perhaps it's worth having a look at some of the ones that have been run in, for instance, Canada and America and various other countries before writing them off.

Doodledog

Some work can cause MH problems though. Having to go to a job you hate, day in day out must be soul-destroying, particularly if the pay is poor. Many stressful jobs can tip people over the edge too.

I’m not saying that you are doing this, but a friend of mine who is a social worker is always extolling the virtues of work for the benefit of the MHof her clients, but as I say to her, she’s not standing on a production line gutting fish all day for minimum wage.

Not having an answers to your basic financial issues and dealing with dystopian benefits systems can also cause mental health problems. Just knowing the money will be there each month and you will not have to justify your need for it would lift a great burden off many people. When you look at how PIP applicants are being treated at the moment it's a wonder more of them don't have problems. Those helping claiments are already warning of a new media campaign to vilify support group claimants. They also have feedback about agonizing waits for people claiming PIP. A UBI system could certainty help the mental health of such people.

I am not sure what I would choose between social work and gutting fish but easy to say as I dont have to make that choice.

Small mercies, eh?

I am one of the people who has been part of developing the pilot proposal. We are a small community group in East Finchley and, talking to people, we found the system at the moment isn't working.

It isn't enough for people to manage. We have people reliant on foodbanks, and, trust me, that is not because they need someone to shop for them. They know how to shop, they just don't have enough money.

Sanctions cause massive stress, and real financial problems. They are often applied wrongly.

Thresholds are a huge problem, particularly because UC is a passporting benefit for housing benefit, and rents are sky high. People are trapped in low paid work, because they cannot afford to lose HB when they do better.

Conditions often make no sense. People are now being asked to work an extra two hours a week minimum. If their current job can't offer them that, they have to find another one, which may be lower paid on an hourly rate, so saves the Govt nothing, or they hit the thresholds issue.

Disabled people are terrified of showing they are capable of any kind of activity, even if they have good and bad periods, in case they are accused of faking. But activity is important for our physical and mental health. Of course disabled people, with extra needs, need more money.

People working in the gig economy can have very uncertain incomes, and that's a problem.

Calculating on household instead of individual incomes traps people in situations of domestic abuse.

Women often do not have a long enough record of NI payments to claim a state pension.

So, we wanted to imagine something different. Basic income addresses all of these problems. Raising the level of benefits just raises the threshold, but it is still a problem when you meet it.

Basic income is money that is always there if your life changes (if you lose your job, or become sick or disabled), or if you want to change your life (take a low paid internship, train, start your own business - things that middle and upper class kids already have through the Bank of Mum and Dad). It is both a safety net and a springboard.

We chose the amount of £1600 a month because we already know that poverty and health inequalities are correlated. We wanted to know what the impact of sanctions, thresholds and conditions is (or what happens when you remove them), especially on health and wellbeing. It is also the sum that is being used in the Welsh Government UBI trial for care leavers, so comparisons can be made.

We know it will go further in Jarrow than in East Finchley; it won't be right for everyone in N2, but we will make sure they understand the impact on them.

We are not suggesting that this should be the level of a basic income going forward. I agree it would be wrong to start at a level like this nationally. We have to do the research in the system we live in.

There is no evidence that people stop working with a basic income - in fact in Finland, where the trial was on unemployed people, they worked more than the control group. The pandemic showed us that sitting in your room watching telly, with little money and no other options, is pretty miserable. I don't think you can bully people into work; I do think you can support them into it.

Is it fair? I think so. Everyone gets it, so if your neighbour wants to waste her life away, why do you care? She isn't getting a penny more than you. But basic income gives everyone a stake in the level of benefits. At the moment, everyone knows what they are paying for energy and food and rent, but unless you receive them yourself, who knows what benefit or pension levels are?

We know it won't produce masses of statistical data, because it is small, but it will produce some, and it will give us qualitative data. We had to balance the size of the trial, with what we needed to pay if the Government won't support the trial, and still make it achievable from a fundraising perspective.

I hope that helps.

You can find our proposal here (along with other pieces on basic income and the future of work) autonomy.work/portfolio/basic-income-big-local/

Very interesting. Thanks BarnetBiddy

BarnetBiddy

I am one of the people who has been part of developing the pilot proposal. We are a small community group in East Finchley and, talking to people, we found the system at the moment isn't working.

It isn't enough for people to manage. We have people reliant on foodbanks, and, trust me, that is not because they need someone to shop for them. They know how to shop, they just don't have enough money.

Sanctions cause massive stress, and real financial problems. They are often applied wrongly.

Thresholds are a huge problem, particularly because UC is a passporting benefit for housing benefit, and rents are sky high. People are trapped in low paid work, because they cannot afford to lose HB when they do better.

Conditions often make no sense. People are now being asked to work an extra two hours a week minimum. If their current job can't offer them that, they have to find another one, which may be lower paid on an hourly rate, so saves the Govt nothing, or they hit the thresholds issue.

Disabled people are terrified of showing they are capable of any kind of activity, even if they have good and bad periods, in case they are accused of faking. But activity is important for our physical and mental health. Of course disabled people, with extra needs, need more money.

People working in the gig economy can have very uncertain incomes, and that's a problem.

Calculating on household instead of individual incomes traps people in situations of domestic abuse.

Women often do not have a long enough record of NI payments to claim a state pension.

So, we wanted to imagine something different. Basic income addresses all of these problems. Raising the level of benefits just raises the threshold, but it is still a problem when you meet it.

Basic income is money that is always there if your life changes (if you lose your job, or become sick or disabled), or if you want to change your life (take a low paid internship, train, start your own business - things that middle and upper class kids already have through the Bank of Mum and Dad). It is both a safety net and a springboard.

We chose the amount of £1600 a month because we already know that poverty and health inequalities are correlated. We wanted to know what the impact of sanctions, thresholds and conditions is (or what happens when you remove them), especially on health and wellbeing. It is also the sum that is being used in the Welsh Government UBI trial for care leavers, so comparisons can be made.

We know it will go further in Jarrow than in East Finchley; it won't be right for everyone in N2, but we will make sure they understand the impact on them.

We are not suggesting that this should be the level of a basic income going forward. I agree it would be wrong to start at a level like this nationally. We have to do the research in the system we live in.

There is no evidence that people stop working with a basic income - in fact in Finland, where the trial was on unemployed people, they worked more than the control group. The pandemic showed us that sitting in your room watching telly, with little money and no other options, is pretty miserable. I don't think you can bully people into work; I do think you can support them into it.

Is it fair? I think so. Everyone gets it, so if your neighbour wants to waste her life away, why do you care? She isn't getting a penny more than you. But basic income gives everyone a stake in the level of benefits. At the moment, everyone knows what they are paying for energy and food and rent, but unless you receive them yourself, who knows what benefit or pension levels are?

We know it won't produce masses of statistical data, because it is small, but it will produce some, and it will give us qualitative data. We had to balance the size of the trial, with what we needed to pay if the Government won't support the trial, and still make it achievable from a fundraising perspective.

I hope that helps.

You can find our proposal here (along with other pieces on basic income and the future of work) autonomy.work/portfolio/basic-income-big-local/

Thank you for informing us.

BarnetBiddy, thank you so much for such an informative post. I am sure sure will help many of us with our thinking on this. Thank you also for the link. I look forward to reading more about your project.

Big thank u from me too for all the info👍