Universal Basic Income thread

[Scot Dutchy]

It is not a ridiculous comment. It is a very loose form of registration and in fact means nothing.
I worked in the British police I know how impossible it is to trace someone in Britain.

Just stop and try and understand what we are saying to you. You've got it the wrong way around. The government isn't trying to find people who don't want to be found. Anyone who isn't yet known for some legitimate reason is coming to the government of their own volition.

So what has that to do with the implementation of what is here is called the UBI, an acronym I disagree with. You live in weird societies. It is not the European way of doing things. I dont have it the wrong way round. The government must be the one to give out the income and control who is asking for it. No wonder Anglo-Saxon societies are in such a mess.

[PsychoSerenity]

Thomas the Wank Engine.

[Beatsong]

You reckon the Guardian is left-leaning?

Well by the standards of the British press, I meant.

That article is simply WRONG. You note yourself there is a discrepancy between the £72 the article claims and £80 in the Green Party proposal. That's because the article was written without actually seeing the Green Party proposal.

The figure of £72 was widely reported at the time, not just by the Guardian, and strangely I don't think it was corrected by natalie Bennett in her infamous car crash interview. I don't know how the discrepancy came about - however I don't think it affects my basic point, that a UBI for Britain would be extremely expensive even to provide an income that is nowhere near enough to live on. This would then require a bunch of other benefits to support those who are not working, thus compromising the idea of simplicity and lack of bureaucracy that is supposed to be part of the point.

Secondly your "astronomical increase to the total tax burden" is not an increase, when you stop repeatedly ignoring that it's offsetting current tax breaks that are already given disproportionally more to higher earners i.e "people that don't need it", in favour of a flat-rate amount that everyone gets equally.

You seem to have misunderstood what I meant by "total tax burden". I meant the total tax burden of the country, not that of any particular individual. If you need to raise an extra £157 billion in tax to pay for a UBI, then you are making the total tax burden higher. A lot higher. How much that impacts on which individuals at which income levels is another story.

But when they're talking about taking away the personal allowance to pay for it, you're simply wrong to say this disproportionally affects higher earners. Losing the personal allowance would MUCH more affect lower earners, because it is a higher amount in relation to their income. In fact, I'm pretty sure it gets phased out for very high earners anyway so it would make no difference at all to them.

The policy is cost-neutral, and the majority of people have a net gain. Look at the graph:

Net income comparison.png

Everyone earning less that £40K would be better off

Every policy under the sun can be paid for if you raise enough tax for it. That's not what "cost neutral" means.

The graph is nonsense because it relates to people claiming no benefits. But the lowest earners in Britain - includes large numbers in full time employment - are highly reliant on benefits such as working tax credits etc. It's the loss of these that led to the conclusion in that article that it would be bad for the lowest earners.

The general principle seems inescapable to me: We currently have a benefits system that takes a whole lot of tax money and gives it mostly to the poor (as, in my opinion, it should). A UBI would replace that with a system that gives money to everyone equally. That, in and of itself, is by definition going to disadvantage the poor and advantage the rich, given the same amount of total money given out.

What you're trying to do is show that other factors can be adjusted to compensate for that fact: If we gave out a fuckton more money, the poor could be better off than they are now even though the system wouldn't be geared towards the as it is now. If we changed the tax system to take far more money from the rich, that could compensate for the benefits changes and make the poor better off in terms of tax/benefits relationship.

it's possible you may be able to come up with the number to make that work, theoretically. You're then left with the practical problems of what happens in a country within a globalised world when it tries to massively increase taxes on the rich. And the problems of simply collecting it.

As a system of benefits, a UBI is less progressive, and tends less towards redistribution, than a targeted benefits system to support the poor. That is true inescapably by virtue of the "U". For me as a leftist that wants to see the poor and vulnerable protected as well as possible, and provided with opportunity to improve their position, in the most efficient way that stil retains a healthy economy, that makes it a step backwards. What you're basically trying to do is convince me that you can compensate for that step backwards by taking two steps forwards in other areas like tax. I'd probably agree with you in most things about tax; I'd certainly like to see a tax system that doesn't favour the rich the way our current one does. But I just don't see that this "universal" things is SOOO fantasically amazingly wonderful in its potential to revolutionise everything about society that we need to accept the regressive step in the benefits system in the first place. Why not keep a benefits system that is genuinely redistributive, AND improve the tax system as well?

[pErvinalia]

It is not a ridiculous comment. It is a very loose form of registration and in fact means nothing.
I worked in the British police I know how impossible it is to trace someone in Britain.

Just stop and try and understand what we are saying to you. You've got it the wrong way around. The government isn't trying to find people who don't want to be found. Anyone who isn't yet known for some legitimate reason is coming to the government of their own volition.

So what has that to do with the implementation of what is here is called the UBI, an acronym I disagree with. You live in weird societies. It is not the European way of doing things. I dont have it the wrong way round. The government must be the one to give out the income and control who is asking for it. No wonder Anglo-Saxon societies are in such a mess.

You are confused. I can't really identify what the source of your confusion is, though.

This is a simple process. If you want UBI you go to the government and register. How you can possibly see something difficult about this I have no idea.

[pErvinalia]

The graph is nonsense because it relates to people claiming no benefits. But the lowest earners in Britain - includes large numbers in full time employment - are highly reliant on benefits such as working tax credits etc. It's the loss of these that led to the conclusion in that article that it would be bad for the lowest earners.

I must be missing something, as a UBI replaces (and is usually meant to increase) current welfare payments. So I don't see how anyone could be worse off.

it's possible you may be able to come up with the number to make that work, theoretically. You're then left with the practical problems of what happens in a country within a globalised world when it tries to massively increase taxes on the rich.

Is there any evidence that the ordinarily rich (as opposed to the obscenely rich, most of whom don't pay much tax (percentage-wise) anyway) just pack up their lives and move to another country to avoid higher taxes? I assume there would be a point at which tax got high enough that some number of people would actually leave. But what's that number, and what's the evidence to back up the assertion?

As a system of benefits, a UBI is less progressive, and tends less towards redistribution, than a targeted benefits system to support the poor. That is true inescapably by virtue of the "U". For me as a leftist that wants to see the poor and vulnerable protected as well as possible, and provided with opportunity to improve their position, in the most efficient way that stil retains a healthy economy, that makes it a step backwards. What you're basically trying to do is convince me that you can compensate for that step backwards by taking two steps forwards in other areas like tax. I'd probably agree with you in most things about tax; I'd certainly like to see a tax system that doesn't favour the rich the way our current one does. But I just don't see that this "universal" things is SOOO fantasically amazingly wonderful in its potential to revolutionise everything about society that we need to accept the regressive step in the benefits system in the first place. Why not keep a benefits system that is genuinely redistributive, AND improve the tax system as well?

While you might be right about it being more regressive*, I don't think that's important at all. What is important is the outcome. If a more regressive system led to an outcome where the poor and disadvantaged in society were given unconditional security and dignity, then that's a good thing. Remember, this is a political issue as well as an economic issue. That's why it might be important to make the income universal to avoid potential social disharmony.

The reality of our future economies is almost certainly massive and increasing un(der)-employment, and a subsequent evisceration of the underpinnings of capitalism (i.e. spending). So something definitely has to be done. And whatever it is, I assume it will absolutely have to include a significant increase in taxation on the rich (and/or their capital/production). How we get to that point in the current 'race to the bottom' we are engaged in globally, I don't know. But giving some concession to the capitalist class might actually be necessary. Without that, it's almost certainly going to be revolution and lamposts. I suspect the latter is inevitable, and frankly I encourage it (not the lamposts thing, of course).


* - (it's too early in the day for my brain to think this through properly but is 'regressiveness' determined by absolute amounts or by relative amounts?)

[Scot Dutchy]

This is a simple process. If you want UBI you go to the government and register. How you can possibly see something difficult about this I have no idea.

That is the wrong way round. It is part of a total package one which deals with work as well not just benefits. Every one is entitled to UBI (as you call it) not just those who apply but is the difference mind set between mainland Europe and Anglo-Saxon countries which is why in the likes of the UK social services are a mess.
It is a completely a new way of organising society while you want to extend the present mess. Here you dont apply for social benefits you are informed what you are entitled to. How are you going to combat fraud? Do you know who is actually living in your country and where?

[pErvinalia]

I have no idea what you are going on about. You seem totally confused. If you want UBI you go to the government and say, "here I am, give me some money". The government doesn't have to chase people down.

And I've asked you multiple times to explain what you mean about work sharing. Are you going to explain it? UBI has absolutely nothing to do with the relationship between employer and employee. It's about the relationship between the government and citizens.

Regarding fraud, it will be no different to the potential for fraud under the current system. And if a government doesn't "know who is actually living in [the] country and where [they are]", it's irrelevant to the issue of fraud. How can a person not registered for UBI defraud UBI??

[Scot Dutchy]

I have explained so often about work sharing:

http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 3#p1714233

[pErvinalia]

What does that have to do with the government? That's between employers and employees (i.e exactly as it is now).

[Scot Dutchy]

What does that have to do with the government? That's between employers and employees (i.e exactly as it is now).

Here in the new situation with the majority of work being probably from government agencies there would be a government inspectorate involved to oversee the whole process more akin to our health service running the employment agencies. It is far too important to be left solely to the private sector.

[pErvinalia]

I don't get it. Why will it be any different to now?

[Scot Dutchy]

I don't get it. Why will it be any different to now?

There wont be enough work. Automation is going remove the need for employees in many sectors. I am not talking about replacing benefits with a new benefit but about the complete restructuring of employment.

[pErvinalia]

You aren't making any sense, though. Every single thing you've said applies to the present. How is any of this any different to what has been happening for the last 30 years? You need to explain why you think this is important, not just keep restating an empty idea. There hasn't been enough work for 30 years. Automation has removed the need for employees in a number of sectors. Employers have no problem now finding people to do the jobs they need done. Why on earth would work have to be rationed out? With a UBI there is less need for people to work, so the situation of work shortages will actually ease to begin with. For the love of God, please can you try and explain what you think is important, and why, with whatever this idea is you are trying (and failing) to convey?

[laklak]

I want my, I want my, I want my UBI.

Really. I want it. Just fucking give it to me. I figure I need about $7000 a month to live the way I want to, after taxes. So pony up, motherfuckers.

[NineBerry]

I think you don't get the B part.