Universal Basic Income thread

[Beatsong]

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.

The graph says "comparison of net income for a single person with no benefits between the Basic Income system and the current income tax and NI system".

In other words, they're comparing how the situation of someone who receives no benefits now would compare under UBI. That's a nonsense because the entire lower-income end of the population DO receive benefits, even when they're in work.

In other words you didn't read the paragraphs below the graph in the document that explain they've already accounted for that. I'm sorry I didn't copy and paste the entire document into my post but I thought you might, you know, read it before continuing to criticise it.

But they didn't explain that. They explained a few things like withdrawal rate when starting work, but they didn't explain how a graph that is specifically confined to people not claiming benefits, is relevant to people who are. Indeed, at the end of the section they say this:

Just this one example shows that a great deal more work is needed testing different combinations of benefits, household types and employment types.One important focus of that work must be to ensure that there are no significant groups of people in poverty who would lose from the move to Basic Income, and to investigate whether special measures will be needed to protect such groups.For example, those in self-employment who pay little National Insurance but receive Working Tax Credits may well pose issues.

which makes quite clear that they have not, in fact, accounted for those "issues".

[rainbow]

which makes quite clear that they have not, in fact, accounted for those "issues".

The whole point is that the BI should just cover survival. The individuals have the choice then if they want luxuries, they must go out and do some work to pay for these.

Why do you find this so difficult?

[NineBerry]

The definition is a bit more than survival. The definition usually refers to an income to "allows cultural participation".

[Scot Dutchy]

The definition is a bit more than survival. The definition usually refers to an income to "allows cultural participation".

I agree but also agree with rainbow. The individual can decide.

[rainbow]

The definition is a bit more than survival. The definition usually refers to an income to "allows cultural participation".

I'm not paying for someone else's Lederhosen

[Beatsong]

.

[Beatsong]

which makes quite clear that they have not, in fact, accounted for those "issues".

The whole point is that the BI should just cover survival. The individuals have the choice then if they want luxuries, they must go out and do some work to pay for these.

Why do you find this so difficult?

Well I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "survival" - whether it's literally just not quite dying - but that's not what those advocating it on this thread and elsewhere have suggested. They seem to suggest it would provide "decency" and "dignity" for all etc. etc. I would dispute, however, that much beyond literal survival is possible on in the UK on £80 a week without a whole lot of other benefits also being in place.

In fact I'd dispute that doling out cash is the best way to ensure the most basic level of survival anyway. That starts much more effectively by having a robust healthcare system free at the point of use, and a housing policy providing subsidised social housing to those who need it. Then the two most key areas of survival are taken care of without being subject to the whims of the market. Both of these areas that have been badly underfunded in recent years, and that I would like to see the UK government devoting a lot more money to. Politics is about priorities, and they're not going to have the money to do that while they're already having to massively increase taxes to give cash to people who don't need it.

Anyhow, my point in this last discussion was not what the BI should provide or how well it would provide it - it was that it would provide less for the poorest section of society than they are currently getting now. Many people rely on more than £80 per week worth of benefits, in many cases despite the fact that they ARE working. UBI at this level would make those people poorer.

[NineBerry]

It all depends on the details of implementation. But for people currently working and still receiving benefits, a UBI would usually mean an improvement. That is because the UBI sum will be higher than the benefits they currently receive. People who have a low income do not receive the full sum of benefits that people without any income receive. In an UBI system, the UBI must be at least as high as what people without income receive today in the current system.

[Strontium Dog]

holy fuck I'm watching a current affairs program now and they are using a robot to do open heart surgery. It still requires the surgeon to operate it, but eventually they will be able to do away with the doctor. Imagine the shock those doctors are going to get when they go from $300k a year to a $30k UBI a year...

They could speak to some Cuban doctors if they want to know what it's like to earn the same wage as a taxi driver.

[pErvinalia]

Just starting to look into the 'how' of a UBI. Most people seem to suggest that a UBI should be tax free. But why should it? If it was taxed like regular income, then that would be a way to reduce the amount handed out to those who already earn plenty. And if you set the tax-free threshold for income at a level above the amount of the UBI, then those who really need it would not pay any tax on it. This wouldn't add any bureaucracy over the regular taxation system, so there's no efficiency gain by not taxing it. Can anyone think of any reason why taxing it is a bad idea?

[Scot Dutchy]

Taxing it has no point. It should be the zero point of taxation and everything above should taxed progressively.

[NineBerry]

Just starting to look into the 'how' of a UBI. Most people seem to suggest that a UBI should be tax free. But why should it? If it was taxed like regular income, then that would be a way to reduce the amount handed out to those who already earn plenty. And if you set the tax-free threshold for income at a level above the amount of the UBI, then those who really need it would not pay any tax on it. This wouldn't add any bureaucracy over the regular taxation system, so there's no efficiency gain by not taxing it. Can anyone think of any reason why taxing it is a bad idea?

What you describe is not a "universal basic income", but a "negative income tax". It has one major disadvantage in that it requires a scheme of the tax authorities constantly tracking everyone's income, while most implementations of a basic income (especially those with a flat tax) allow greatly reducing tax bureaucracy by getting rid of the need to file personal tax returns. When having a flat tax, you can directly levy taxes at the point of money transfer.

A real advantage of such a flat tax system is for people who do not have a constant flow of income but work on individual projects, sometimes having no income, sometimes generating a differing amount of income. The current social welfare systems are hell for those people since they constantly need to communicate with the government updating their current status.

[rainbow]

which makes quite clear that they have not, in fact, accounted for those "issues".

The whole point is that the BI should just cover survival. The individuals have the choice then if they want luxuries, they must go out and do some work to pay for these.

Why do you find this so difficult?

Well I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "survival" - whether it's literally just not quite dying - but that's not what those advocating it on this thread and elsewhere have suggested. They seem to suggest it would provide "decency" and "dignity" for all etc. etc. I would dispute, however, that much beyond literal survival is possible on in the UK on £80 a week without a whole lot of other benefits also being in place.

In Africa, we live in mud huts and eat roots.

We live on $2 per day.

[pErvinalia]

Taxing it has no point. It should be the zero point of taxation and everything above should taxed progressively.

Your two sentences are incompatible. It can't be both not taxed and taxed. What you describe in your last sentence is what I just proposed. It's a pity you seem so fucking woeful at reading what is clearly written.

[pErvinalia]

Just starting to look into the 'how' of a UBI. Most people seem to suggest that a UBI should be tax free. But why should it? If it was taxed like regular income, then that would be a way to reduce the amount handed out to those who already earn plenty. And if you set the tax-free threshold for income at a level above the amount of the UBI, then those who really need it would not pay any tax on it. This wouldn't add any bureaucracy over the regular taxation system, so there's no efficiency gain by not taxing it. Can anyone think of any reason why taxing it is a bad idea?

What you describe is not a "universal basic income", but a "negative income tax".

The two aren't mutually exclusive.

It has one major disadvantage in that it requires a scheme of the tax authorities constantly tracking everyone's income, while most implementations of a basic income (especially those with a flat tax) allow greatly reducing tax bureaucracy by getting rid of the need to file personal tax returns.

Not "expecially". "Only". If you retain the regular progressive taxation system, then no extra bureaucracy is required. If you are advocating for a flat tax rate, then you are talking about the taxation system, not a citizen's income.

A real advantage of such a flat tax system is for people who do not have a constant flow of income but work on individual projects, sometimes having no income, sometimes generating a differing amount of income. The current social welfare systems are hell for those people since they constantly need to communicate with the government updating their current status.

Yeah a flat tax system certainly has some benefits. But it also has the massive negative in being regressive, not progressive.