Universal Basic Income

[The Doctor]

and.. fyi, over the past 12 months there have been more than 1 TRILLION euros printed and distributed to the banks. So there is no need to worry where the money will come from...

 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-01-22/ecb-money-printing-now-expected-to-top-1-trillion-euros/6033086

 

 

This morning there are leaks that the ECB is to splash out 50 billion euros a month, through to December 2016 according to Bloomberg.

In all, a massive bond buying bazooka of 1.1 trillion euros.

 

Well there is - global population: 7.125bn (7,125,000,000) Global GDP: ~$77.83tn (2014) - works out to about $11k per person globally. 

[Dodgy Bob]

Unless it's a country that is running a large surplus every year then where is the money going to come from? Printing it would lead to inflation so you'd either have to cut spending or raise taxes. Neither seem like they'd be very popular.

I think initially a lot of people would quit their jobs and try to make money out of something they enjoy. But the millions of menial, unenjoyable jobs that need to be done to keep society functioning would still need to be done, so wages for those jobs would go up to tempt people in. As wages rose those vital services would become more expensive to buy, which would give people less disposable income which would push them back into ordinary work. When the dust settled you'd probably find that some people were very rich, and some were just getting by, much like now.

[Guest Kopfkino]

Should be done using Friedman's negative income tax model

[Rincewind]

When I did the temp council work I was told about somebody that used to have a well paid job in a bank but preferred road sweeping. I was never in a well paid job all my working life. I accepted it and that I would never be a big earner. I have had a lot less stress as a result. Would I have stayed at home for more or the same? I don't know tbh. Now I would find an interest or do volunteering and learning new skills that way. I could not sit at home watching daytime TV.

[AyewJoking]

I agree with this. Although it might have more ground in the future. With more automation in retail and transport, a shit ton of people aren't going to have jobs. There are tons of driving jobs out there but I'd be surprised if there were tons of driving jobs in the future. 

 

This sounds nice but surely if people got this prices would just inflate to match the extra amount of money people have? 

 

 

do you mean the people currently in those jobs or that line of occupation will no longer be available for people looking to get into that kind of work?

 

are you assuming they wont find another job?

[Harry - LCFC]

I think it would be a better way of delivering welfare than what we have now. There'd be less bureaucracy and administration costs. The simplicity of the system would allow people to know where they stand heading forward, helping them to make better decisions as a result., I suspect there'd be less fraud too.

 

I'm sure some country will give it a whirl eventually so we can have an example to look at.

[Stadt]

I think it would be a better way of delivering welfare than what we have now. There'd be less bureaucracy and administration costs. The simplicity of the system would allow people to know where they stand heading forward, helping them to make better decisions as a result., I suspect there'd be less fraud too.

 

I'm sure some country will give it a whirl eventually so we can have an example to look at.

 

Finland already have (I think)

[Christoph]

do you mean the people currently in those jobs or that line of occupation will no longer be available for people looking to get into that kind of work?

are you assuming they wont find another job?

I'm assuming the amount of jobs to do with driving and retail may not be replaced with the same amount of jobs for other things. Maybe it will.

[ozleicester]

Unless it's a country that is running a large surplus every year then where is the money going to come from? Printing it would lead to inflation so you'd either have to cut spending or raise taxes. Neither seem like they'd be very popular.

I think initially a lot of people would quit their jobs and try to make money out of something they enjoy. But the millions of menial, unenjoyable jobs that need to be done to keep society functioning would still need to be done, so wages for those jobs would go up to tempt people in. As wages rose those vital services would become more expensive to buy, which would give people less disposable income which would push them back into ordinary work. When the dust settled you'd probably find that some people were very rich, and some were just getting by, much like now.

 

No, you dont need to cut spend or raise taxation, you just print more money.

 

As i mentioned earlier, the euro zone has printed more than 1 TRILLION $ in the past year... the inflation rate has stayed low (see here http://www.tradingeconomics.com/euro-area/inflation-cpi)currently this money is being given to the obscenely rich bankers and they just profit more from it whilst the poor are left to suffer.

 

Yes, those jobs will need to pay more to encouage people to do them... thats a good thing!

 

Why is anyone bothered about others not working... if you want to work, then work, gain the extra $$ and live a "better" life, if you dont want to work and are happy to "get by".... good luck to you.

[Dodgy Bob]

No, you dont need to cut spend or raise taxation, you just print more money.

As i mentioned earlier, the euro zone has printed more than 1 TRILLION $ in the past year... the inflation rate has stayed low (see here http://www.tradingeconomics.com/euro-area/inflation-cpi)currently this money is being given to the obscenely rich bankers and they just profit more from it whilst the poor are left to suffer.

Yes, those jobs will need to pay more to encouage people to do them... thats a good thing!

Why is anyone bothered about others not working... if you want to work, then work, gain the extra $$ and live a "better" life, if you dont want to work and are happy to "get by".... good luck to you.

Quantitative Easing isn't quite as simple as just printing money and giving it out. Banks have been kept afloat by QE, which they would argue is in everyone's best interests. Had they been allowed to fail, we may have seen huge levels of deflation, so in a way we are experiencing the effects. I'd argue as well that house price inflation, which has been rocketing, is in part an inflationary effective t if qe due to it giving banks the ability to issue cheap mortgages, but house price growth isn't accounted for in the official inflation figures. Essentially, QE hasn't significantly increased anyone's spending power, so that's they it hasn't caused inflation. A basic income would increase everybody's spending power, so would cause inflation.

The really crap jobs will have to pay more to encourage people to do them, but lots of them are already quite well paid. The more pleasant jobs will get away with paying less, and some of those already pay very little. It wouldn't guarantee that the jobs market would become fair or just (whatever that would look like), all it would do is arbitrarily shift the dynamics around a bit, and make fundamental services like electricity generation and waste disposal much more expensive (because nobody would want to be a bin man), which would hit the poor harder than anyone and force them back into work.

[MPH]

Because exceptionalism and skilled work of every type would be rewarded much more than by doing nothing?

 

 

and all the unskilled labor positions?

[The Railway Man]

No, you dont need to cut spend or raise taxation, you just print more money.

 

As i mentioned earlier, the euro zone has printed more than 1 TRILLION $ in the past year... the inflation rate has stayed low (see here http://www.tradingeconomics.com/euro-area/inflation-cpi)currently this money is being given to the obscenely rich bankers and they just profit more from it whilst the poor are left to suffer.

 

Yes, those jobs will need to pay more to encouage people to do them... thats a good thing!

 

Why is anyone bothered about others not working... if you want to work, then work, gain the extra $$ and live a "better" life, if you dont want to work and are happy to "get by".... good luck to you.

 

Probably because the "benefit cap" in Britain is higher than the average wage, so it's often a case of people working hard and having a lower standard of living than those not doing anything. If it was a simply as the line you have written I don't think a single person in the country would be against it.

 

That isn't going to change under this system is it?

 

I'm not even going to start on just "printing more money" to solve this problem as it's so obtuse it's beyond belief, have a look at Zimbabwe's attempts at that.

[Captain...]

There are a lot of false arguments in this thread. This is a very basic income that would be guaranteed, to ensure that people don't have to live in shit and beg/steal/borrow to survive.

 

Low skilled jobs would still be needed and they would pay more than the UBI (if implemented correctly). UBI should cover the basics, if you want your luxuries, sky sports, season tickets, PS4 etc then you need a job, or some serious budgeting.

 

It is also very boring not having a job, and not having the money for entertainment, people will take low skilled jobs out of boredom, or they will go back to education, or do charitable work or pursue artistic endeavours or become full time parents.

 

Our current Welfare System is a massive disincentive to work, there is no flexibility and you get punished for taking temporary flexible work, it is easier to just stay on benefits unless you find a full time well paid job. Something should change.

 

Whether this is the correct option or not, I don't know, it is simpler and harder to abuse, but seems like it will cost a lot more (printing money is not a great answer) and will encourage immigrants unless it is limited to British nationals. I would rather see vouchers to be used at government sponsored online stores, just a shop full of basics and everyone gets x amount of credits to spend every week. the equivalent cost to the government compared to the benefit to the citizen would be huge. Example a bag  of carrots costs you and me £1 but would only cost the retailer 40p. The government has to give some one £1 for them to buy a bag of carrots, or buy a bag of carrots for 40p and give them to someone.

 

This could be limited to just those classed as in poverty, or just made available to everyone and it is up to you if you use it, I imagine a lot of people wouldn't as they would prefer the branded goods from the local supermarket. Having that safety net would make everyone feel better.

[Rincewind]

Some truth there Captain. There has been reports of people working part time and zero hour contracts being told to get second jobs to cut down tax credit. Fine but will that not leave less part time work for those that cannot find full time work?

There will always be people that enjoy the low paid jobs such as carers. They may feel that giving something back to society is more rewarding than working for a boss and their monetary profit.  I hope that sounds right. Although it can depend on the company and how it is run.

My sister runs and is the CEO of an upholstery and furniture business in Workington and has a small workforce. She can rely on any of them helping out with any task such as loading lorries and staying behind to lock up. I believe she pays them well and just takes a basic salary herself. Her husband is the van/delivery driver. The business is doing well and she has regular customers but she is satisfied with the size of it. Her employees may be willing to work for less but she would not consider exploiting them. She may own a business but she definitely does not support some of the policies of the current government.

no-one should fall through the safety net but they do and it is often not noticed until too late. This is why the benefit system was set up. Removing that net does not improve things for a person but makes them more vulnerable than before. The further you fall down the pit the darker it becomes and harder to climb out.

I will conclude here. I have already deleted and rewritten parts of this post.

[Webbo]

They were discussing this on Newsnight last night. An economist reckons for a basic income of £8k per year we'd have to raise the basic rate of income tax to 48%.

[Rincewind]

They were discussing this on Newsnight last night. An economist reckons for a basic income of £8k per year we'd have to raise the basic rate of income tax to 48%.

That is nothing for a man of your wealth Webbo  

[DJ Barry Hammond]

They were discussing this on Newsnight last night. An economist reckons for a basic income of £8k per year we'd have to raise the basic rate of income tax to 48%.

But this would be on earnings above the basic income would it not? It would also be interesting how the tapering would work, because I imagine you'd want it lower in the middle to a certain level before increasing it again at a higher wage level.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

There are a lot of false arguments in this thread. This is a very basic income that would be guaranteed, to ensure that people don't have to live in shit and beg/steal/borrow to survive.

 

Low skilled jobs would still be needed and they would pay more than the UBI (if implemented correctly). UBI should cover the basics, if you want your luxuries, sky sports, season tickets, PS4 etc then you need a job, or some serious budgeting.

 

It is also very boring not having a job, and not having the money for entertainment, people will take low skilled jobs out of boredom, or they will go back to education, or do charitable work or pursue artistic endeavours or become full time parents.

 

Our current Welfare System is a massive disincentive to work, there is no flexibility and you get punished for taking temporary flexible work, it is easier to just stay on benefits unless you find a full time well paid job. Something should change.

 

Whether this is the correct option or not, I don't know, it is simpler and harder to abuse, but seems like it will cost a lot more (printing money is not a great answer) and will encourage immigrants unless it is limited to British nationals. I would rather see vouchers to be used at government sponsored online stores, just a shop full of basics and everyone gets x amount of credits to spend every week. the equivalent cost to the government compared to the benefit to the citizen would be huge. Example a bag  of carrots costs you and me £1 but would only cost the retailer 40p. The government has to give some one £1 for them to buy a bag of carrots, or buy a bag of carrots for 40p and give them to someone.

 

This could be limited to just those classed as in poverty, or just made available to everyone and it is up to you if you use it, I imagine a lot of people wouldn't as they would prefer the branded goods from the local supermarket. Having that safety net would make everyone feel better.

Not sure that would work captain, because you'd have a dangerous two tier scenario - the ones who get goods at a discount on government benefits and others who work that would pay a much higher retail price. In the world as it is, that would cause massive condecention between people.

Additionally, the range of items the government would need to reasonably stock would be huge - and what do you do for things like electric, water and Internet / phone usage - necessities (you may debate the internet, but in this day and age). So on the face of it, interesting idea but when you drill down into finer details there are a lot of difficulties with the idea (another one would be the natural north / south price devide you get. Does the government look to offset that?).

However, one possible unseen benefit with UBI would be the potential control it might have on inflation - those who made certain essential mass produced widely consumed products would want them to be priced within the range of UBI to give it as a wide a customer base as possible.

Additionally, I would suggest for UBI to be fair you'd need some sort of qualifying period / conditions - say 5 years residency and a requirement to provide a minimum period of qualifying voluntary whilst receiving the benefit.

[DANGEROUS TIGER]

I don't know what to think, but it's food for thought, I suppose.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

I don't know what to think, but it's food for thought, I suppose.

It's quite radical, so it won't catch everyone's imagination straight off - especially in the rather divisive environment we have now where people are quick to accuse name and faceless hoards of getting something for nothing!

But it's worth getting the idea in people's consciousness because it may be a policy that is required in the reasonably near future.

[Captain...]

Not sure that would work captain, because you'd have a dangerous two tier scenario - the ones who get goods at a discount on government benefits and others who work that would pay a much higher retail price. In the world as it is, that would cause massive condecention between people.

Additionally, the range of items the government would need to reasonably stock would be huge - and what do you do for things like electric, water and Internet / phone usage - necessities (you may debate the internet, but in this day and age). So on the face of it, interesting idea but when you drill down into finer details there are a lot of difficulties with the idea (another one would be the natural north / south price devide you get. Does the government look to offset that?).

However, one possible unseen benefit with UBI would be the potential control it might have on inflation - those who made certain essential mass produced widely consumed products would want them to be priced within the range of UBI to give it as a wide a customer base as possible.

Additionally, I would suggest for UBI to be fair you'd need some sort of qualifying period / conditions - say 5 years residency and a requirement to provide a minimum period of qualifying voluntary whilst receiving the benefit.

Everyone would receive the same amount of credits, so there would be no two tier system any unused credits go to the charity or cause of your choice, even political causes such as campaigning funds for the party of your choice or can be invested in research into renewable energies. They would also be used for all essential commodities, including utilities, and the Internet but not smart phones, I don't believe you should just pay people's bills for them, it is better for people to pay their own way budget and prioritise.

You would also be able to rent certain luxuries until you have paid for it, such as a basic smart phone, basic computer anything that could be seen as an aid to funding work. The issue will be that there is no work.

This is just one option, another one is to turn the job centre into a recruitment agency, everyone out of work is effectively paid a retainer to be available to work at short notice, when you are called upon to work you get paid a proper wage if you are not called upon to work you get paid for being on call. This would effectively give the government a huge flexible workforce to sell to large companies, or make available for community or governmental work.

[Strokes]

Its an interesting idea and its definitely something I would support if it has a proven record somewhere first. There are obvious flaws but how much they would actually affect is debatable, I know people say they wouldn't work but I know for me, that wouldn't be the case. I would take the chance and go self employed/start a business again, free from the normal risks. I hate being employed, when I know I'm more than capable of running the whole job from start to finish.

[MPH]

 

Whether this is the correct option or not, I don't know, it is simpler and harder to abuse, but seems like it will cost a lot more (printing money is not a great answer) and will encourage immigrants unless it is limited to British nationals. I would rather see vouchers to be used at government sponsored online stores, just a shop full of basics and everyone gets x amount of credits to spend every week. the equivalent cost to the government compared to the benefit to the citizen would be huge. Example a bag  of carrots costs you and me £1 but would only cost the retailer 40p. The government has to give some one £1 for them to buy a bag of carrots, or buy a bag of carrots for 40p and give them to someone.

 

.

Sounds a bit like a step closer to communism to me..

[Rincewind]

Or they could reduce on the waste of food thrown away each day. Instead of sending it to the landfill offer it out to those on low income on a pay as you feel basis. This is basically what TRJFP do. Farmers could send the crop that is rejected by supermarket chains the odd shaped vegetables to charities. The farmers would not lose out if the government paid compensation which would be a portion of their loss if it was dumped.

[Dodgy Bob]

Sounds a bit like a step closer to communism to me..

Thought the same. Government sponsored shop has a very odd, slightly North Korea sound about it. I'm imagining the whole place is biege, the floor, the walls, the isles, the frontage, all the staff dressed in biege, all the products in plain biege packaging with only small black letters printed on the front to let you know what it is. People are walking around in straight lines staring straight ahead. There is silence but for the occasional beep from the silently manned till. The till operator is seven feet tall, he regards customers like a passport inspector, assessing them, weighing them up from a position of authority. Customers stare at the floor while he slowly processes their goods. CCTV is tracking an old lady looking at the tinned sauce selection. She has been stood there for too long. Finally, she mutters "mushroom, that's all there is: mushroom sauce. There used to be hoi sin, black bean, jalfrezi", she weeps softly, "now there's only mushroom". Quietly, but quickly, men dressed in black with covered faces grab the old lady by the arms and lead her away. It's happened so quick it takes her a second to realise what is going on, but then she looks very frightened and pleads "no, please no, please don't take me to that place again", but it doesn't help, the men taser her and drag her away. You don't complain about the selection at the government sponsored shop.