Universal Basic Income - a good idea?

There will always be a cut off point or threshold, no matter what sum is finally decided upon.
Therefore people earning, say, £160 pounds a week and are working forty hours for that, will feel hard done by.
However, the idea of one basic income sum for everybody, regardless of intricate mathmatics, is a very good idea.
To cut out queues, delays, worry, benefit offices run by too many staff, form filling ....the list is endless.
Just one payment for all if you are not in work.
Job done, do you think?
Or will it create even more problems?

grannysue I believe the idea is that everyone will get paid the UBI so in addition to their earnings if employed.

A team at UCL has suggested that UK citizens should receive free housing, food, transport and internet access, to counteract the predicted reductions in jobs from the use of robots.

I like that idea a lot but don't see how the free housing could work when there is so much disparity in the size/nature of housing..

It would be instead of UBI.

Oh I see!
Well that sounds incredibly generous, and may be a way forward.
Also people may not give up on jobs too easily if they know in advance what their income will fall down to.
Could work.

I was referring to the Scottish scheme.

The UK robot scheme just sounds daft!

If its a fantasy of NS, it will never work.

Same as independence for Scotland, she is a politician for for gods sake, sans children too, but perhaps by an quirk of nature like Theresa M

basicincome.org/

basicincome.org/news/2017/08/rsa-event-universal-basic-income-can-scotland-lead-way/

Scotland has been talking about it for a while.

This scheme is in fact being given serious consideration in several countries, it has already been introduced in Iran and in the form of an annual @bonus' in Alaska, it really isn't some flight of fancy.

Personally, other than the housing componint - and regardless of robots in future - I like the idea of the UCL suggestion as it has none of the disadvantages associated with cash in hand (spending on cigs/booze instead of children etc.)

The idea is that we'll all have more to spend and so will spend more thereby giving the economy a boost and the chancellor more tax in the form of VAT and other sales taxes. I'm not sure what the comment about cigs/booze etc. is about. If people choose to spend money on such things they pay more tax and please the exchequer.

I'm not sure what the 'cash in hand' comment is meant to convey so until/unless humpty dumpty explains in further detail I won't comment. Text doesn't always allow for a proper interpretation of what someone means because there is no intonation.

I disagree with the UCL, far too patronising.

Sorry vampire for not being clear; I simply meant that there has been some concern that if welfare support is given in the form of cash, it may be spent on luxuries rather than on making better provision for any children in the family. I'm not casting aspersions by saying this, I simply put it out there as a concern regarding welfare payments.

The idea of the UCL scheme would be to instead provide practical support to all families in the form of e.g. internet access.

Personally I've always thought that housing should be more an issue of a roof over people's head rather than an investment vehicle.

Thanks for the explanation humptydumpty.

I'm afraid I disagree with you though. The idea is that people can use the money anyway they choose because however they spend it, it will help the economy.

It seems that a lot of people in Iran have used it to fund their continuing education. That can only be good for the country in the long run as a better educated population generally leads to higher wages and therefore more spending power.

vampire, I completely agree, that is fine if it is used that way. While we're on that subject, maybe if practical provison rather than financial provision was made, it could be extended to cover free tertiary instruction, whether at college or uni for whatever type of training.

Or there could be a choice. Just throwing out ideas. TBH I'm amazed more people aren't more interested in this - even to diagree! - given the mess of universal credit.

*disagree

It is definitely an interesting idea. In Finland they seem to have offered it to unemployed people as a starting point. (But only to a few hundred people).

From an economic viewpoint, it should work particularly in times of recession when growth needs to be stimulated.

But would it be politically acceptable?

More people are interested, humpty.
Some of us have been discussing it on here for years.

There’s a difference between offering this to the unemployed and giving it to everybody though.....what, regardless of how much they earn?
Perhaps a country with a small population could do this, like Scotland.?
Certainly not throughout the UK though.

Erm where would this largesse actually come from? Someone would have to pay. Taxation would remove the benefit entirely from those in work who would be left paying for it all. No incentive to make any economic effort.

would this mean that employers would be able to get away with paying lower wages?
If everyone is better off then the cost of living would surely rise - it is a Catch 22 situation.

Sorry dj - thought I was being original for some reason!

I think the general idea is that there would be a large cost saving not only interms of current benefits but also through indirect costs such as staff working on benefits, offices etc., plus more money in people's pockets = more tax coming in for the govt.

Employers would not be able to get away with paying lower wages if there was a decent living wage anyway.

That's okay, humpty. GracesGran has written quite a lot about basic income, and others have started off threads on it.
Barcelona is also doing it.

basicincome.org/basic-income/history/

Theses are all the experiments in it at the moment, if you are interested.

basicincome.org/news/2017/10/overview-of-current-basic-income-related-experiments-october-2017/

I hadn't realised that the idea is over thirty years old.

Jollyg not quite sure what Nicola being childless has to do with how she does her job .As for her being a "fantasist" well I'm sure there are lots of folk down south who wish they had her type of "fantasist" in power...she's doing a good job on a restricted budget and as Independence is SNP core policy its right that she still has Referendum 2 in her sights...after all we who voted for her knew that was on the manifesto .