Universal Basic Income - a good idea?

Why would it do that any more than it does now BRedhead? It's and interesting thought but I don't see what it rests on.

Why start from a position of mistrust?

This may encourage working under the radar. There is no easy answer

We don't argue for it, Lilyflower, we argue against it.
You've been reading MSM again and believing the propaganda.

They are doing a two year trial in Finland, grandtante, giving 2000 people the equivalent of £480 a month, just under £6000 a year. It was given to people who were unemployed. If they get jobs over the two years, they are allowed to keep the £480.
No results from it yet, as they only started January this year.

Just remember there will be nothing more Lilyflower so save some of it for a rainy day and, if you are so rich this is not a basic income to you, you will find you are paying it back in tax.

In case you haven't noticed I am certainly left of centre and I also think this has legs. I certainly don't argue for never-ending misery, destitution, ill heath and all the other churning injustices - I argue against them. I believe in the promotion of social justice within the framework of a capitalist economy as, I would suggest, do the majority "on the left".

Low blows rarely achieve anything Lilyflower other than showing up the characteristics of those offering them.

I believe a similar scheme to the one proposed in Scotland is working very well in Finland.

I think it's a great idea. I shall spend mine on cheap Champagne and maybe take up online poker.

It is a bit of an own goal for the left though. If every person had a basic income how would they be able to argue for neverending misery, desitution, ill heath and all the other churning injustices they stoke to keep themselves in a job?

It would be interesting to know from any Tories in the know if UBI is being discussed.
It would get the government out of a very big hole regarding universal credit, wouldn't it?
It could even be the saving of the Tory government, particularly if they decided to tell us, through their media, that it was their big idea in the first place!

I heard the saying yesterday that we have the " working poor " I think that sum's it up. I have a son and his partner who both work full time but still have'nt much money left over before the next pay day.

www.google.com/url?q=https://www.carolinelucas.com/latest/the-case-for-a-basic-income-is-growing&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwjN1YbGhZPXAhXGNJoKHf8_AcUQFggIMAE&client=internal-uds-cse&cx=014602880548773237108:bfmqbz3c1w4&usg=AOvVaw3A5AK7UO56IIvdzb0jvtSZ

Green Party basic income

Jen you are being disingenuous in the current set-up I do think this would give us more control. They say all societies are controlled either by shame or guilt. We used to rely heavily on the guilt when religion held sway but more and more we seem to be living be the shame of the media. Who know what will come next?

One thing I haven't said is that personal income tax allowance will disappear. The UBI will be tax free and only any (and all) income above that will be taxed on the same progressive type of system we have now.

Just to give you some idea of where this would end up rather than were it would start, the Swiss recently voted on the system (they have a lot of referendums) and turned it down - it is thought because they were going straight to the full amount. What they were suggesting was roughly equivalent to £411 a week or getting on for £21,500 a year. I don't think anyone is suggesting that here or that we move in one step. It is more likely that the adult amount will be closer to our personal income tax allowance so perhaps, finally, on current figures in the region of £11,500 p.a. or £221 a week. There would be no means tested benefits that could be claimed.

Interesting, Morgana.
Aren't governments supposedly controlled by us?
They are there to work for us, not the other way round, so by using IBI, they are fulfilling their purpose.

... have I missed something?

I think you have Primrose and I am just trying to work out what. You seem to start off on the right track. What I think is the problem is that you have missed the fact that this system is designed to absorb all means tested benefits.

Your example of the current pension and old age UBI is a case in point. Instead of, as you suggest, still having to apply for means-tested benefits to top up low pensions you reach the point where all means tested benefits are gone and everyone gets the full amount. This has the added benefit of people with very small pensions still benefiting from them although, of course, they would pay the lowest rate of tax on them - but they don't miss out on what the government considers to be the basic income for a pensioner.

This would also mean that, when the UBI for adults has absorbed all the means-tested levels, there can be a smoother transition from work to no work. Equally there can be a smoother transition from education and training into work. As education and training will be lifelong in the future this aids that change too.

Fascinating concepts. Things will have to change dramatically and quickly with the advent of so much work being done by 'robots'. But will it give governments less power to control our lives?

But back to UBI.
It's not enough money to remove means-tested benefits, is it?

By the way, the government set up a green investment bank in 2016. It has already sold it to an Australian banking group.
If you have a smart meter, it would probably have been fitted by a McQuarie subsidiary.

An advance of half your benefits now when you have to pay it back over six months, including the month they give it to you?
You should try that, Primrose, see how much you have to live on for the first two months.
Did you notice May saying that a third of those moved onto universal benefit were no longer in arrears with their rent after four months?
That means two thirds are.

I am well aware that PQE is different.
But asking how we pay for it is through PQE to begin with. Then the money gets into the system and circulates, instead of giving it to the banks to hand out to rich investors.
It's a brilliant idea whose time has come.

www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2015/03/12/how-green-infrastructure-quantitative-easing-would-work/

Chris - I think it could work too. Many governments are looking at it so you would think there must be something in it. The chap who wrote 'Scarcity' and looked in to how poverty - particularly state contrived poverty - affected people said "you do not become poor because you make mistakes, you make mistakes because you are poor".

It is, after all, another way of achieving what Margaret Thatcher set out to do and giving us all the same sort of buffer that capital can.

I thought UC claimants can get an advance of half their benefits now?
But if you were stopping work and paid monthly, for example, you would only get your UBI payment at the end of the month. For most people who do not have a capital buffer, that would not pay the bills.
I think PQE is something totally different.

Quite right Jen. They could transition much more easily and the state would only be involved in providing education, training and support into work. The idea that we have to make people feel ashamed to be out of work would no longer be necessary - if it actually is now.

It changes things for those moving to universal credit in that they will not be penniless for a minimum six weeks.

In the first place the money comes from the place that the money did to rescue the banks - PQE this time as opposed to just QE, which is what the Tory government has been using for the past seven years.
Governments print money. They then give it to the deserving cause of the day, which was banks after the crash.

My understanding of the UBI proposition is that everyone gets the equivalent of child benefit, JSA or the state pension and tax is altered to claw this back from people who earn above a certain amount.
For child benefit, this is already happening.
For adults, it means if you don't work or have a private pension, you're still applying for means-tested benefits to top this up if you don't have savings.
I can't see how this changes outcomes for anyone, or have I missed something?

I think it could work, The benefits system is too complicated and I like the idea of a truly universal benefit. If everyone gets this benefit we are 'in it together'. Richer people will be paying the benefit back in tax in any case. Perhaps they could be persuaded to donate their benefit to charity if they did not need it.

It would mean that your relationship with the state where benefits are concerned would be clearly defined and limited. If you want more you go get it yourself.

There is a much to commend it.