Universal basic income - £1600 a month

OUT OF HOURS BULLY'S TRUCKSTOP BAR (INTERACTIVE)
1

An idea whose time has come. Best way of stopping the tories and Labour using the disabled and unemployed as a punch bag and eliminate poverty for good. Set at a decent level too - none of this £84 a week dole money garbage:

universal basic income of £1,600 a month is set to be trialled in England for first time under “exciting” plans drawn up by researchers.
Under the pilot programme 30 people in two areas would be paid an unconditional lump sum each month for two years, with the effects monitored to understand how it affects their lives.
Advocates of a basic income say the policy would provide security to people both in and out of work and eradicate poverty for good - while critics say it is expensive and that support should be targeted.
“A guaranteed Basic Income could be transformative for welfare in this country," said Will Stronge, director of research at the think-tank Autonomy, which is backing the plan.
“All the evidence shows that it would directly alleviate poverty and boost millions of people’s wellbeing: the potential benefits are just too large to ignore.
But as chancellor Rishi Sunak rejected calls, telling the Commons: “We’re not in favour of a universal basic income. I’d rather the money went to my wife dodging her tax"

independent.co.uk/news/uk/p … 50443.html

2

:laughing:

That’s the kind of nonsense my politically-minded, anti-capitalist teenage son comes out with, along with “food and housing should be free for everyone” “better public transport means we would have fewer cars”, and “children should be paid to go to school” :laughing:

I tell him “Russia has tried communism, and it failed”. He blames “your generation” (ie Boomers like me) for being fascist-tories. I tell him I’ve never voted Tory in my life, not even last time around, but hey! my facts don’t fit with his teenage rage, so can be ignored :smiley:

Is it not enough that some of the population got a massive paid holiday during lockdown? I didn’t and neither did a lot of people on here. Now some people want to roll that out as permanent state of affairs? Completely ignoring how all aspects of a capitalist economy works; supply and demand, inflation etc; and very much ignoring how human nature works.

There’s a reason why a lot of people in society still get weekly pay - they cannot budget for a whole month. Others simply cannot bank money at all:

At my former employers, a whole section of the workforce was made redundant after a contract was lost. Some of the drivers got quite significant redundancy packages, one or two of the long-termers took home around £10,000 one Friday afternoon. One of these guys had spent it all by Tuesday :open_mouth: , with the help of his wife, who insisted that they share this “windfall”, by buying her mother and her sister a car each. Pretty reckless when you’re out of work with four kids to support, but as far as he was concerned, “The Dole will take care of that” :unamused:

In the comments section under that Independent article, one person summed it up quite well I thought:

Let me predict.
Those with some intelligence and drive will more than double it by working hard, thus effectively doubling their wage;
those with less intelligence and drive will simply live on it and complain it is not enough.
Those with even less intelligence and no drive at all will squander in in the first week of every month and then claim Benefits in the normal way. And in the latter case they will be paid Benefits, which will negate the entire purpose of the experiment.
This [scheme] is designed by, and for, those [who can] understand “Delayed Gratification”. The poor share the common trait that they cannot.

He does sound like a typical Jacob Rees-Mogg with his last sentence, I mean, “the poor” :unamused: FFS, could he be any more Dickensian? But on the whole, his ideas aren’t too far wrong.

3

What if AI wipes out a lot of jobs tho? Not everyone will be happy on £84 a week - they’re liable to start simply taking rich peoples money/goods off them.

4

If it is just “Free money” like Furlough was for some - then it won’t do any good to combating inflation at all.

If we all had £1600 a month of “free money” - you can bet your last grand that a tin of beans will cost £1700 by that point.

The correct way to implement a “universal basic income” - is to only pay it to those who have a job that currently has tax deducted.

Hey Presto, every layabout in the country will be eager to take on any minimum waged job going - just to qualify for the freebie money on top!
They’d have to do enough hours to get beyond the tax free threshold too, of course… No “part time” option available, nor “volutary unpaid work” nor “Internships” nor “training schemes” neither. Students would be fighting each other to be flipping burgers, rather than those “Bot Boards” that have faecal matter, remenents of kid’s bogies, and a pinch of Coke on all their auto-teller buttons…

Illegals coming here from abroad - would find on arrival that they do NOT qualify, as it takes a while to get a work permit through. They’d have to live on the charity of “family already here” who would qualify for that money, but will struggle supporting a bunch of other aged 20-30 male “children” in particular.

Even with all that - there would be too much cash chasing too few UK-manucatured goods and services, which means inflation would still ultimately accelerate further.

Perhaps an overall better idea would be to make “Food Debt - unenforceable in law”.
Currently, Gambling Debts are automatically “unsecured”. If a Casino or betting shop, say, were to extend credit to a person who loses the lot straight after - then they’d whilstle for the money. (There are no “winners” borrowing money to gamble with, of course… such people would secure the loan, and then get RESTRICTED by said bookmakers - for failing the “compliance” checks in place already…)

People already wealthy - would use the cash to get the ever-increasing savings rates on offer.
Shame the rates will still lag behind inflation though - for some time to come.

The most astute people of all - would use the £1600 a month to pay a £1600 a month mortgage!

5

How much does poverty and destitution cost the country tho?

Corporations and the rich dodge 93 billion a year in tax, a full basic income for everyone in the country (children too) would cost £67 billion a year. It would save countless billions in eliminating most of the benefits system and the people who have to be employed to run it.

Obviously the rich won’t want it because it would mean poor people would have the chance to develop their lives and study and enjoy rewarding careers they were interested in - kinda like the life that rich people take for granted.

I’d even take it at a grand a month!

6

Zac_A:
:lol:

That’s the kind of nonsense my politically-minded, anti-capitalist teenage son comes out with, along with “food and housing should be free for everyone” “better public transport means we would have fewer cars”, and “children should be paid to go to school” :laughing:

I tell him “Russia has tried communism, and it failed”. He blames “your generation” (ie Boomers like me) for being fascist-tories. I tell him I’ve never voted Tory in my life, not even last time around, but hey! my facts don’t fit with his teenage rage, so can be ignored :smiley:

Is it not enough that some of the population got a massive paid holiday during lockdown? I didn’t and neither did a lot of people on here. Now some people want to roll that out as permanent state of affairs? Completely ignoring how all aspects of a capitalist economy works; supply and demand, inflation etc; and very much ignoring how human nature works.

There’s a reason why a lot of people in society still get weekly pay - they cannot budget for a whole month. Others simply cannot bank money at all:

At my former employers, a whole section of the workforce was made redundant after a contract was lost. Some of the drivers got quite significant redundancy packages, one or two of the long-termers took home around £10,000 one Friday afternoon. One of these guys had spent it all by Tuesday :open_mouth: , with the help of his wife, who insisted that they share this “windfall”, by buying her mother and her sister a car each. Pretty reckless when you’re out of work with four kids to support, but as far as he was concerned, “The Dole will take care of that” :unamused:

In the comments section under that Independent article, one person summed it up quite well I thought:

Let me predict.
Those with some intelligence and drive will more than double it by working hard, thus effectively doubling their wage;
those with less intelligence and drive will simply live on it and complain it is not enough.
Those with even less intelligence and no drive at all will squander in in the first week of every month and then claim Benefits in the normal way. And in the latter case they will be paid Benefits, which will negate the entire purpose of the experiment.
This [scheme] is designed by, and for, those [who can] understand “Delayed Gratification”. The poor share the common trait that they cannot.

He does sound like a typical Jacob Rees-Mogg with his last sentence, I mean, “the poor” :unamused: FFS, could he be any more Dickensian? But on the whole, his ideas aren’t too far wrong.

Firstly, the proposed scheme is a trial to see whether or not it works in the real world.
It isnt communism. It doesnt take away extra reward, for extra effort.

Whether it is weekly or monthly paid is surely an irrelevance to the idea?
Those who cant budget, wont budget on £400, or £1,600, or £16k. Where their money comes from, UBI, wages, salary, redunduncy, is irrelevant.

It is meant to satisfy the needs of a basic* life (the clue is in the name). It isnt meant to be satisfying for all of ones wishes or aspirations.
If some one wants more, then they get a job and get more. The UBI remains their`s to do with as they wish.
It is there for everyone, in work or not, universally*.

*The clue is in the name! :smiley:

7

Before anything like this could work, they need to devise a way to stop ‘imediate gratification’ that the entire country suffers in reality, caused by mobiles, amazon shopping etc, buy it on credit, pay later… gone are the days when people had to … wait …for what they wanted,

but also debt used to be looked down on, now its the normal, same as CCJ’s, or if someone’s gone bankrupt, in fact bankruptcy is a tool for some of the richest now, just get the wife to step in and rotate every few years…

8

Remind me again…

Where does the gubernment get this money from?

9

JeffA:
What if AI wipes out a lot of jobs tho?

Jobs such as?
An AI driven truck? I don’t see that. AI ADR instructor? Nah… Same as AI ETM or DGSA, that’s not going to happen, these roles need people not machines. I’m feeling quite secure I’m not going to be replaced by a bunch of 1’s and 0’s.

10

Franglais:
Firstly, the proposed scheme is a trial to see whether or not it works in the real world.

Yes, I know that, I can read too

Franglais:
Whether it is weekly or monthly paid is surely an irrelevance to the idea?

It is supremely relevant if the money is designed to help people survive and/or thrive, some people simply cannot cope with a monthly income, especially those who might have addictions of some kind.

Franglais:
It is meant to satisfy the needs of a basic* life (the clue is in the name).

Seriously? You’re going to try to get patronising with me? You might want to reconsider that

Franglais:
It isnt meant to be satisfying for all of ones wishes or aspirations.

I can only assume your experience of the UK population is very different from mine. People will take it and complain it’s not enough because they will want it to support their desired lifestyle. Middlesbrough is just along the road from me, one of the most deprived areas of the country, I’m under no illusions how people in some parts of that area think. In fact…

Data from the latest census shows the North East is the part of England with the highest proportion of deprived households.
It found that in the wider North East, 54.6% of homes were classed as deprived in at least one of the four dimensions used to classify deprivation. That was the highest rate in England and Wales.
chroniclelive.co.uk/news/no … t-25911523

Franglais:
If some one wants more, then they get a job and get more.

I would refer you to my comment above re “experience of the UK population”

Franglais:
*The clue is in the name! :smiley:

:unamused: What a second attempt to be patronizing? Normally I’d say you’re one of the more decent posters, but if you want to be arsey with me I can easily return the compliment. So with that in mind, I’d say your understanding of basic human nature is highly flawed if you think “free money” wouldn’t cause problems, and it’s a sad day when a Winseer post is more on the ball than yours

Winseer:
The correct way to implement a “universal basic income” - is to only pay it to those who have a job that currently has tax deducted.

Hey Presto, every layabout in the country will be eager to take on any minimum waged job going - just to qualify for the freebie money on top!

They’d have to do enough hours to get beyond the tax free threshold too, of course… No “part time” option available, nor “volutary unpaid work” nor “Internships” nor “training schemes” neither.

11

Zac_A:

JeffA:
What if AI wipes out a lot of jobs tho?

Jobs such as?
An AI driven truck? I don’t see that. AI ADR instructor? Nah… Same as AI ETM or DGSA, that’s not going to happen, these roles need people not machines. I’m feeling quite secure I’m not going to be replaced by a bunch of 1’s and 0’s.

Manufacturing, customer service, admin, retail, finance and healthcare are the obvious ones.

Regardless of being replaced tho - it would make life a thousand times better knowing you could afford to study, change jobs, take time off to look after kids/dying relatives

12

Zac_A:

Franglais:
Firstly, the proposed scheme is a trial to see whether or not it works in the real world.

Yes, I know that, I can read too

Franglais:
Whether it is weekly or monthly paid is surely an irrelevance to the idea?

It is supremely relevant if the money is designed to help people survive and/or thrive, some people simply cannot cope with a monthly income, especially those who might have addictions of some kind.

Franglais:
It is meant to satisfy the needs of a basic* life (the clue is in the name).

Seriously? You’re going to try to get patronising with me? You might want to reconsider that

Franglais:
It isnt meant to be satisfying for all of ones wishes or aspirations.

I can only assume your experience of the UK population is very different from mine. People will take it and complain it’s not enough because they will want it to support their desired lifestyle. Middlesbrough is just along the road from me, one of the most deprived areas of the country, I’m under no illusions how people in some parts of that area think. In fact…

Data from the latest census shows the North East is the part of England with the highest proportion of deprived households.
It found that in the wider North East, 54.6% of homes were classed as deprived in at least one of the four dimensions used to classify deprivation. That was the highest rate in England and Wales.
chroniclelive.co.uk/news/no … t-25911523

Franglais:
If some one wants more, then they get a job and get more.

I would refer you to my comment above re “experience of the UK population”

Franglais:
*The clue is in the name! :smiley:

:unamused: What a second attempt to be patronizing? Normally I’d say you’re one of the more decent posters, but if you want to be arsey with me I can easily return the compliment. So with that in mind, I’d say your understanding of basic human nature is highly flawed if you think “free money” wouldn’t cause problems, and it’s a sad day when a Winseer post is more on the ball than yours

Winseer:
The correct way to implement a “universal basic income” - is to only pay it to those who have a job that currently has tax deducted.

Hey Presto, every layabout in the country will be eager to take on any minimum waged job going - just to qualify for the freebie money on top!

They’d have to do enough hours to get beyond the tax free threshold too, of course… No “part time” option available, nor “volutary unpaid work” nor “Internships” nor “training schemes” neither.

lets not write the scheme off because you dont like “scroungers” tho - rich people love free money and always have. Thats why they dodge so much tax and dont want taxing on their wealth/properties. Thats why the govt keep benefit rates and sick pay at rock bottom levels while paying house of lords wallys £400 a day turning up “allowance”

13

Zac_A:

Franglais:
Firstly, the proposed scheme is a trial to see whether or not it works in the real world.

Yes, I know that, I can read too

Franglais:
Whether it is weekly or monthly paid is surely an irrelevance to the idea?

It is supremely relevant if the money is designed to help people survive and/or thrive, some people simply cannot cope with a monthly income, especially those who might have addictions of some kind.

Franglais:
It is meant to satisfy the needs of a basic* life (the clue is in the name).

Seriously? You’re going to try to get patronising with me? You might want to reconsider that

Franglais:
It isnt meant to be satisfying for all of ones wishes or aspirations.

I can only assume your experience of the UK population is very different from mine. People will take it and complain it’s not enough because they will want it to support their desired lifestyle. Middlesbrough is just along the road from me, one of the most deprived areas of the country, I’m under no illusions how people in some parts of that area think. In fact…

Data from the latest census shows the North East is the part of England with the highest proportion of deprived households.
It found that in the wider North East, 54.6% of homes were classed as deprived in at least one of the four dimensions used to classify deprivation. That was the highest rate in England and Wales.
chroniclelive.co.uk/news/no … t-25911523

Franglais:
If some one wants more, then they get a job and get more.

I would refer you to my comment above re “experience of the UK population”

Franglais:
*The clue is in the name! :smiley:

:unamused: What a second attempt to be patronizing? Normally I’d say you’re one of the more decent posters, but if you want to be arsey with me I can easily return the compliment. So with that in mind, I’d say your understanding of basic human nature is highly flawed if you think “free money” wouldn’t cause problems, and it’s a sad day when a Winseer post is more on the ball than yours

Winseer:
The correct way to implement a “universal basic income” - is to only pay it to those who have a job that currently has tax deducted.

Hey Presto, every layabout in the country will be eager to take on any minimum waged job going - just to qualify for the freebie money on top!

They’d have to do enough hours to get beyond the tax free threshold too, of course… No “part time” option available, nor “volutary unpaid work” nor “Internships” nor “training schemes” neither.

So lets *see* if such a scheme can work in the UK then? There may well be issues, be amazing if there werent, but I reckon it is better to give this a fair shot.

Are you suggesting that the NE is particularly badly off because they as a group are particularly inept at managing money?
Because you have seen examples of it?

From your link:
“It found that in the wider North East, 54.6% of homes were classed as deprived in at least one of the four dimensions used to classify deprivation. That was the highest rate in England and Wales. The nationwide average was 51.7%”.
A bit worse off, yes. But, surely you arent suggesting that is because they are more feckless up there? Isnt it because there is economic activity there?
Is an area worse off because the people are wasteful with money, or because they have less of it?

If people cant manage on monthly UBI then why would they manage on monthly salary? As I said the *period of payment* makes no difference to the idea of UBI. Argue that those with addictions need to help with their financial management, and Ill agree. But that is again irrelevant, to the idea of UBI.

UBI isnt meant to be an upgraded dole payment. It isnt just for the feckless, druggies, layabouts etc.
There is a minority who do need help with cash, and that is the same whether they get dole, UBI, or a big win on the pools.
It will need to be more common before older attitudes to employment change maybe.
I was attempting at humour, not to be patronising, but I don`t think you are seeing the way this could go in the future.

14

Zac_A:
I’d say your understanding of basic human nature is highly flawed if you think “free money” wouldn’t cause problems, and it’s a sad day when a Winseer post is more on the ball than yours

Winseer wrote:
The correct way to implement a “universal basic income” - is to only pay it to those who have a job that currently has tax deducted.

Hey Presto, every layabout in the country will be eager to take on any minimum waged job going - just to qualify for the freebie money on top!

They’d have to do enough hours to get beyond the tax free threshold too, of course… No “part time” option available, nor “volutary unpaid work” nor “Internships” nor “training schemes” neither.

I think this getting it pretty much 100% wrong.
The whole principle is that UBI is Universal…

It isn`t a way for Government and taxpayers to subsidize poorly paid jobs.

15

I think it might have to happen after AI wipes out vast numbers of jobs - rich people will either pay in the form of UBI or pay by getting a lump hammer to the back of the noggin and their house contents emptied by the starving.

16

Houses in a once-thriving seaside destination have been put on the market for just £5,000 amidst claims it is now a “ghost town.”

Four properties in the village of Horden, County Durham have been placed on RightMove for just £5,000 – two of these are two-bed terraced houses, and one a three-bed.

Grim up north.

17

JeffA:
I think it might have to happen after AI wipes out vast numbers of jobs - rich people will either pay in the form of UBI or pay by getting a lump hammer to the back of the noggin and their house contents emptied by the starving.

I dont disagree, but lets rip that apart:

IF AI takes away many jobs?
Then without UBI there will be a hothouse for social unrest.

IF AI provides more opportunity for more productive work?
Then there will be even more call on the resources available on this planet.
There could be a runaway global warming cycle, or a race for limited resources, and likely international violence.

AI really could be a major step change.
It isn`t guaranteed to be any of theses things, but it is wise for us to consider what could happen, not to write off any outcomes.
(That is for priests and bad politicians)

18

UBI would make a huge difference to people who have to give up their careers to care for their parents, which is saving the nhs huge sums.

19

OwenMoney:
UBI would make a huge difference to people who have to give up their careers to care for their parents, which is saving the nhs huge sums.

A “joined-up society” would be a good start.
Far too much short term thinking, and worship at the alter of free enterprise.
The happiest societies tend to be those with higher taxes, and better benefits.

Alike the birth of the church in the middle ages when the peasants were told to suffer in this world and claim a reward in heaven, so that “God`s Chosen” monarchs could wallow in riches, we now have the rich and idle telling us how noble it is to work hard, whilst they slave away on golf courses or are forced to take yet another holiday.

20

It doesn’t help anyone that the current “benefits system” is geared to punish people who actually do what they are supposed to do, and climb out of unemployment by taking the first job going.

As it stands, someone on benefits income of say, £16,000 taking a job paying £20k-£25k would end up working 48+ hours per week for a takehome pay that is barely more than the “everything paid” benefit system PLUS having to fork out for commuting costs, meals at work (no access to Food Banks anymore - Right?) and other “overhead” expensese that essentially put a huge cliff face up against the would-be benefits leaver.

If you left unemployment for a job paying £30k+ - you can make this work.

BUT but but but… All the millions of “job vacancies” we’re told of in Care sector, NHS, Teaching, and of course any and all minimium waged work - pay BELOW this “poverty threshold” amount - do they not?

Perhaps a better way to implement “minimum basic income” would be to put minimum wage up to £15ph, and let all those firms saying “We can’t afford that!” to go bust in due course, and make way for those efficient, decent businesses - that can.

(Got my Left-leaning head on today…)

The long-term unemployed, disabled, and those who’ve just got here - are encouraged to report to a brought-back “Labour Exchange” to be assigned duties that can be bespoke to the individual’s circumstances…

People in wheelchairs - can do work at call centers rather better than some foreigner who has English as a second language, after all…
(Still got one foot over in the Right camp though!)