Replacing social welfare with a basic income

starlit

Its a bit of a laize faire attitude here alright! I can't see it happening people probably protest! It boost the economy. Short term probably work on a trial run but with the way the Government is now could there be a re-election? Things are picking up in the economy mainly in the cities very slow in the smaller towns and villages. Cost of rent has already gone up again! Is that because wages increased in Dublin but may only apply to certain people in certain jobs not all people. I mean to say what have they done for those that lost their jobs!? Especially those having be oust by Clearys!

troll_a_roll

Keeping full employment seems very unlikely. In the future there will be general purpose robots which are better than humans at many tasks.

If new tasks are developed the problem is that robots will also be better at those tasks.

Humans could become obselete in respect of most tasks.

Mid level professional jobs are the ones most at risk, although all jobs are in trouble. A gardener is hard to replace, as is a house painter, but an insurance estimator, or a legal assistant is much easier.

An insurance office in Japan recently replaced a staff of several hundred with a single IBM Watson computer. Watson can read and understand and reply to plain text messages. Watson is now deciding on the claims.


I fully expect a dystopian future, where some countries descend into civil war and chaos. The rich will leave and will be welcomed somewhere else. All countries will want inward migration of rich people.

I wouldn't be surprised at all if we had a WW III, which obviously would be very violent and destructive. The survivors could perhaps introduce a basic income.


I think a world war is more likely than the world coming together to solve these problems.
I would suggest the process has started in Greece, which appears to be being abandoned to its fate. Greece will be outside the new European border, and so Greece could become like a third world country. Pensioners in Greece are scavenging through bins for food at the moment, in Europe.

noodler

Bob24 wrote: »

Universal in UBI means that everyone gets it including those who have a job. If it is restricted only to some people it is not universal any-more and not very different from our traditional welfare system.

My understanding of a minimum basic income was just that, a minimum.

This is stupid in principle, regardless of being unaffordable without the tax raised from. The aforementioned employment.

Suryavarman

Deleted User wrote: »

Who's going to buy these corporate's products if most of the population is out of work due to robots taking the jobs?

Basic Income answers that.

There's no evidence to suggest that most of the population will be out of work at some point in the future. Saying that most people will be out of work at some point in the future is just a bunch of baseless, dystopian nonsense.

segosego89

Suryavarman wrote: »

There's no evidence to suggest that most of the population will be out of work at some point in the future. Saying that most people will be out of work at some point in the future is just a bunch of baseless, dystopian nonsense.

Please watch the following video on UBI by Robert Reich(former advisor to Gerald Ford and Bill Clinton) :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UqESogRgrYw


In the video he cites how jobs will be affected greatly in the future due to technology. He cites a study carried out by Carl Benedikt and Michael Osbourne of the University of Oxford which states that almost half of US jobs are at risk within the next two decades.


Here's a link to the study that you could peruse: http://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/downloads/academic/The_Future_of_Employment.pdf

Water John

I would certainly see UBI triggering a massive renaissance in things like the arts. I would also see a major benefit in mental health. Overall, a much better quality of life.
Never thought I'd see Willie O'Dea being an instrument of radical thinking.

segosego89

I was surprised as well when I found out that he's been proselytizing about UBI since the mid 90's even going as far as getting the government at the time to compose a green paper on the issue back in 1997.

Water John

Well it's a conservative is the main promoter in Canada TMK.

segosego89

Water John wrote: »

I would certainly see UBI triggering a massive renaissance in things like the arts. I would also see a major benefit in mental health. Overall, a much better quality of life.
Never thought I'd see Willie O'Dea being an instrument of radical thinking.

The Beatles, The Smiths, The Clash and a plethora of other great bands had there beginnings on the dole queue. The dole enabled them to practice their craft 24/7. There's even a video online of an interview of Paul and John during an early tour joking how they were still on the dole.

I've come across so many talented Irish musicians and artists who spend 24 hours a day practicing their craft whilst being on the dole, contributing to society in a very meaningful way but their contribution isn't respected.

segosego89

Water John wrote: »

Well it's a conservative is the main promoter in Canada TMK.

The current Finish government who have established a trailblazing UBI pilot scheme last month is a conservative government as far as I know also.

Some conservatives find UBI appealing because it removes the welfare trap and gets rid of a lot of the bureaucracy.

gctest50

Suryavarman wrote: »

There's no evidence to suggest that most of the population will be out of work at some point in the future. Saying that most people will be out of work at some point in the future is just a bunch of baseless, dystopian nonsense.

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-36376966

Foxconn replaces '60,000 factory workers with robots'

and things like this little robot are just drop-in replacements for humans

- watch it for a few minutes working :

segosego89

Imagine how more advanced that robot will become in two or three decades time.

I don't understand how some people can nonchalantly ask their smart phones(ie. Siri) a simple concise question out loud with the result most of the time being a coherent answer either via verbal communication from Siri or by Siri directing you to a Google link related to your question but they almost scoff at the notion that robots will replace most jobs in the next few decades due to improvements in technology.

Bob24

segosego89 wrote: »

I don't understand how some people can nonchalantly ask their smart phones(ie. Siri) a simple concise question with the result most of the time being a coherent answer but they almost scoff at the notion that robots will replace most jobs in the next few decades.

That technology will make many of today's jobs irrelevant in the next few decades is obvious. Previous industrial revolutions have done that and we are living another one.

The question is: will that revolution end up creating at least as many new types of jobs as it is destroying, as previous ones have done in the past, or will it be different this time?

I don't think anyone has a definite and well-argumented answer to that question today.

KyussBeeshop

Suryavarman wrote: »

There's no evidence to suggest that most of the population will be out of work at some point in the future. Saying that most people will be out of work at some point in the future is just a bunch of baseless, dystopian nonsense.

It's a rare event, but I fully agree with you there - the automation/AI leading to mass job losses argument, is a rather weak/unsupported one in my view - there's a lot of hype to that effect right now, but it's just that: hype.

A good way to gauge when automation/AI might begin to obsolete humans, is when AI becomes capable of near-completely replicating the human mind - since at that point, robotics will pretty much be capable of replacing humans in any job.

At present, we don't even have a full understanding of the human mind, nevermind a well enough developed AI for replicating the human mind - we're making some advances, but we're probably still a century or more away, from fully understanding and replicating the human mind.

Even then, at that point, there will still be useful work for humans to do, in my view - as there would be nothing to stop humans doing work alongside AI/robotics, as there are many fields of work where the breadth of work is wide enough, to accompany both human and robotic efforts.


So this undermines the automation/AI argument in favour of the UBI - I'll attack the UBI more directly in a subsequent post.

KyussBeeshop

So, the UBI itself has some potentially very significant drawbacks in my view, and there are three general areas where I view it as being problematic and even outright dangerous - I view the UBI as being a kind of 'trojan horse' policy, which may achieve the opposite of what it promises.

1: UBI as a business subsidy: For people who are working, the benefits of the UBI can be transformed from a worker income subsidy, into a business subsidy, by businesses slashing wages in line with the UBI payout, over time - so there is a danger that the UBI can actually end up indirectly subsidizing businesses, instead of benefiting workers.


2: UBI for destroying progressive taxation: A lot of supporters of the UBI, pair the UBI with tax policies that are very regressive compared to our current tax system - for example, the UBI is commonly paired with the idea of a Flat Tax - and these people count on the redistributive effect of the UBI, for providing an overall progressive effect.

However, if the UBI ever gets slashed, abandoned, or absorbed as a business subsidy (as described above), then the progressive/redistributive effects of the UBI will be eroded/stripped-away, and we will be left with a more regressive tax system - this is quite dangerous.


3: UBI for destroying welfare: Supporters of the UBI often argue that it should be used to replace a wide range of other welfare payments, with one single payment - the UBI - effectively replacing the welfare system with the UBI as one of the sole welfare payouts.

Except, when a big enough economic crisis hits, the biggest sources of government deficits tend to be put on the chopping block - and this means the UBI is likely to be slashed or even disbanded altogether, when a big enough economic crisis hits, as its taxation/spending demands are enormous.

However, when the UBI gets slashed/disbanded like this, this could be done without restoring the previous welfare system - thus achieving the near-complete destruction of the entire welfare system, which would be one of the primary goals of extreme economic conservatives - this also, is extremely dangerous.

noodler

Bob24 wrote: »

That technology will make many of today's jobs irrelevant in the next few decades is obvious. Previous industrial revolutions have done that and we are living another one.

The question is: will that revolution end up creating at least as many new types of jobs as it is destroying, as previous ones have done in the past, or will it be different this time?

I don't think anyone has a definite and well-argumented answer to that question today.

Excellent post.

You'd swear there has never been an industrial revolution before.

segosego89

noodler wrote: »

Excellent post.

You'd swear there has never been an industrial revolution before.

I think it's different this time.

Even in the event that jobs would be lost in a certain sector due to technological innovation and would be replaced with 'new jobs' based in a newly created sector - you're assuming that the kinds of people that would usually work in manual labour type factory jobs etc could just 'upskill' and take up one of these 'new jobs' which actually require skills that these kinds of people just aren't cut out for.

It's kind of like a taxi driver being replaced with an "automated Uber car". It's a bit facile to say to that newly unemployed hard working taxi driver who's spent 30 years in that job to just go back to college and become a software developer of automated automobiles or something along those lines.

Bob24

segosego89 wrote: »

I think it's different this time.

Even in the event that jobs would be lost in a certain sector due to technological innovation and would be replaced with 'new jobs' based in a newly created sector - you're assuming that the kinds of people that would usually work in manual labour type factory jobs etc could just 'upskill' and take up one of these 'new jobs' which actually require skills that these kinds of people just aren't cut out for.

It's kind of like a taxi driver being replaced with an "automated Uber car". It's a bit facile to say to that newly unemployed hard working taxi driver who's spent 30 years in that job to just go back to college and become a software developer of automated automobiles or something along those lines.

This is a real issue but is not new compared to previous industrial revolutions. People who are a bit too old and whose jobs are being replaced will be a bit left behind and have a hard time moving on (turning factory workers with 30 years into the job into typists or bank clerks didn't really happen either). But if new type of jobs are being created (which again is the only real and unanswered question), skill misalignment will only be a temporary issue with older generations and will fix itself as time goes by.

segosego89

222233 wrote: »

It's a ridiculous idea, someone who currently gets €100 euro on jobseekers a week would get €200. It would basically be more on an incentive to never get a job for some people. Plus in the Finnish model it says all other payments would be retained, I'm assuming you would get rent allowance etc. on top of it. I just think it incentivises the idea of doing nothing for the rest of your days. On the other hand I would welcome it for people who need it through no fault of their own as a good means of living.

That's not necessarily true. UBI would be basically the same as current welfare rates based on a persons age.

So if a person is currently getting 100 Euros on JSA in this country that would mean that they're under the age of 26.

If a UBI was implemented tomorrow - that same person would be getting the same amount per week but also they would be able to take up work to supplement that income rather than lose their 100 Euros from the state entirely.

Although you come across people who are on JSA long term who have no intention of contributing to society either in a monetary sense or another sense(eg. through artistic contribution or spending their time caring for old people) they are in the minority and we shouldn't paint everyone who is in receipt of JSA with the same brush.

segosego89

Bob24 wrote: »

This is a real issue but is not new compared to previous industrial revolutions. People who are a bit too old and whose jobs are being replaced will be a bit left behind and have a hard time to moving (turning factory workers with 30 years into the job into typists or bank clerks didn't really happen either). But if new type of jobs are being created (which again is the only real and unanswered question), skill misalignment will only be a temporary issue with older generations and will fix itself as time goes by.

You make a good point.

I really hate the idea of that taxi driver losing his job and being forced into an anachronistic welfare system which forces him to queue up and scrutinize him unfairly for not being able to find work within a particular time frame(either through sanctions or verbal warnings) especially when that man(or woman) is in their 60's, had worked for 30 years and has no realistic hope of finding good quality work.

I hate the idea of these people being scrutinized unfairly especially from a mental health perspective.

Water John

Kyuss, I rate your first concern as a real one but would discount nos 2 & 3.
Totally disagree with flat rate. Discussion should not be interlinked. Not criticising you on this but if someone brings it up it should be killed off immediately.
No 3 could at present apply to unemployment benefit, disability benefit or old age pension. These were largely insulated in the recent recession. Thus the evidence is UBI would not be an easy target for cuts.

I accept their is a risk of employers attempting to lean on UBI.

KyussBeeshop

Water John wrote: »

Kyuss, I rate your first concern as a real one but would discount nos 2 & 3.
Totally disagree with flat rate. Discussion should not be interlinked. Not criticising you on this but if someone brings it up it should be killed off immediately.
No 3 could at present apply to unemployment benefit, disability benefit or old age pension. These were largely insulated in the recent recession. Thus the evidence is UBI would not be an easy target for cuts.

I accept their is a risk of employers attempting to lean on UBI.

On 2, I agree that a Flat Tax is not always paired with a UBI - but the problem of how to actually fund a UBI, is almost always left as an afterthought in these debates - and it does turn out, that proponents often try to tag on tax policies alongside the UBI, that would be very regressive compared to the current system - and that it is valid to say, that this is one of the dangers of the UBI.

On 3, I don't think unemployment/disability/old-age welfare payments are politically credible to attack, in the way that an indiscriminate UBI would be subject to attack - the UBI transforms all of the former, into a far easier to attack target - which can wipe them all out in one go, when a big enough economic crisis hits.

I would view it as a high probability, if not a complete certainty, that the UBI would be successfully attacked and either massively slashed or disbanded outright, once a big enough economic crisis hits - and that this is definitely not the case with the other individual welfare payments.

Jurgen Klopp

Just one thing I want to know from lads that have been reading up on it.

If everyone gets €200 per week what happens to those that are unemployed and those in low income jobs, assuming the employer will lower wages who rely on other benefits.

For instance rent allowance, medical cards and that?

Like take all the people relying on rent allowance currently which can be €300 plus a month, scrap it and essentially top up their €188 by €12

Sure all that's gonna happen is a large chuck of people end up worse off

segosego89

"Like take all the people relying on rent allowance currently which can be €300 plus a month, scrap it and essentially top up their €188 by €12

Sure all that's gonna happen is a large chuck of people end up worse off"


Rent allowance and medical cards wont be touched. Deputy Willie O' Dea nor Fr. Sean Healy of Social Justice Ireland who are proponents of UBI don't want anyone to be worse off if UBI was to be implemented in this country.

segosego89

By the way, a partial Basic Income has been proposed by Social Justice Ireland (who have done a lot of work researching the feasibility of implementing a UBI over the years).

I think the partial basic income idea that they proposed was that everyone over 18 gets 150 Euros per week for their UBI but if you show that you're looking for work you get a 38 Euro top up which would bring your income to 188 Euros per week.

I don't know how they would quantify whether someone is genuinely seeking work or not.

Jurgen Klopp

segosego89 wrote: »

"Like take all the people relying on rent allowance currently which can be €300 plus a month, scrap it and essentially top up their €188 by €12

Sure all that's gonna happen is a large chuck of people end up worse off"


Rent allowance and medical cards wont be touched. Deputy Willie O' Dea nor Fr. Sean Healy of Social Justice Ireland who are proponents of UBI don't want anyone to be worse off if UBI was to be implemented in this country.

Thanks.

Have they a list of things they plan not to touch?

I'm thinking into student grants and back to school allowances.

Actually I was trying to find an article on the Bundestag debate where they said it was a no go. One thing they had right was it would encourage non stop immigration so borders would need to be airtight.

Think other German politicians are floating a BI for working parents only from a brieft headline I saw.

Jurgen Klopp

segosego89 wrote: »

By the way, a partial Basic Income has been proposed by Social Justice Ireland (who have done a lot of work researching the feasibility of implementing a UBI over the years).

I think the partial basic income idea that they proposed was that everyone over 18 gets 150 Euros per week for their UBI but if you show that you're looking for work you get a 38 Euro top up which would bring your income to 188 Euros per week.

I don't know how they would quantify whether someone is genuinely seeking work or not.

I'd assume same as the forms you get once every few months when unemployed with a sheet where you list where you have applied for jobs, I was told by people working there it's only for red tape they wouldn't get any work done checking up.

Jurgen Klopp

segosego89 wrote: »

By the way, a partial Basic Income has been proposed by Social Justice Ireland (who have done a lot of work researching the feasibility of implementing a UBI over the years).

I think the partial basic income idea that they proposed was that everyone over 18 gets 150 Euros per week for their UBI but if you show that you're looking for work you get a 38 Euro top up which would bring your income to 188 Euros per week.

I don't know how they would quantify whether someone is genuinely seeking work or not.

If they get a job what rate €150 or €188?

segosego89

Jurgen Klopp wrote: »

Thanks.

Have they a list of things they plan not to touch?

I'm thinking into student grants and back to school allowances.

Actually I was trying to find an article on the Bundestag debate where they said it was a no go. One thing they had right was it would encourage non stop immigration so borders would need to be airtight.

Think other German politicians are floating a BI for working parents only from a brieft headline I saw.

I understand about your concern regarding ancillary benefits etc being axed to accommodate for a UBI.


You see, all of these questions could be answered in a UBI commission established by the government which would figure out all of the nuances of a prospective UBI system in Ireland. I've even contacted the Committee Of Social Protection to have a discussion on whether establishing a commission on UBI would be worthwhile. Fianna Fail have included such a thing in their manifesto but they're not able to establish such a commission because they don't have a majority in the Dail and Fine Gael have a low opinion on UBI traditionally but their opinions could change if presented with information on the benefits of UBI.

It would be great if you could find the link to that Bundestag article as I'd be interested to hear what they said.

One of the ways around the immigration issue would be a stipulation requiring a person be a resident of a country for 5 years before they could get a UBI. Until those 5 years are up they would have to avail of a particular form of means tested unemployment benefits.

segosego89

Jurgen Klopp wrote: »

If they get a job what rate €150 or €188?

It would be 188 Euros

segosego89

segosego89 wrote: »

It would be 188 Euros

And earned income from that job which would supplement the UBI would be subject to a tax of some kind based on how much is earned.

segosego89

segosego89 wrote: »

And earned income from that job which would supplement the UBI would be subject to a tax of some kind based on how much is earned.

But no one can touch your UBI. It can't be taxed.

i_surge

It's a great idea but a bag of crap as presented.

To do it, you have to do it right and bump it up to a minimum of 1500-2000 per month that reflects a real basic living wage. This gives everyone a viable option to pursue their interests, sit on their ass or invest their talents and boost their lifestyle in a way that suits them.

Then reorganise the world of work so people aren't chained to a cube 8-10 hrs a day doing busy work. Make it results based, a fair payment for a job well done. Tax this additional work at relatively high rate to make up the difference, no one has to work but many will choose to do a variant of what they love or are very good at and command a high fee for it that is still good value to the employer.

Simple steps to make Ireland a healthy and happy society, free from poverty and modern day serfdom (sitting in traffic in a car the bank owns while the house you can't afford lies empty 10 hrs/day) with an artistic and entrepreneurial spirit.

A little creativity and this can work but I can't see it happening here as Ireland is too backwards and lacks vision.

80000 hrs is the average career, think what can be done with that human potential when people aren't constrained and you'll see where the economic growth will come from.

segosego89

i_surge wrote: »

It's a great idea but a bag of crap as presented.

To do it, you have to do it right and bump it up to a minimum of 1500-2000 per month that reflects a real basic living wage. This gives everyone a viable option to pursue their interests, sit on their ass or invest their talents and boost their lifestyle in a way that suits them.

Then reorganise the world of work so people aren't chained to a cube 8-10 hrs a day doing busy work. Make it results based, a fair payment for a job well done. Tax this additional work at relatively high rate to make up the difference, no one has to work but many will choose to do a variant of what they love or are very good at and command a high fee for it that is still good value to the employer.

Simple steps to make Ireland a healthy and happy society, free from poverty and modern day serfdom (sitting in traffic in a car the bank owns while the house you can't afford lies empty 10 hrs/day) with an artistic and entrepreneurial spirit.

A little creativity and this can work but I can't see it happening here as Ireland is too backwards and lacks vision.

80000 hrs is the average career, think what can be done with that human potential when people aren't constrained and you'll see where the economic growth will come from.

I agree with most of what you say regarding humans pursuing their artistic and entrepreneurial spirit and your comment on some people doing mostly 'busy work' 8 hours a day.

But I disagree that UBI would never happen in Ireland. The more people I talk to about UBI in this country the more they warm up to the idea. Especially once a lot of the nuances of the system is explained to them(ie. it would replace tax credits etc) they seem to think it's the way to go. I strongly feel the current welfare system is outdated and a tad bit Dickensian. Do we really need people queuing up outside of a Welfare office like cattle every month in this day and age? Can't we have a bit more respect for people? Surely the system can be improved with a UBI and give people more dignity and respect especially from a mental health prospective.

The fact the Fianna Fail are so confident about UBI that they include it in their manifesto makes the concept of UBI more mainstream.

i_surge

My point is that if you make it 188/week you are just splitting hairs and making minor tweaks to an already poor social welfare setup which no one currently working will want or support it and it will fail politically.

Bring back the isle of saint and scholars, there's enough to go round and we can give people their lives on their terms, some will be total slackers the vast majority won't, parents will get to raise their own kids, people will start being nice to each other again when they aren't destroyed by the daily grind and the workend to catch up on chores....... so many options for a better way of doing things if we are creative.

Loafing Oaf

segosego89 wrote: »

The fact the Fianna Fail are so confident about UBI that they include it in their manifesto makes the concept of UBI more mainstream.

Not only that but make it a red line issue for entering government (well setting up the commission anyway). Now maybe it was easy to say that when it was unlikely they would be going into government. But Willie O'Dea has been talking up the idea again lately, so maybe it's his grand legacy project...

i_surge

Make it work for everyone or it will work for no one.

Get away from this tax the "evil" rich notion, they contribute the most and are also the most squeezed and not actually that well off after tax (we have one of the most proportionate systems in the world) despite what the whingers would have you believe.

It takes a ground up redesign of the tax system. Cut the loop hole, simplify, simplify, simplfy

Everyone gets 24k/year no strings

Everyone pays 50-60% tax on all additional earnings

SIMPLE....no loopholes that favour those in the know or those who can afford crafty accountants and equally no loopholes that favour the lazy at the expense of the hard working.

segosego89

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Not only that but make it a red line issue for entering government (well setting up the commission anyway). Now maybe it was easy to say that when it was unlikely they would be going into government. But Willie O'Dea has been talking up the idea again lately, so maybe it's his grand legacy project...

Yes, he was on Sean O' Rourke last week proselytizing about the concept again. One of the statements that he made was something along the lines that we give billions upon billions to the banks who destroyed the economy in 2008 in the form of quantitative easing via tax payers money so why is it so radical to replace the current welfare system with a basic income? "It's like quantitative easing for the people".

It may very well be his legacy project considering he's been working on it since 1997.

I sent a letter to Leo Varadkar's office recently trying to get him to set up a multiparty UBI commission based on the fact that the Finnish and Scottish have set up pilot programs this year. I got a response a few days ago saying that he was making inquiries and that he'd get back to me...

Loafing Oaf

segosego89 wrote: »

Yes, he was on Sean O' Rourke last week proselytizing about the concept again. One of the statements that he made was something along the lines that we give billions upon billions to the banks who destroyed the economy in 2008 in the form of quantitative easing via tax payers money so why is it so radical to replace the current welfare system with a basic income? "It's like quantitative easing for the people".

It may very well be his legacy project considering he's been working on it since 1997.

I sent a letter to Leo Varadkar's office recently trying to get him to set up a multiparty UBI commission based on the fact that the Finnish and Scottish have set up pilot programs this year. I got a response a few days ago saying that he was making inquiries and that he'd get back to me...

You have the sense with something like this that the establishment parties would rather someone else tried it successfully before we took the plunge but I reckon Wee Willie would actually revel in being the first social welfare anywhere to implement UBI. With a party like FF that's fairly flexible policy-wise, it's may not that hard for one true believer to get their pet project realised...

segosego89

Yeah, I agree with you.

I always knew deep down that Fianna Fail or Fine Gael wouldn't touch the UBI concept without another country such a Germany or the UK having existing UBI programs in place that FF/FG could use as real-world examples first before they take the plunge themselves.

But the fact that Finland,Scotland,The Netherlands etc have started or are soon starting "UBI pilot programs" makes me think that Fianna Fail or Fine Gael will have much more clout behind them to at the very least set up a UBI commission and eventually an isolated pilot program.

The UK parliament is starting to finally have some discussion on the concept recently.
A Parliamentary session on Universal Basic Income was held at the University of Birmingham on January 12, 2017.
Seven panelists took part in the session, selected by the committee on the basis of their background and interest in the basic income. During the event, each panelist was given time for opening and closing statements on basic income, with about an hour allotted for addressing questions and concerns from the MPs on the committee. Questions focused on general information about basic income, its relationship to the existing welfare state, and arguments for and against it.

The committee session was recorded and uploaded to Youtube and can be found under the title “Session on Citizen’s Income”.


The Scottish parliament have planned a similar UBI committee later this month also so it seems that people are becoming more and more interested in the concept.

Bass Reeves

I thing too many are trying to look at UBI as a social policy. Wicket Willie idea that there will be no looses is crap. In any any reorganisation there will be winners and losers. With a UBI to fund it all income earned over the BI needs to attract some form of tax. You also have to remember that all tax reliefs such as medical and mortgage relief would go and there would be a question over pension relief. It is highly unlikely it could be funded in the short term by increasing corporate tax. Setting tax rates above 50% to fund it will only encourage tax evasion.

The real advantage of a BI is that there would be no discouragement to work. But for that encouragement to remain in place things like income supplement will have to be abolished. College grants might also go. With Bi it would be quite easy for a worker to reach an income of 20 if UBI was at 188/ week. That would be equivalent to twenty hours at the minimum wage. Working full time at the minimum wage would bring a worker to an income of 30k. However everybody would have to pay tax on all income earned to both fund it and to prevent income traps.

Maybe rates could start low but they would have to rise fairly fast. But you would have to question why they should start low. At present one of the greatest inequality is the no tax( in the form of no PRSI and USC)sub 16k income that creates a situation where one pays a 50% rate between 16k and 20k. Yet 20k is the minimum wage. So if rates are set for lower part of income they need to be available to all workers. With UBI there had to be bit of you are on your own now and no hard luck stories.

Would tax rates as follows be possible

First 5K earned 20%tax
5-10 earned taxed at 30%
10-30K earned taxed at 40%
50%on all earning after that.

However Bi would create huge pressure on profession such as taxi drivers, self employed painters gardeners, maintenance men cleaners etc as people flood into this type of work to supplement income. It would not be a huge issue at present as we are standard full employment but in the case of a recession one would have huge upheavals in certain low paid sectors as people scramble for what ever extra income they can earn.

There would tend to be a huge black economy at the bottom end of the self employed labour market whether this would be larger than at present is hard to know. Because of this funding it would be a question to consider especially in the time of a recession rates may well have to be slashed just like tax reliefs were in the last recession

Sam Russell

Rather than a UBI, why not guarantee all who want a job, a meaningful one.

There are lots of things that need to be done but cannot be done because of the cost of labour. However, a local giddy-up can get a large number of the neighbours out there helping and quite happy to do so without payment. [I am thinking about Tidy Towns and the like].

There are many elderly people who could do with someone calling in for a chat - it would help both parties in many ways.

I have yet to see public buildings, like dole offices, having their windows cleaned and their floors polished.

There are many people who worked through the night last year during the floods, many just volunteers glad to help their distressed neighbours.

Many current jobs are simply people meaninglessly staring at computers all day - these are the jobs that automation will replace first, so there is a need to look to those people being re-educated and redeployed.

Maybe a start could be made to reduce the cost of some basic services like public transport. You can buy a lot of buses and employ a lot of drivers for the cost of one motorway. The Gort to Tuam motorway is costing €600m, the proposed Galway outer bypass will cost much the same. There are no proposals to improve public transport in Galway.

We need to think more broadly than just extending the dole to everyone.

troll_a_roll

It seems clear that this change would be so big that society would be completely transformed. Whether that's for good or for bad is hard to say. Overall I think it'd be good but there'd be negative aspects also.


An interesting point is that of manual labour jobs where unskilled people can give it a go, like gardening, house painting, window washing, lifts in cars to hospitals and shops, minding children etc.

The qualified professionals in those jobs would find it more difficult I'm sure.


The ultimate point is that our society must be capable of providing for everybody, without us having huge competations for dwindling resources like jobs.

People should be able to help one another in small ways, like the ones I've mentioned, and perhaps people can even receive a small payment for the help. That's community spirit and should be encouraged.
Instead we have a tax based society where the government want to tax every activity. That's great as far as it goes but it does push lots of small economic activity into the black market.

We should change the system to allow those small jobs to be done in the open, even if small payment changes hands.

KyussBeeshop

Sam Russell wrote: »

Rather than a UBI, why not guarantee all who want a job, a meaningful one.

There are lots of things that need to be done but cannot be done because of the cost of labour. However, a local giddy-up can get a large number of the neighbours out there helping and quite happy to do so without payment. [I am thinking about Tidy Towns and the like].

There are many elderly people who could do with someone calling in for a chat - it would help both parties in many ways.

I have yet to see public buildings, like dole offices, having their windows cleaned and their floors polished.

There are many people who worked through the night last year during the floods, many just volunteers glad to help their distressed neighbours.

Many current jobs are simply people meaninglessly staring at computers all day - these are the jobs that automation will replace first, so there is a need to look to those people being re-educated and redeployed.

Maybe a start could be made to reduce the cost of some basic services like public transport. You can buy a lot of buses and employ a lot of drivers for the cost of one motorway. The Gort to Tuam motorway is costing €600m, the proposed Galway outer bypass will cost much the same. There are no proposals to improve public transport in Galway.

We need to think more broadly than just extending the dole to everyone.

What you put forward is actually the main policy competitor with the Basic Income - the Job Guarantee:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Job_guarantee

It's even possible to have both combined - but I still disagree with the Basic Income, due to the issues I explained earlier.

troll_a_roll

Surely it must be the case that many jobs in a 'guaranteed jobs' type system would be fake and un-necessary.

Either there are real jobs and that's great, or there aren't.

How can jobs be guaranteed and yet still be necessary, economic and useful?

I agree that people could be paid to do pointless jobs but that seems silly to me.
Perhaps some people could cut hedges or pick up rubbish but there won't be enough real jobs in those sectors. In any event, robots could pick up our rubbish for us.

KyussBeeshop

There isn't really a lack of useful work that can be done in the world, it's fitting that work into the current economic system that's the problem.

johnnyskeleton

Sam Russell wrote: »

Rather than a UBI, why not guarantee all who want a job, a meaningful one.

There are lots of things that need to be done but cannot be done because of the cost of labour.

Another problem is our history and how it can be used for political capital.

Supposing you found a way to ensure that anyone who lost their job could get a guaranteed minimum wage job as an alternative. Some people with skills would get more than minimum wage through this government scheme and it would be very much a stop gap between other jobs. If this was brought in as the safety net instead of social welfare, even though everyone benefits (the taxpayer from the product of the work, the employee being given more than welfare and a sense of pride and purpose, the overall economic benefits), it would still be denounced as a new workhouse forcing the poor into slavery etc.

Sam Russell

The big problem with the 'guaranteed job' idea is that it requires management and supervision. I think it is that that creates the real problem if you have reluctant employees trying to skive off with a less than adequate level of supervision.

If everyone on the dole (€188 per week) had to give 16 hours of 'work' in order to qualify, then after that they could return to bed or go and get better paid work elsewhere without losing their meager guaranteed hours - perhaps that might work.

There is a great need for charity work, but no charity can afford to pay for it. We are going into a time when the elderly require a little help to remain in their own home because the nation cannot afford to warehouse them in nursing homes. I am talking about the need for shopping, social interaction, and tiny jobs like changing light bulbs and so on. This used to be done by neighbours but now is not done at all - as new communities are not built on neighbourliness.

I think this approach has more value that the constant drive for 'economic growth' which is a euphemism for taking in each others washing.

troll_a_roll

Universal Income allows for those small jobs to be done either for free, or for small payment, with no issues. For example, changing light bulbs for elderly neighbours, or putting out their bins, or cutting their grass or hedges etc..

It is the insistance in the modern world that every activity be an economic activity which can be taxed which is the problem.

Grandmothers are not allowed to mind their own grand children under the current system, IF the grandmother is claiming social welfare. She has to be available for work and SW say that minding children is not consistent with that requirement.


The current system treats Irish citizens as economic units rather than as real people with real lives.

segosego89

Here's a video that's getting popular on Reddit at the moment involving Elon Musk speaking at the 'World Government Summit 2017' in Dubai in which he states that Universal Basic Income is “going to be necessary.”

I've included the link below if anyone's interested:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6HPdNBicM8