Is Universal Basic Income the way forward?

PanMyHans

Benefits:
1. Remove the unfair stigma from unemployed.
2. It will enable society to pursue endeavours outside of work
3. People will be happier
4. Classism and sexism will be reduced.

endacl

I already contribute to a basic income for people who don’t work. I don’t want to do it for people who do as well.

What you suggest is an increase to the dole, and a pointless exchange of cash between those who earn.

PanMyHans

endacl wrote: »

I already contribute to a basic income for people who don’t work. I don’twant to do it for people who do as well.

What you suggest is an increase to the dole, and a pointless exchange of cash between those who earn.

It’s not pointless at all. I’ve outlined four points which would greatly benefit society as a whole

piplip87

PanMyHans wrote: »

Benefits:
1. Remove the unfair stigma from unemployed.
2. It will enable society to pursue endeavours outside of work
3. People will be happier
4. Classism and sexism will be reduced.

No. I wouldn't agree with this at all.

I would agree with better payment and more comfortable lives for :

1) People with disabilities who cannot work. It is unfair they are paid the same rates as Jobseekers.

2) For the first 6 months of unemployment.

3) Those unemployed who are retraining to find a job.

Those on carers allowance. They deserve better

Apart from that no I don't want taxpayers money been spent on those who cannot be bothered to contribute to society. We all know the type. Signed on at 18, spend their days playing FIFA, smoking weed, and drinking cans, live in nice houses all subsidized by the taxpayer..... Imagine giving these lads 300 a week......

ted1

PanMyHans wrote: »

Benefits:
1. Remove the unfair stigma from unemployed.
2. It will enable society to pursue endeavours outside of work
3. People will be happier
4. Classism and sexism will be reduced.

No there should be stigma for the long term unemployment.

PanMyHans

piplip87 wrote: »

No. I wouldn't agree with this at all.

I would agree with better payment and more comfortable lives for :

1) People with disabilities who cannot work. It is unfair they are paid the same rates as Jobseekers.

2) For the first 6 months of unemployment.

3) Those unemployed who are retraining to find a job.

Those on carers allowance. They deserve better

Apart from that no I don't want taxpayers money been spent on those who cannot be bothered to contribute to society. We all know the type. Signed on at 18, spend their days playing FIFA, smoking weed, and drinking cans, live in nice houses all subsidized by the taxpayer..... Imagine giving these lads 300 a week......

But everyone would get it, thus eliminating classist tendencies of our capital driven society.

PanMyHans

ted1 wrote: »

No there should be stigma for the long term unemployment.

That’s a dreadful thing to say.

endacl

PanMyHans wrote: »

Benefits:
1. Remove the unfair stigma from unemployed.
2. It will enable society to pursue endeavours outside of work
3. People will be happier
4. Classism and sexism will be reduced.

Ok.

1. There’s no stigma attached to ‘unemployment’ per se. Only to those who won’t work. And they don’t care.

2. I work a six day week. I still find time to pursue endeavours outside of work.

3. How?

4. How?

Fr_Dougal

PanMyHans wrote: »

Benefits:
1. Remove the unfair stigma from unemployed.
2. It will enable society to pursue endeavours outside of work
3. People will be happier
4. Classism and sexism will be reduced.

Welcome to boards, brand new poster.

0/10, it’s like you’re not even trying.

PanMyHans

endacl wrote: »

Ok.

1. There’s no stigma attached to ‘unemployment’ per se. Only to those who won’t work. And they don’t care.

2. I work a six day week. I still find time to pursue endeavours outside of work.

3. How?

4. How?

1. So there is a stigma.

2. Not everyone wants to work 6 days a week. We’re all different.

3. Self evident

4. Classism will become irrelevant because everyone will be paid the same. The wage gap would also be dampened, reducing societal income misogynistic tendencies.

Stheno

PanMyHans wrote: »

But everyone would get it, thus eliminating classist tendencies of our capital driven society.

How would you fund it?

By taxing the rich?

Shefwedfan

PanMyHans wrote: »

Benefits:
1. Remove the unfair stigma from unemployed.
2. It will enable society to pursue endeavours outside of work
3. People will be happier
4. Classism and sexism will be reduced.

100% brilliant idea

I think everyone should be able to quit school at junior cert and get paid the same amount, what could go wrong

PmMeUrDogs

I'm unsure if I would agree with it.

I don't want those who choose not to work (and yes, it's a small percentage but they exist!) being given more money funded by the taxpayer.


However, I'd love to see more financial supports in place for people on disability allowance due to serious illness or debilitating conditions, or for low earners who work full time.



There's only so much we as a society can expect the taxpayers to fund, though. We don't have an unlimited money pot and I think we're being taxed enough as it is.

Stheno

PanMyHans wrote: »

1. So there is a stigma.

2. Not everyone wants to work 6 days a week. We’re all different.

3. Self evident

4. Classism will become irrelevant because everyone will be paid the same. The wage gap would also be dampened, reducing societal income misogynistic tendencies.

Hello wed all be paid the same for every job?

nthclare

PanMyHans wrote: »

But everyone would get it, thus eliminating classist tendencies of our capital driven society.

While the wasters can laugh at the useful people and the useful people get pissed off with the wasters.

Yeah I love your strategy and it's going to be a big hit.

Anto and Seamus will be out digging lug worm on the sand bar for their fishing trip, meanwhile Flambow will be tying his surfboard on his 2023 2 liter passat estate while John and Sarah are off to their 48 hour a week job.

Meanwhile Jackie and Sandra will be getting some cans at the local. And necking them down while John and Sarah will be in the canteen...

Ohh what a great suggestion

endacl

Well that’s me convinced. You’re not talking nonsense at all.

mickdw

I think it is the answer and should be cheaper to fund.
You.pay Every one 200 per week but recover that fully on income tax on first 400 earnings weekly roughly. So someone earning 400 is no better off than before.
The huge benefit is that it completely removed the welfare trap.
If you want to work 5 hours or 50 hours per week you will be better off working.

tjdaly

Absolutely. Everyone gets it so no one can resent anyone else for having it. Just enough to live with dignity and not much else. If you want more you can work your little heart out. Philosophically very sound. We have our priorities all wrong in this world.

There is nothing admirable about working forty hours a week for forty years to pay the mortgage on some crappy house in an estate full of crappy possessions you don't need. You do it because you have to. You do it because you are a slave. People should work less, not more. There needs to be a paradigm shift and UBI could be the spark that starts that fire.

Tell me how

PanMyHans wrote: »

1. So there is a stigma.

2. Not everyone wants to work 6 days a week. We’re all different.

3. Self evident

4. Classism will become irrelevant because everyone will be paid the same. The wage gap would also be dampened, reducing societal income misogynistic tendencies.

Is a surgeon going to be paid the same as a checkout person in Tesco's in this new system?

nthclare

tjdaly wrote: »

Absolutely. Everyone gets it so no one can resent anyone else for having it. Just enough to live with dignity and not much else. If you want more you can work your little heart out. Philosophically very sound. We have our priorities all wrong in this world.

There is nothing admirable about working forty hours a week for forty years to pay the mortgage on some crappy house in an estate full of crappy possessions you don't need. You do it because you have to. You do it because you are a slave. People should work less, not more. There needs to be a paradigm shift and UBI could be the spark that starts that fire.

Sounds like a good idea I love gardening, fishing surfing and hiking, foraging etc

Probably easier living maybe on the edge of a town or somewhere convenient.

I could sell up my 4 bed detached and retire early as I've no mortgage.
Scale down.
Change the 2019 passat estate to something smaller.
Like a 2 bed warm house etc

Wouldn't it be lovely
Buy a two bed

PanMyHans

Tell me how wrote: »

Is a surgeon going to be paid the same as a checkout person in Tesco's in this new system?

Eventually yes, the idea is you pursue what you want to do. There are plenty of people that would love to work at a checkout, and some who would love to be a surgeon. Bottom line is they’ll do it for the love of the art, and not for financial gain.

tjdaly

Tell me how wrote: »

Is a surgeon going to be paid the same as a checkout person in Tesco's in this new system?

And why not. I've asked a few doctors in my time if they would do the same job if the salary was the same as a cleaner's and they all replied in the affirmative. People typically want to be productive and take ownership of their work, in line with their talents, and it is a big myth that the whole system would collapse if differentials in pay were reigned in. And why should a cleaner get paid less than a surgeon? One job is undesirable, the other requires a great degree of training, therefore we could pay them the same. We could pay all of the people who do the most undesirable jobs the same as the people who do the most challenging jobs. Or have a tiered system whereby no one is able to accumulate more than twice as much, or three times as much as anyone else. Surely that would plenty?

Stheno

PanMyHans wrote: »

Eventually yes, the idea is you pursue what you want to do. There are plenty of people that would love to work at a checkout, and some who would love to be a surgeon. Bottom line is they’ll do it for the love of the art, and not for financial gain.

So I've studied for five years part time while working to increase my skills and should be paid the same as the students working part time who sell me my coffee in the morning.

Is that what you are saying?

PanMyHans

Stheno wrote: »

So I've studied for five years part time while working to increase my skills and should be paid the same as the students working part time who sell me my coffee in the morning.

Is that what you are saying?

What’s so bad about that? You studied because you wanted to, that’s the beauty of this system! You study because you want to, yet you will not be financially worse off whilst/after studying!

The Oort Cloud

The universal basic income will be mandated from brussels to take effect within all EU member states in time, this is a big plan that will come in in around 4/5 years. Automation will be a reason why this will be implemented and mandated.

hawkelady

PanMyHans wrote: »

Eventually yes, the idea is you pursue what you want to do. There are plenty of people that would love to work at a checkout, and some who would love to be a surgeon. Bottom line is they’ll do it for the love of the art, and not for financial gain.

You are a clown .... yeah , imagine there are lots of folk willing to study for 7 years and risk being struck off and lose their livelihood cause of a slip of the knife !!! As opposed to someone stacking bloody beans on a shelf ...
go away and try harder

PanMyHans

hawkelady wrote: »

You are a clown .... yeah , imagine there are lots of folk willing to study for 7 years and risk being struck off and lose their livelihood cause of a slip of the knife !!! As opposed to someone stacking bloody beans on a shelf ...
go away and try harder

You won’t be struck off or lose your livelihood. Everyone is equal and therefore allotted the same monetary value.

kippy

Tell me how wrote: »

Is a surgeon going to be paid the same as a checkout person in Tesco's in this new system?

No, that's not how UB works.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income
Everyone gets a set amount per week. If you work in a job you get an amount over this. Different jobs will have different amounts over this.

Tell me how

PanMyHans wrote: »

Eventually yes, the idea is you pursue what you want to do. There are plenty of people that would love to work at a checkout, and some who would love to be a surgeon. Bottom line is they’ll do it for the love of the art, and not for financial gain.

tjdaly wrote: »

And why not. I've asked a few doctors in my time if they would do the same job if the salary was the same as a cleaner's and they all replied in the affirmative. People typically want to be productive and take ownership of their work, in line with their talents, and it is a big myth that the whole system would collapse if differentials in pay were reigned in. And why should a cleaner get paid less than a surgeon? One job is undesirable, the other requires a great degree of training, therefore we could pay them the same. We could pay all of the people who do the most undesirable jobs the same as the people who do the most challenging jobs. Or have a tiered system whereby no one is able to accumulate more than twice as much, or three times as much as anyone else. Surely that would plenty?

So, both of you are advancing the case for communism?

It is unquestionably the most favorable governance system in theory with only a single weak component. The humans being asked to participate in it.

Tell me how

kippy wrote: »

No, that's not how UB works.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income
Everyone gets a set amount per week. If you work in a job you get an amount over this. Different jobs will have different amounts over this.

Read the answers from the OP on this topic. I understand the principle of basic income, it is not what they are advocating for.

Stheno

PanMyHans wrote: »

What’s so bad about that? You studied because you wanted to, that’s the beauty of this system! You study because you want to, yet you will not be financially worse off whilst/after studying!

No I studied to earn more and advance CB e

Are you proposing a USSR style system?

Btw in my job I take time off or my hobbies and vacation at will like today which I took off at zero notice

tjdaly

hawkelady wrote: »

You are a clown .... yeah , imagine there are lots of folk willing to study for 7 years and risk being struck off and lose their livelihood cause of a slip of the knife !!! As opposed to someone stacking bloody beans on a shelf ...
go away and try harder

You've been very well programmed.

kippy

The Oort Cloud wrote: »

The universal basic income will be mandated from brussels to take effect within all EU member states in time, this is a big plan that will come in in around 4/5 years. Automation will be a reason why this will be implemented and mandated.

There have never been more people working in this country than there are now.
People are talking about automation for the past few decades and it still hasn't had a major impact on employment.
Even if it does end up killing jobs I have yet to see how UBI can be sustainably funded along with everything else that has to be funded.

BanditLuke

ted1 wrote: »

No there should be stigma for the long term unemployment.

Or those who don't know how to spell unemployed.

astrofool

This looked promising, but it's been a bit of a disaster where it's been trialled, basically, all the bad points of people not being motivated to work anymore happened, I guess human nature for collectivism is very weak.

Thethunder

No free unrestricted capitalism is.

Only way of government that has ever truly worked.

4068ac1elhodqr

UBI is not only a great idea, but after the autobots take most of the jobs, there will be no choice but to introduce it.


The 1% or so whom hold 45% of the global wealth can stick their hands in their pockets to pay for it, and big corps that pay under 12.5% corp tax can open their checkbooks.
The only risk is that it will have to introduced across the whole EU at the same time, to prevent an external mass movement of people, even then the EU's borders, and nation states within aren't secure.

j8wk2feszrnpao

PanMyHans wrote: »

Benefits:
1. Remove the unfair stigma from unemployed.
2. It will enable society to pursue endeavours outside of work
3. People will be happier
4. Classism and sexism will be reduced.

1. It’s not unfair if you can work, but choose not to, and have others pick up the slack.
2. People do this already. Maybe it would encourage a lazier society?
3. Those who get the extra money will be happy. Not sure you can claim everyone would be if they see a drop.
4. Maybe, but not sold on this.

Can’t see how such a system could be implemented. Are private businesses going to be taken over by the Government? How is it funded? If anything, it would disenfranchise people from progressing. It would be a backward step for humanity.
It’s an idealistic suggestion, that has little to no root in reality.

Thethunder

Kamila Panicky Pentagon wrote: »

UBI is not only a great idea, but after the autobots take most of the jobs, there will be no choice but to introduce it.


The 1% or so whom hold 45% of the global wealth can stick their hands in their pockets to pay for it, and big corps that pay under 12.5% corp tax can open their checkbooks.
The only risk is that it will have to introduced across the whole EU at the same time, to prevent an external mass movement of people, even then the EU's borders, and nation states within aren't secure.

I disagree.

You are categorically incorrect.

4068ac1elhodqr

Thethunder wrote: »

I disagree.
You are categorically incorrect.

I disagree.
You are categorically incorrect.
Regards.

Thethunder

Kamila Panicky Pentagon wrote: »

I disagree.
You are categorically incorrect.
Regards.

Read the wealth of nations and come back to me.

4068ac1elhodqr

Thethunder wrote: »

Read the wealth of nations and come back to me.

Ask BillGates why he said he thinks (himself) he should've paid more taxes. Not to mention your typical Bono or Apple Inc.

Ask the authors of various studies on automation why they predict average of 45% of current jobs to vanish by the early to mid 2030's (best not to ask what will have in the 2040/50's, you really don't want to know).

Then come back to me.

Thethunder

Kamila Panicky Pentagon wrote: »

Ask BillGates why he said he thinks (himself) he should've paid more taxes. Not to mention your typical Bono or Apple Inc.

Ask the authors of various studies on automation why they predict average of 45% of current jobs to vanish by the early to mid 2030's (best not to ask what will have in the 2040/50's, you really don't want to know).

Then come back to me.

No real economic principles there pal.

Read some books and not fridge magnet quotes.

4068ac1elhodqr

Thethunder wrote: »

No real economic principles there pal.
Read some books and not fridge magnet quotes.

No real answers to those theoretical questions there pal.

Read again and come back to me with your own views, not some lazy book quotes.
No views of your own on Apple or Bono, or even Starmuck, or Amzn's tax bill and their decimation of the retail sectors?

Maybe check out Yang also, who until very recently ran his campaign on it, although he had a snazzier name for it: The Freedom Dividend (sounds better than UBI).

Then come back to me.

Potential-Monke

How would this be funded? As already pointed out, we have quite a large cohort of people who refuse to work because we already give them free money, how will this stop that? I work a 40 hour week, with €300 guaranteed I could work part time in a shop for half the week and end up with the same take home pay, would that not entice even more people to not work?

I do agree we're working too much in general, but I don't think a UBI is the resolution to it.

4068ac1elhodqr

Potential-Monke wrote: »

How would this be funded? As already pointed out, we have quite a large cohort of people who refuse to work because we already give them free money, how will this stop that? I work a 40 hour week, with €300 guaranteed I could work part time in a shop for half the week and end up with the same take home pay, would that not entice even more people to not work?

I do agree we're working too much in general, but I don't think a UBI is the resolution to it.

It would pay for itself in the long-term as an act of: i) stimulus, ii) flexible productivity increase, and in the longer term (automation human asset replacement) iii) national security.

You could opt for the human condition 'optimum' of 4days {32hr} work week (as largely desired). You'd also benefit from putting more tax-free away into investments & pensions, that 2/3days wouldn't offer.
There is also the other 'human condition' of 'wanting a bigger TV' I.e. Folks, even billionaires - generally always feel the need to earn more, to have more and to buy more.

Taxes on the super-rich would also be a factor:
One (int'l, but common) example of this current global problem is a chap that avoided the 40%circa IHT, to end up paying 10% (if that) on his billions, thanks to a myriad of evasive solutions in his adviser’s kitbag to help mitigate IHT [inheritance tax]
The 6th Duke of Westminster paid 'no inheritance tax' on the bulk of his £8.3bn family fortune following his death in 2016. Probate records show that Gerald Cavendish Grosvenor, who died aged 64 in August 2016, left a personal estate of £616,418,184...

...his wealth had already been 'transferred' to family 'trusts' which largely passed on to his son Hugh, 28, 'without' incurring any inheritance tax, the 7th DoW is now suddenly the 108th richest person in the world with £9.2bn.

kippy

Kamila Panicky Pentagon wrote: »

It would pay for itself in the long-term as an act of: i) stimulus, ii) flexible productivity increase, and in the longer term (automation human asset replacement) iii) national security.

You could opt for the human condition 'optimum' of 4days {32hr} work week (as largely desired). You'd also benefit from putting more tax-free away into investments & pensions, that 2/3days wouldn't offer.
There is also the other 'human condition' of 'wanting a bigger TV' I.e. Folks, even billionaires - generally always feel the need to earn more, to have more and to buy more.

Taxes on the super-rich would also be a factor:
One (int'l, but common) example of this current global problem is a chap that avoided the 40%circa IHT, to end up paying 10% (if that) on his billions, thanks to a myriad of evasive solutions in his adviser’s kitbag to help mitigate IHT [inheritance tax]
The 6th Duke of Westminster paid 'no inheritance tax' on the bulk of his £8.3bn family fortune following his death in 2016. Probate records show that Gerald Cavendish Grosvenor, who died aged 64 in August 2016, left a personal estate of £616,418,184...

...his wealth had already been 'transferred' to family 'trusts' which largely passed on to his son Hugh, 28, 'without' incurring any inheritance tax, the 7th DoW is now suddenly the 108th richest person in the world with £9.2bn.

The sums still don't add up, even using your example there.
Tax that 9.2 billion at 100 percent - it would be a drop in the ocean for the monies required to implement a UBI.

kippy

Tell me how wrote: »

Read the answers from the OP on this topic. I understand the principle of basic income, it is not what they are advocating for.

If the OP is advocating anything else than the definition of UBI then it's not UBI.
Frankly suggesting that everyone should receive a flat rate of X amount no matter what they do is just lunacy.

4068ac1elhodqr

kippy wrote: »

The sums still don't add up, even using your example there.
Tax that 9.2 billion at 100 percent - it would be a drop in the ocean for the monies required to implement a UBI.

Your sums don't add up. You're only accounting for a single individual to solve a sample nation's problems.

E.g. There are 2,604 ($USD) billionaires on the planet, 46,800,000 millionaires worldwide, who collectively own approximately $158.3 trillion.

Generally they avoid all IHT responsibilities, by using an array of clever trusts and accountant's tools. Irish multi-millionaires using an offshore Dutch taxbase is just one example. Euromillion winners moving to Monaco is another.

IHT is typically 40% over a certian threshold, any 100% tax rate would be nuts, although many support that, it would be impractical.

kippy

Kamila Panicky Pentagon wrote: »

Your sums don't add up. You're only accounting for a single individual to solve a sample nation's problems.

E.g. There are 2,604 ($USD) billionaires on the planet, 46,800,000 millionaires worldwide, who collectively own approximately $158.3 trillion.

Generally they avoid all IHT responsibilities, by using an array of clever trusts and accountant's tools. Irish multi-millionaires using an offshore Dutch taxbase is just one example. Euromillion winners moving to Monaco is another.

IHT is typically 40% over a certian threshold, any 100% tax rate would be nuts, although many support that, it would be impractical.

Of course my sums add up.
160 trillion works out at around a one of payment of 20K to every many woman and child on the planet (8 billion)
@ $325 a week that 20K lasts roughly 60 weeks - just over a year.

That's assuming you implement this globally, and take every penny off these billionaires.

Apologies for the roughness in calculations.

Why then would anyone want to amass or even attempt to amass any of these types of fortunes again?

(I aint saying leave the billionaires alone or even close to it, but it's absolute nonsense for anyone to suggest that the money for UBI comes should come from these people)

4068ac1elhodqr

kippy wrote: »

Of course my sums add up.
160 trillion works out at around a one off payment of 20K to every many woman and child on the planet (8 billion)
@ $325 a week that 20K lasts roughly 60 weeks - just over a year.

That's assuming you implement this globally, and take every penny off these billionaires.Apologies for the roughness in calculations.
Why then would anyone want to amass or even attempt to amass any of these types of fortunes again?
(I aint saying leave the billionaires alone or even close to it, but it's absolute nonsense for anyone to suggest that the money for UBI comes should come from these people)

An impractical calculaiton of course, but even then... 60K to every single (family) on the planet, instantly puts an 'absoloute end' to problems such as: i) global poverty ii) education access iii) fammine iv) housing v) global warming vi) pollution vii) health etc etc etc

Nevemind a jump start to new global economy and industrial reveloution etc. The closure of global tax-havens and avoidance will become a yearly factor, even if below the recommended 40% average higher tax rates. They will still seek to earn as they can still keep 60% of it.

Anyway the world's 1% that own roughly 50% of resources won't by itself pay for UBI.
UBI will largely pay for itself, through the reasons already given.