Is Universal Basic Income the way forward?

OMM 0000

OMM 0000 wrote: »

I don't know if any of you have ever been unemployed or underemployed, but it makes you lazy and depressed.

I was out of work for a year during the recession, it drove me crazy despite my efforts to fill the time with hobbies. I honestly don't know how people choose to do absolutely nothing for their entire lives. Where is their sense of pride?

Wanderer78

Deleted User wrote: »

I know. Why seek self improvement? Better to talk about subjects you know nothing about based on articles you're unqualified to understand.

Much more fun.

always self improving, currently doing so! please explain how i dont understand, and what qualifications do people require to understand such matters?

Deleted User wrote: »

I was out of work for a year during the recession, it drove me crazy despite my efforts to fill the time with hobbies. I honestly don't know how people choose to do absolutely nothing for their entire lives. Where is their sense of pride?

long term unemployment is highly complex, its a true reflection of society as a whole of not wanting to deal with such complex issues, choosing to largely ignore them instead, and ridicule those that find themselves in these situations

Wanderer78

Wanderer78 wrote: »

always self improving, currently doing so! please explain how i dont understand, and what qualifications do people require to understand such matters?



long term unemployment is highly complex, its a true reflection of society as a whole of not wanting to deal with such complex issues, choosing to largely ignore them instead, and ridicule those that find themselves in these situations

Ahem.

"Thanks, but I couldn't be bothered"

Wanderer78

Deleted User wrote: »

Ahem.

"Thanks, but I couldn't be bothered"

happy days, shur thats a great discussion then, at least these serious issues have been resolved on boards yet again, now whos willing to inform our politicians of our solutions?

Mules

UBI might work in a society where the culture is that everyone has a duty to contribute but Ireland is not one of those cultures.

Wanderer78

Wanderer78 wrote: »

happy days, shur thats a great discussion then

I learned from the best.

Wanderer78

Deleted User wrote: »

I learned from the best.

certainly sounds like it, we re not worthy!

Mules wrote: »

UBI might work in a society where the culture is that everyone has a duty to contribute but Ireland is not one of those cultures.

yup, those 'lazy' lifers!

Wanderer78

Wanderer78 wrote: »

certainly sounds like it, we re not worthy!

You didn't recognise your own quote? Here, I'll do it again but make it nice and easy for you.

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Thanks, but I couldn't be bothered

See? That's the thing you said that I used against you.

the beer revolu

Please stop.

Wanderer78

Deleted User wrote: »

You didn't recognise your own quote? Here, I'll do it again but make it nice and easy for you.



See? That's the thing you said that I used against you.

fair play to you

the beer revolu

the beer revolu wrote: »

Please stop.

I'm done.

Water John

Can the future demand for goods and services, give full employment for all into the future? Not unless we continually increase spending and use of resources infinitely. We realise that the world cannot maintain our current growth rate due to finite resources and other issues, like climate change.
Thus, some means of sharing the limited work and wealth must be constructed. Our present system of dole and myriad other payment schemes are limited, very high in beauracracy and also very limiting. We need to devise an alternative.
Also the present system is concentrating wealth in the hands of a few and increasingly doing that. That is not sustainable and not conducive to a stable society.

Wanderer78

Water John wrote: »

Can the future demand for goods and services, give full employment for all into the future? Not unless we continually increase spending and use of resources infinitely. We realise that the world cannot maintain our current growth rate due to finite resources and other issues, like climate change.
Thus, some means of sharing the limited work and wealth must be constructed. Our present system of dole and myriad other payment schemes are limited, very high in beauracracy and also very limiting. We need to devise an alternative.
Also the present system is concentrating wealth in the hands of a few and increasingly doing that. That is not sustainable and not conducive to a stable society.

absolutely the fundamentals of such proposals, its clearly obvious now, if we maintain our current course, its highly likely to lead us into serious conflicts, and.....

Ludwig Wittgenstein

OMM 0000 wrote: »

Instead of increasing everyone's taxes so we can give people free money and create an even bigger nanny state, how about we lower taxes.

If you don't want to work, or can't work, there's already a safety net.

I don't know if any of you have ever been unemployed or underemployed, but it makes you lazy and depressed.

We need to encourage people to work and create businesses. We need to improve education. We need to give people real life skills instead of our current system which is churning out too many babies who don't know anything.

Nearly everything you posted could be partly solved by UBI.

1. “If you don't want to work, or can't work, there's already a safety net” - a safety net rife with conditionalities and expensive intrusion from the State. The threat of penalties/suspension of payment looms large regardless of whether one simply doesn’t want to work, or can’t work. UBI removes this insecurity.

2. There is a stigma associated with unemployment/underemployment. We are bombarded with suggestions that the only people worthy of value are those who are in regular paid employment - the fact the State can be so intrusive to those on benefits is evidence of this. What makes people lazy and depressed is shame, embarrassment and fear of judgement from others who view them as “less than” due to their “failure” to find stable employment in an increasingly precarious labour market. UBI would likely weaken this link between one’s self-worth and their employment status, freeing people to do more of what they want to do with their lives. Whether that be pursuing a career to get greater financial remuneration, helping out in their community, or reading philosophy is moot.

3. One of the major issues with creating a business is the precarity it invites upon oneself should the business fail. The safety net is much reduced for the self-employed. Under UBI that safety net will always be there, thus encouraging those who wish to create a business to do so. The exact same goes for education; you have to jump through hoops these days to get BTEA. God help you if you fancy going back to do a different undergrad, you’ll be left with a €25k bill and 4 years of either no income or balancing work and study. Under UBI you’ll maintain your payment regardless. Same goes for caring, becoming disabled, wishing to stay at home with kids etc. You’ll maintain the payment regardless, and won’t be left waiting six months to see if you get some form of allowance from the State.

Capitalism is undergoing a fundamental change. The days of jobs for life, jobs for everyone is over. UBI deserves serious consideration as part of an overall package to ensure a more sustainable, more secure future for everyone.

Wanderer78

Ludwig Wittgenstein wrote: »

Capitalism is undergoing a fundamental change. The days of jobs for life, jobs for everyone is over. UBI deserves serious consideration as part of an overall package to ensure a more sustainable, more secure future for everyone.

more or less completely agree with everything here, capitalism certainly is going through a monumental change at the moment, and we re not exactly reacting to this in a positive way, many in fact would like the status quo to remain, some even want a more intense version of the status quo!

mickuhaha

We must be careful with the pushing of a more socialist policy. There is evidence to support that such policy prohibited enterprise and development along with making people more equal it also makes the greater population poorer. Just a note not a point of view.

Wanderer78

mickuhaha wrote: »

We must be careful with the pushing of a more socialist policy. There is evidence to support that such policy prohibited enterprise and development along with making people more equal it also makes the greater population poorer. Just a note not a point of view.

what socialist policy? i suspect we re slowly and painfully transiting into a new form of capatalism, but in typical human fashion, we re struggling to let go of our current train wreck version of it, i.e. 'free market'! a ubi could be used to promote and support business communities, to continue innovating and creating businesses as they are, hopefully increasing such activities, as there would be less worry over other critical needs, i.e. housing, food etc etc etc

Water John

UBI would have considerable support across the political spectrum internationally.
Never considered Willie O'Dea a socialist.

Water John

Just reading this article on Marcus Rashford;
https://www.theguardian.com/global/2021/may/22/marcus-rashford-whenever-i-hear-no-i-ask-myself-why-not

One asks, why does a modern rich country have situations where a woman like Mel Rashford has to work three jobs to look after her family and still go hungry herself?

Wanderer78

Water John wrote: »

Just reading this article on Marcus Rashford;
https://www.theguardian.com/global/2021/may/22/marcus-rashford-whenever-i-hear-no-i-ask-myself-why-not

One asks, why does a modern rich country have situations where a woman like Mel Rashford has to work three jobs to look after her family and still go hungry herself?

yup, 'free market', my arse!

mickuhaha

mickuhaha wrote: »

We must be careful with the pushing of a more socialist policy. There is evidence to support that such policy prohibited enterprise and development along with making people more equal it also makes the greater population poorer. Just a note not a point of view.

UBI is not a socialist policy. Any socialist pushing that nonsense needs to reevaluate their political identification. It's a welfare-state policy, and should have nothing to do with right-thinking socialists. It's a bribe, like welfare is. It cheats people out of a meaningful, productive life.

UBI socialist goes directly to gulag.

OMM 0000

OMM 0000 wrote: »

Instead of increasing everyone's taxes so we can give people free money and create an even bigger nanny state, how about we lower taxes.

If you don't want to work, or can't work, there's already a safety net.

I don't know if any of you have ever been unemployed or underemployed, but it makes you lazy and depressed.

We need to encourage people to work and create businesses. We need to improve education. We need to give people real life skills instead of our current system which is churning out too many babies who don't know anything.

You're actually arguing in favour if UBI here

the beer revolu

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You're actually arguing in favour if UBI here

Most of the arguments put forth against uib are actually pointing out what's wrong with the current system and, as you say, are actually making a case for it.

It's worrying how so many people are so vehemently against something that they, clearly, don't understand.

rossie1977

Water John wrote: »

Just reading this article on Marcus Rashford;
https://www.theguardian.com/global/2021/may/22/marcus-rashford-whenever-i-hear-no-i-ask-myself-why-not

One asks, why does a modern rich country have situations where a woman like Mel Rashford has to work three jobs to look after her family and still go hungry herself?

All the wealth is going to the very top.

Reagan and his cronies did a brilliant propaganda job that all the ills of society was due to the poor and those on welfare or the "welfare queens". It's a sentiment still popular to this very day nearly 40 years later.

Reagan then went about dismantling the middle class and through huge tax cuts and other benefits moving all the wealth towards the top 0.1%. Western Europe started following Reagan's lead but at a slower pace

Strumms

Water John wrote: »

Just reading this article on Marcus Rashford;
https://www.theguardian.com/global/2021/may/22/marcus-rashford-whenever-i-hear-no-i-ask-myself-why-not

One asks, why does a modern rich country have situations where a woman like Mel Rashford has to work three jobs to look after her family and still go hungry herself?

Should have worked to upskill, do a course and get a job that paid a decent salary... would only have worked one job then...

Then again, could tax the fûck out of those working, impinge on their aspirations and quality of life, and ‘give’ Mrs Rashford the same as they earn.

Wanderer78

rossie1977 wrote: »

All the wealth is going to the very top.

Reagan and his cronies did a brilliant propaganda job that all the ills of society was due to the poor and those on welfare or the "welfare queens". It's a sentiment still popular to this very day nearly 40 years later.

Reagan then went about dismantling the middle class and through huge tax cuts and other benefits moving all the wealth towards the top 0.1%. Western Europe started following Reagan's lead but at a slower pace

Strumms wrote: »

Should have worked to upskill, do a course and get a job that paid a decent salary... would only have worked one job then...

Then again, could tax the fûck out of those working, impinge on their aspirations and quality of life, and ‘give’ Mrs Rashford the same as they earn.

these statements are still going strong alright!

Ludwig Wittgenstein

Strumms wrote: »

Should have worked to upskill, do a course and get a job that paid a decent salary... would only have worked one job then...

Then again, could tax the fûck out of those working, impinge on their aspirations and quality of life, and ‘give’ Mrs Rashford the same as they earn.

She was literally going hungry to feed her kids. Where the hell is she meant to get money to upskill?

Wanderer78

Ludwig Wittgenstein wrote: »

She was literally going hungry to feed her kids. Where the hell is she meant to get money to upskill?

financing upskilling, is only one aspect a person requires to do so, many lower classes would also experience time poverty as well as other issues, which in fact completely prevents any chances of upskilling

Strumms

Wanderer78 wrote: »

financing upskilling, is only one aspect a person requires to do so, many lower classes would also experience time poverty as well as other issues, which in fact completely prevents any chances of upskilling

I wouldn’t agree with ‘completely’ prevents... you can do courses online too...

I’d be impressed as an employer with a person in that scenario, that could hand me a cert or two, even demonstrate they are ‘doing’ a few hours a week, over time something to better themselves..

I’ll never agree with universal basic income.

kippy

the beer revolu wrote: »

Most of the arguments put forth against uib are actually pointing out what's wrong with the current system and, as you say, are actually making a case for it.

It's worrying how so many people are so vehemently against something that they, clearly, don't understand.

From what I have seen UBI replaces any and all income supports that are currently in place. Does this mean housing supports, medical supports and educational supports?
If that is the case, what is the UBI amount that we are talking about here?
Does UBI in any way address the gap between the ultra rich and the rest of society?

Ludwig Wittgenstein

kippy wrote: »

From what I have seen UBI replaces any and all income supports that are currently in place. Does this mean housing supports, medical supports and educational supports?
If that is the case, what is the UBI amount that we are talking about here?
Does UBI in any way address the gap between the ultra rich and the rest of society?

It doesn’t have to. All UBI is is a periodic unconditional cash payment. It’s silent on other matters. Right-libertarians often see it as a way of getting rid of all other supports and streamlining the bureaucracy of the State. Its left proponents tend to see it as part of a package of universal provisions (this is what Basic Income Ireland advocates).

kippy

Ludwig Wittgenstein wrote: »

It doesn’t have to. All UBI is is a periodic unconditional cash payment. It’s silent on other matters. Right-libertarians often see it as a way of getting rid of all other supports and streamlining the bureaucracy of the State. Its left proponents tend to see it as part of a package of universal provisions (this is what Basic Income Ireland advocates).

So what is it?

There are other "supports" on top of the UBI?
(Is it any wonder people "don't understand" it?)

Ludwig Wittgenstein

kippy wrote: »

So what is it?

There are other "supports" on top of the UBI?
(Is it any wonder people "don't understand" it?)

It’s... a periodic unconditional cash payment. The main thing differentiating it from standard social welfare is that everyone gets it regardless of their behaviour, e.g. you don’t have to seek work, you don’t have to worry about cohabitation rules etc. It should cover basic necessities such as food, clothing etc.

It’s selling point is that it would free people up to live as they wish, without the need to work. So one would be more secure and more free with a unconditional safety net beneath them.

It’s possible that further supports could be offered to those with higher living costs (e.g. the elderly/disabled).

Wanderer78

Strumms wrote: »

I wouldn’t agree with ‘completely’ prevents... you can do courses online too...

I’d be impressed as an employer with a person in that scenario, that could hand me a cert or two, even demonstrate they are ‘doing’ a few hours a week, over time something to better themselves..

I’ll never agree with universal basic income.

...if you are trying to manage to run a home, and possible juggle a job or two, that may in fact require a high level of energy, both physically and mentally, you may forget about having any time to do an online course, its also important to bare in mind, you may also have relatively poor living conditions, including poor broadband connection. you re overly simplifying the 'solutions' to a particular subset in society, we dont live on a planet of equal opportunities, your living conditions and life could very well being dramatically different to some.

you ll actually find many people work in excess of 50 hours a week, you ll also find many lower classes would also live further from their place of work, requiring further traveling time, many even only being able to afford public transport, and in some cases, this adding significant amount of time commuting. you ll also find many lower classes would have also struggled in our educational system, many leaving prior to achieving any great success in it, effectively leaving them exempt from further education, or with serious limitations in further education.

Buddy Bubs

The theory behind it makes sense for lifestyle purposes, but it will never work in reality. Some wealthy countries like Norway and some of the Arabs could pull it off. But in Ireland, would be taxpayer funded.

If you want the lifestyle, earn it.

Wanderer78

Buddy Bubs wrote: »

The theory behind it makes sense for lifestyle purposes, but it will never work in reality. Some wealthy countries like Norway and some of the Arabs could pull it off. But in Ireland, would be taxpayer funded.

If you want the lifestyle, earn it.

...again, we d have to embrace the world of deficits, our normal world of balancing budgets simply wouldnt work, they dont anyway

Metroid diorteM

There are 8 billion people on earth.

If we did universal income it'd be like pouring water onto gremlins.

We need some form of population adjustment as it is because its just not sustainable ecologically and we dont have a backup planet earth.

Billionaires tying up all the wealth are oddly doing our overpopulated species a favour.

Wanderer78

Metroid diorteM wrote: »

There are 8 billion people on earth.

If we did universal income it'd be like pouring water onto gremlins.

We need some form of population adjustment as it is because its just not sustainable ecologically and we dont have a backup planet earth.

Billionaires tying up all the wealth are oddly doing our overpopulated species a favour.

wealth isnt just being hoarded by individuals, but by wealthy businesses, corporations, financial institutions etc etc, this is far more complex than just wealthy people, and no, theyre not doing us a favor, theyre actually endangering us all, including themselves

The DayDream

Metroid diorteM wrote: »

There are 8 billion people on earth.

If we did universal income it'd be like pouring water onto gremlins.

We need some form of population adjustment as it is because its just not sustainable ecologically and we dont have a backup planet earth.

Billionaires tying up all the wealth are oddly doing our overpopulated species a favour.

I fail to see the logic here. I don't plan or want to have kids, UBI would not change that. People I know who do have them, it would not affect their choice either I don't think.

The DayDream

Strumms wrote: »

Should have worked to upskill, do a course and get a job that paid a decent salary... would only have worked one job then...

Then again, could tax the fûck out of those working, impinge on their aspirations and quality of life, and ‘give’ Mrs Rashford the same as they earn.

Bootstrapper BS. 'Shoulda just got a better job, duh, black single mother from the ghetto whose life must be just as easy as mine.'

People do realise that not everyone can be a STEMlord, right?

Somebody has to do the 'menial' and 'unskilled' jobs.

ILoveYourVibes

Deleted User wrote: »

People do realise that not everyone can be a STEMlord, right?

Somebody has to do the 'menial' and 'unskilled' jobs.

I'm surprised people still have this attitude. Key workers saved this society during this pandemic.

And some of them are very skilled.

kippy

Ludwig Wittgenstein wrote: »

It’s... a periodic unconditional cash payment. The main thing differentiating it from standard social welfare is that everyone gets it regardless of their behaviour, e.g. you don’t have to seek work, you don’t have to worry about cohabitation rules etc. It should cover basic necessities such as food, clothing etc.

It’s selling point is that it would free people up to live as they wish, without the need to work. So one would be more secure and more free with a unconditional safety net beneath them.

It’s possible that further supports could be offered to those with higher living costs (e.g. the elderly/disabled).

So what kind of figure are we talking about?

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

People do realise that not everyone can be a STEMlord, right?

Somebody has to do the 'menial' and 'unskilled' jobs.

No shortage of people to do ****ty jobs. Don't worry.

Water John

Having introduced Mel Rashford as a case in point here. A woman in very poor economic and social circumstances, yet instils core human values in her children. The lack of empathy from some here is astounding. Trevelyan would be proud of you.

Strumms

The DayDream wrote: »

Bootstrapper BS. 'Shoulda just got a better job, duh, black single mother from the ghetto whose life must be just as easy as mine.'

Nope...

From the ‘Ghetto’ ? Dramatic much ? What ghetto is that ? Wythenshaw ?

Does where you are born absolutely and outrightly excuse you from making bad choices ? Will fûcking more free money at them at the expense of services and fairness enable them to make better choices ? No.

Geuze

Buddy Bubs wrote: »

The theory behind it makes sense for lifestyle purposes, but it will never work in reality. Some wealthy countries like Norway and some of the Arabs could pull it off. But in Ireland, would be taxpayer funded.

If you want the lifestyle, earn it.

In any and all countries, any UBI is financed by taxes.

An Ri rua

Geuze wrote: »

In any and all countries, any UBI is financed by taxes.

In theory. But not true at all.
In America, taxes aren't funding the stimulus and assistance payments. The Fed is. The magical mystery printing press Fed.
To the point that a number of dopey politicians wondered whether they needed to tax Joe Public at all now under MMT, as they can manifest their bright future from thin air.
Jesus wept.

We're a long way off Megacity One yet.

The response to the pandemic has been underwritten by more similar nonsense from the ECB. On taxes alone, we would have bit the dust after a few months of total lockdowns. What lender in their right mind would lend to nonproductive entities? Oh yes, credit unions did during the last boom. The payback wasn't too hot though.
Similar to the subprime bomb in the States, this financial giveaway's day of reckoning is just around the corner. Before the kids go back to school

Padre_Pio

Metroid diorteM wrote: »

Billionaires tying up all the wealth are oddly doing our overpopulated species a favour.

But lower income families have more children, so surely increasing wealth would reduce overpopulation.

OMM 0000

Wanderer78 wrote: »

...

I've seen your comments over the years, and they have a consistent theme:

• Employers are evil
• The working class are amazing
• We should be soft on crime
• We should get free stuff

I'm not having a go at you:

Are you an unemployed person with a criminal record?