Is Universal Basic Income the way forward?

Ludwig Wittgenstein

WantedPzen wrote: »

Not really the best idea. The government would become even more powerful and will control the lower class.

And how do you come to that conclusion?

micosoft

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.

There is no evidence of this that I am aware of. If you have some post it.

micosoft

A lot of strange ideas in this thread.

Personally I think UBI will need to be considered in ireland.
- The simplest reason is we already have the highest level of income redistribution in Europe (meaning likely the world as well). UBI is an acknowledgement that structurally the Irish economy needs wholesale income distribution to maintain a social contract.
- The top earners in Ireland pay most of the tax. It's evidenced by income tax barely being dented despite mass furloughs in the service and other low income sectors. They simply don't contribute to the tax base.
- The reason for this is that most of Irelands means of production are based on Intellectual Capital i.e. People. As a small open economy dependent on IP based MNC's we have created a small, highly paid cadre with outsize productivity. The top quintile of Irish workers make four times the bottom quintile.
- That said it's improving
https://img.rasset.ie/0015b82c-614.jpg?ratio=1.53

Ultimately if low income workers and high income workers want/need to live beside each other a UBI is the best option. Economic structures are changing quickly and automation and job instability demands a different answer. I accept that some folk with a lack of empathy or social skills don't get this but as someone who pays a lot of tax I accept this as part of the social contract.

I would make three points -
- There is zero evidence that income tax plays a major role in productivity or enterprise. I'm not going to walk down the street and pack shelves in Dunnes because of the marginal rate. Neither am I going to move.
- A lot of nonsense about people choosing not to work with UBI. Aside from no real evidence of that (most evidence points to people holding out for a job that matches their skills or retraining) UBI is still "a job" and the state can put conditionality on UBI.
- Alongside UBI I would prefer a staged system of employment insurance like Germany. A lot of focus on the poor but we see waves of redundancies in middle management and other formerly skilled occupations. Going from 100k to UBI is unfair and forces skilled educated people to jump to worse jobs than the space to retrain and or find an equivalent job.

OMM 0000

OMM 0000 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?

Honestly some of the worst, ill-informed arguments I've ever seen online. And that's saying something.

Ludwig Wittgenstein

micosoft wrote: »

A lot of strange ideas in this thread.

Personally I think UBI will need to be considered in ireland.
- The simplest reason is we already have the highest level of income redistribution in Europe (meaning likely the world as well). UBI is an acknowledgement that structurally the Irish economy needs wholesale income distribution to maintain a social contract.
- The top earners in Ireland pay most of the tax. It's evidenced by income tax barely being dented despite mass furloughs in the service and other low income sectors. They simply don't contribute to the tax base.
- The reason for this is that most of Irelands means of production are based on Intellectual Capital i.e. People. As a small open economy dependent on IP based MNC's we have created a small, highly paid cadre with outsize productivity. The top quintile of Irish workers make four times the bottom quintile.
- That said it's improving
https://img.rasset.ie/0015b82c-614.jpg?ratio=1.53

Ultimately if low income workers and high income workers want/need to live beside each other a UBI is the best option. Economic structures are changing quickly and automation and job instability demands a different answer. I accept that some folk with a lack of empathy or social skills don't get this but as someone who pays a lot of tax I accept this as part of the social contract.

I would make three points -
- There is zero evidence that income tax plays a major role in productivity or enterprise. I'm not going to walk down the street and pack shelves in Dunnes because of the marginal rate. Neither am I going to move.
- A lot of nonsense about people choosing not to work with UBI. Aside from no real evidence of that (most evidence points to people holding out for a job that matches their skills or retraining) UBI is still "a job" and the state can put conditionality on UBI.
- Alongside UBI I would prefer a staged system of employment insurance like Germany. A lot of focus on the poor but we see waves of redundancies in middle management and other formerly skilled occupations. Going from 100k to UBI is unfair and forces skilled educated people to jump to worse jobs than the space to retrain and or find an equivalent job.

The State cannot put conditionality on UBI. Once that happens, it’s no longer UBI. Unconditionality is fundamental.

kippy

Ludwig Wittgenstein wrote: »

The State cannot put conditionality on UBI. Once that happens, it’s no longer UBI. Unconditionality is fundamental.

What about the further supports on top of it?

(No one has mentioned a figure yet for UBI - have you any figure in your head?)

Water John

kippy wrote: »

What about the further supports on top of it?

(No one has mentioned a figure yet for UBI - have you any figure in your head?)

It would be in the region of present unemployment benefit. Another figure to keep in mind when restructuring income is, the Living Wage. The estimated money required by a person to fully participate in society.

Ludwig Wittgenstein

kippy wrote: »

What about the further supports on top of it?

(No one has mentioned a figure yet for UBI - have you any figure in your head?)

They don’t have to be unconditional as they’re a separate policy to UBI.

No one agrees on a figure for UBI; it’s a political decision. What’s not in doubt is that its implementation would be a tapered process (initially something largely insufficient for providing a minimum level of subsistence, but slowly reaching it). The fact that it would have to be coupled with good quality, free public services complicates giving an exact figure further.

What happens in the event of a recession and tax income drops significantly?

Do we keep borrowing (at high rates) for UBI until tax income returns to sustainable levels?

How does this model avoid the massive debts built up by Keynesian model based economies in the 60s/70s? (Don't answer this last part if you don't know what it means. Thanks.)

Water John

One would be looking at Govn'ts income in its totality, not just income tax.

Think, if someone 150 years ago suggested giving money to every child born in the country, a whole lot would say you were mad. That it would lead to very large families, indolence, laziness etc.
In the future, it may be seen as a no-brainer, to ensure every adult citizen had enough regular income to partake fully in society.

Water John

Water John wrote: »

One would be looking at Govn'ts income in its totality, not just income tax.

Think, if someone 150 years ago suggested giving money to every child born in the country, a whole lot would say you were mad. That it would lead to very large families, indolence, laziness etc.
In the future, it may be seen as a no-brainer, to ensure every adult citizen had enough regular income to partake fully in society.

But it remains a fact that in a recession, a state's income drops significantly as public spending increases as more people access social welfare. This is simply a fact.

So, I repeat my question, in the face of significantly dropping income during a recession, and UBI remaining constant (no cuts allowed to this I presume). How does this work? How does this not lead to massive deficits, with access to bond markets limited or cut off, how does this not lead to a bailout situation with the IMF?

These questions are perfectly reasonable criticisms of the proposed model and instead I get a story about people in the past.

That says it all, really.

Water John

Do we cut unemployment benefit when more people access it? Economies go in cycles and part of Govnt's job is to iron out the fluctuations. That means lower borrowings in good times and increase the deficit in the downturn.

I don't know the overall cost of the present crisis but I haven't heard many being very worried about it.

kippy

Water John wrote: »

One would be looking at Govn'ts income in its totality, not just income tax.

Think, if someone 150 years ago suggested giving money to every child born in the country, a whole lot would say you were mad. That it would lead to very large families, indolence, laziness etc.
In the future, it may be seen as a no-brainer, to ensure every adult citizen had enough regular income to partake fully in society.

If 150 years ago you suggested an absolute **** tonne of stuff, a lot would say you were mad. That doesn't mean everything suggested today is worth doing.

So 203 euro per week is enough for every adult citizen to partake fully in society?

Water John

Water John wrote: »

Do we cut unemployment benefit when more people access it? Economies go in cycles and part of Govnt's job is to iron out the fluctuations. That means lower borrowings in good times and increase the deficit in the downturn.

I don't know the overall cost of the present crisis but I haven't heard many being very worried about it.

Ok, respectfully, it's clear that you don't know enough to address my questions. So I'm going to leave it there.

OMM 0000

Deleted User wrote: »

What happens in the event of a recession and tax income drops significantly?

Do we keep borrowing (at high rates) for UBI until tax income returns to sustainable levels?

How does this model avoid the massive debts built up by Keynesian model based economies in the 60s/70s? (Don't answer this last part if you don't know what it means. Thanks.)

Ah come on now, you're not allowed think things through, just accept communism and you can act surprised when it all ends in failure.

OMM 0000

OMM 0000 wrote: »

Ah come on now, you're not allowed think things through, just accept communism and you can act surprised when it all ends in failure.

I think the positives of UBI are worth considering.

But I don't understand how it doesn't lead to massive taxes and debt crises. Every explanation I've encountered so far is idealistic and fantastical. Like, I'm sure it works in a world where everything is perfect, but what happens in the event of prolonged global recession?

Also, I'm tired of some people acting like there is a widespread consensus among "experts", in academia or whatever. As far as I can tell, the research is far from conclusive, and UBI has as many objectors as it has proponents.

Ludwig Wittgenstein

[Deleted User] wrote: »

But it remains a fact that in a recession, a state's income drops significantly as public spending increases as more people access social welfare. This is simply a fact.

So, I repeat my question, in the face of significantly dropping income during a recession, and UBI remaining constant (no cuts allowed to this I presume). How does this work? How does this not lead to massive deficits, with access to bond markets limited or cut off, how does this not lead to a bailout situation with the IMF?

These questions are perfectly reasonable criticisms of the proposed model and instead I get a story about people in the past.

That says it all, really.

You do realise that procyclical fiscal policy, similar to what you described, led to the IMF being called in during the last recession? That’s hardly much of an argument against UBI.

Ludwig Wittgenstein

Ludwig Wittgenstein wrote: »

You do realise that procyclical fiscal policy, similar to what you described, led to the IMF being called in during the last recession? That’s hardly much of an argument against UBI.

Yes, it is. Because with traditional social welfare you can at least cut back payments, as unpalatable as that may be. If I'm following UBI correctly it would appear that this number should not be altered regardless of the state of the economy, right? So with the state unable to adjust down the UBI payment, this would further exacerbate the deficit problem.

It's almost as if the proponents of UBI want to discuss it in isolation of the behaviour of other aspects of the economy.

I wonder why that is.

Ludwig Wittgenstein

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Yes, it is. Because with traditional social welfare you can at least cut back payments, as unpalatable as that may be. If I'm following UBI correctly it would appear that this number should not be altered regardless of the state of the economy, right? So with the state unable to adjust down the UBI payment, this would further exacerbate the deficit problem.

It's almost as if the proponents of UBI want to discuss it in isolation of the behaviour of other aspects of the economy.

I wonder why that is.

You are assuming procyclical fiscal policy is the answer to a recession. It isn’t necessarily so.

Ludwig Wittgenstein

Ludwig Wittgenstein wrote: »

You are assuming procyclical fiscal policy is the answer to a recession. It isn’t necessarily so.

I said nothing of the sort, nor do I believe that. It's baffling how you even came up with that. Is this how our conversation is going to play out going forward? Because I'm not interested, it sounds like a load of frustration for nothing.

Ludwig Wittgenstein

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I said nothing of the sort, nor do I believe that. It's baffling how you even came up with that. Is this how our conversation is going to play out going forward? Because I'm not interested, it sounds like a load of frustration for nothing.

You suggested cutting back payments during a recession as if it was the only sensible thing to do. If that’s not advocating procyclical fiscal policy, then I don’t know what is.

UBI is a universal, periodic, unconditional cash payment. A full basic income should cover an individual’s basic needs. It is silent on all other matters. If the cost of living falls it can fall too. If it rises it can rise. If it doesn’t cover one’s basic needs it’s a partial basic income. So there’s your answer, it can be changed.

Ludwig Wittgenstein

Ludwig Wittgenstein wrote: »

You suggested cutting back payments during a recession as if it was the only sensible thing to do. If that’s not advocating procyclical fiscal policy, then I don’t know what is.

I stopped reading here. End of discussion.

If anyone fancies a rational discussion, I'll be right here. My questions and criticisms above remain open.

Ludwig Wittgenstein

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I stopped reading here. End of discussion.

It’s almost like you weren’t asking questions in good faith :rolleyes:

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I think the positives of UBI are worth considering.

But I don't understand how it doesn't lead to massive taxes and debt crises. Every explanation I've encountered so far is idealistic and fantastical. Like, I'm sure it works in a world where everything is perfect, but what happens in the event of prolonged global recession?

Also, I'm tired of some people acting like there is a widespread consensus among "experts", in academia or whatever. As far as I can tell, the research is far from conclusive, and UBI has as many objectors as it has proponents.

This is a neat summary of my current position. If you have further questions about what I believe instead of bird brained accusations, all you have to do is ask me. I'll tell you the truth.

Water John

The last person who cut payments as a solution to a downturn was Ernest Blyth when he cut the OAP. Don't think any politician thought it a good idea since.
€203 is not a living wage, it is enough to survive on. The diff between relative and absolute poverty.

Water John

Water John wrote: »

The last person who cut payments as a solution to a downturn was Ernest Blyth when he cut the OAP. Don't think any politician thought it a good idea since.
€203 is not a living wage, it is enough to survive on. The diff between relative and absolute poverty.

I'm pretty sure job seekers allowance decreased during the recession. It was €220 before the crash and €188 after. The Xmas bonus was dropped for some time also. And I think job seekers for younger adults was dropped even further than 188.

Ireland made heavy cuts when the Troika were called in. You don't remember this?

kippy

Water John wrote: »

The last person who cut payments as a solution to a downturn was Ernest Blyth when he cut the OAP. Don't think any politician thought it a good idea since.
€203 is not a living wage, it is enough to survive on. The diff between relative and absolute poverty.

So what figure should UBI be set at?

pgj2015

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm pretty sure job seekers allowance decreased during the recession. It was €220 before the crash and €188 after. The Xmas bonus was dropped for some time also. And I think job seekers for younger adults was dropped even further than 188.

Ireland made heavy cuts when the Troika were called in. You don't remember this?

I think it went as far as 204 euro per week around 2008.

Geuze

Deleted User wrote: »

I think the positives of UBI are worth considering.

But I don't understand how it doesn't lead to massive taxes and debt crises. Every explanation I've encountered so far is idealistic and fantastical. Like, I'm sure it works in a world where everything is perfect, but what happens in the event of prolonged global recession?

Also, I'm tired of some people acting like there is a widespread consensus among "experts", in academia or whatever. As far as I can tell, the research is far from conclusive, and UBI has as many objectors as it has proponents.

As a large scale UBI has never been tried, we are all unsure about its impacts.

It does require higher taxes, yes.

45% single income tax on all income, all tax credits abolished.

Geuze

Water John wrote: »

The last person who cut payments as a solution to a downturn was Ernest Blyth when he cut the OAP. Don't think any politician thought it a good idea since.
€203 is not a living wage, it is enough to survive on. The diff between relative and absolute poverty.

All welfare payments (excl the State Pensions) were cut twice during the Great Recession 2009-2012.

Geuze

Geuze wrote: »

As a large scale UBI has never been tried, we are all unsure about its impacts.

It does require higher taxes, yes.

45% single income tax on all income, all tax credits abolished.

Yeah, that's just it. It could go anywhere, if implemented. You'd probably need around 15-20 years of data to assess its effects. A full economic cycle.

OMM 0000

What interests me most is the mentality of the people who want UBI.

What I'm about to say is not having a go at anyone here.

I believe in real personal responsibility. As a result of this I've spent a lot of my adult life doing part-time graduate degrees and getting various professional certifications. I've also done things like toastmasters to improve my public speaking, I work out and eat well and dress well to maximise my appearance, I develop relationships with powerful people so I have a network of potential investors, etc., and in general I take control of my life and make sure I'm always in a position to be doing at least "ok".

And this is all with a continuous level of mild depression.

I do these things because I want to have as much control over my life as possible. I can't control everything, but I can shift the odds in my favour.

I keep hearing talk of "but truck drivers are going to lose their jobs so we need UBI". This goes against everything I believe. These truck drivers could have spent the past 20 years learning skills, but they chose not to. I'm not attacking them for this, but it was a choice. They will become unemployable because they had no interest in expanding their skillset. I'm not talking about learning to code (most people can't program), but there are so many other possible jobs, such as accounts, sales, credit control, warehousing, installations, hospitality, and so on.

It seems we need UBI because there are so many people who are basically babies, they aren't able to take care of themselves, so they want the government to step in.

But why should I have to pay for this?

Yes I understand we live in a society but surely a better start would be to give people life skills, teach them personal responsibility, encourage life learning, and in general create an environment where people feel they need to upskill and improve instead of waiting for a handout.

Geuze

OMM 0000 wrote: »

I keep hearing talk of "but truck drivers are going to lose their jobs so we need UBI". This goes against everything I believe. These truck drivers could have spent the past 20 years learning skills, but they chose not to. I'm not attacking them for this, but it was a choice. They will become unemployable because they had no interest in expanding their skillset. I'm not talking about learning to code (most people can't program), but there are so many other possible jobs, such as accounts, sales, credit control, warehousing, installations, hospitality, and so on.

I tend to ignore these statements like "automation / robots will wipe out many jobs".

Complete rubbish.

Think about it, take the year 2019:

• there has never been as much automation in history
• yet employment was high
• unemployment was low
• and there are labour shortages in some areas

The same fears were probably around as horse power was on the way out.

Life / society / economy is always changing, some jobs will decline, yes, and others will grow.

Anyways, if automation means workers can avoid mundane tasks, and switch to more interesting work, great.

Also, if more automation boosts productivity, great, as real wages will rise.

It's easy copy / headlines for the media: "automation/robots will wipe out jobs", when in reality, if you ask employers, they are crying out for skilled workers.

OMM 0000

Geuze wrote: »

I tend to ignore these statements like "automation / robots will wipe out many jobs".

Complete rubbish.

Think about it, take the year 2019:

• there has never been as much automation in history
• yet employment was high
• unemployment was low
• and there are labour shortages in some areas

The same fears were probably around as horse power was on the way out.

Life / society / economy is always changing, some jobs will decline, yes, and others will grow.

Anyways, if automation means workers can avoid mundane tasks, and switch to more interesting work, great.

Also, if more automation boosts productivity, great, as real wages will rise.

It's easy copy / headlines for the media: "automation/robots will wipe out jobs", when in reality, if you ask employers, they are crying out for skilled workers.

Also, we are decades away from trucks being able to drive on normal roads. Notice all their testing is on really nice, specially selected highways.

How's a truck going to make it to Joe's Centra in back of the arse Donegal?

Ludwig Wittgenstein

OMM 0000 wrote: »

What interests me most is the mentality of the people who want UBI.

What is that mentality? Most people who want UBI emphasise the security it gives to individuals. Instead of the safety net underneath us being full of holes people can fall through, UBI would act as a solid floor which is always available.

OMM 0000 wrote: »

I believe in real personal responsibility. As a result of this I've spent a lot of my adult life doing part-time graduate degrees and getting various professional certifications. I've also done things like toastmasters to improve my public speaking, I work out and eat well and dress well to maximise my appearance, I develop relationships with powerful people so I have a network of potential investors, etc., and in general I take control of my life and make sure I'm always in a position to be doing at least "ok".

You cannot universalise your own experience as if it will simply apply to everyone else. Not everyone is as intelligent or talented as you; we do not all have the same starting point in life. Some people will only ever have the ability to carry out menial, low-paying jobs which are inherently precarious. They may have had an upbringing which disadvantaged them from attaining a leaving cert good enough to attend a third-level institution, or academia might just naturally not suit them. Either way, they're at a huge disadvantage already, arguably through no fault of their own. "Personal responsibility" is not isolated from the rest of an individual's life.

Add on top of this the fact that bad things befall people due to nothing related to "personal responsibility". The current welfare arrangements mean that if you were, God forbid, stricken by MS, you would spend 6-12 months waiting for approval (or possibly a rejection) for a disability payment which can always be revoked. Under UBI, you'd simply have to make the personal decision yourself that you can't work for the time being, and live off your UBI payment which should cover your basic needs. Whether you need to apply for a separate enhanced disability payment under UBI is another matter, but the UBI itself would always be there to catch you should you fall.

OMM 0000 wrote: »

I do these things because I want to have as much control over my life as possible. I can't control everything, but I can shift the odds in my favour.

UBI would give many people a far greater degree of control over their life than the current system. We could take your aforementioned part-time graduate degrees as an example. One's ability to undertake such a degree is massively compromised by the current system; it is expensive in terms of both time and money.

UBI gives people who would otherwise not be able to afford a part-time degree a chance to maintain an income whilst dedicating themselves to their studies. It could also benefit people who are trying to raise a family alongside their studies; work, study, and care are likely too much for anyone. If you can take the necessity to work out of the equation, then study and care could take priority. In this way, UBI can encourage an individual to self-improve. This is especially important for women who (still) carry out the majority of childcare.

OMM 0000 wrote: »

I keep hearing talk of "but truck drivers are going to lose their jobs so we need UBI". This goes against everything I believe. These truck drivers could have spent the past 20 years learning skills, but they chose not to. I'm not attacking them for this, but it was a choice. They will become unemployable because they had no interest in expanding their skillset. I'm not talking about learning to code (most people can't program), but there are so many other possible jobs, such as accounts, sales, credit control, warehousing, installations, hospitality, and so on.

So what would you expect truck drivers to be doing? Undertaking several degrees over the space of twenty years due to the fact that an up-to-recently unimaginable change in technology means they will no longer be employable? Even the jobs you mentioned are at high risk of automation. Accounts and warehousing most notably.

Once again, you fail to grasp one of the major benefits of UBI, the ability to attain education whilst maintaining an income. Under UBI, an ex-truck driver could return to education and actually become employable again. The current system is ill-suited to actually allowing them to attain such an education, especially if you consider the amount of hours a truck-driver spends on the road, along with the transient nature of their work life.

OMM 0000 wrote: »

Yes I understand we live in a society but surely a better start would be to give people life skills, teach them personal responsibility, encourage life learning, and in general create an environment where people feel they need to upskill and improve instead of waiting for a handout.

UBI is a great way of allowing people to achieve all these things. The current system traps a vast amount of the population in precarity, making it impossible for them to learn life skills, upskill or to better themselves. With a floor to stand on swathes of people would be much better placed to actually do so.

OMM 0000

Ludwig Wittgenstein wrote: »

UBI would give many people a far greater degree of control over their life than the current system.

We know this isn't true though.

We already effectively have UBI in Ireland for anyone who wants it (around 1k per month) and it just seems to make people depressed.

Ludwig Wittgenstein

OMM 0000 wrote: »

We know this isn't true though.

We already effectively have UBI in Ireland for anyone who wants it (around 1k per month) and it just seems to make people depressed.

We do not effectively have a UBI. If you think that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what UBI is.

OMM 0000

Ludwig Wittgenstein wrote: »

So what would you expect truck drivers to be doing? Undertaking several degrees over the space of twenty years due to the fact that an up-to-recently unimaginable change in technology means they will no longer be employable? Even the jobs you mentioned are at high risk of automation. Accounts and warehousing most notably.

Once again, you fail to grasp one of the major benefits of UBI, the ability to attain education whilst maintaining an income.

I worked in automation for many years and was the CTO of an AI company so I can tell you we're miles away from any sort of mass layoffs.

Kind of amazing you're saying I fail to grasp UBI when you immediately prove you're the one who doesn't get it as we already know people who are given free money don't use the time well.

OMM 0000

Ludwig Wittgenstein wrote: »

We do not effectively have a UBI. If you think that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what UBI is.

No, it's pretty clear you have little understanding of economics or reality.

Luckily for us your dream will never come true as it's impossible.

Ludwig Wittgenstein

OMM 0000 wrote: »

I worked in automation for many years and was the CTO of an AI company so I can tell you we're miles away from any sort of mass layoffs.

Kind of amazing you're saying I fail to grasp UBI when you immediately prove you're the one who doesn't get it as we already know people who are given free money don't use the time well.

You literally do not know what UBI is if you think we have UBI in this country. People given “free money” in this country don’t have the opportunity to use time well, because guess what? It’s not a UBI!

OMM 0000

Ludwig Wittgenstein wrote: »

You literally do not know what UBI is if you think we have UBI in this country.

Why do people do this?

I don't think we've implemented UBI in Ireland.

We have a generous social welfare system which enables people to study whatever they want. Guess what? It doesn't work. It just makes people depressed.

This is my last attempt to talk to you as you're not able to have normal conversations with people.

Ludwig Wittgenstein

OMM 0000 wrote: »

Why do people do this?

I don't think we've implemented UBI in Ireland.

We have a generous social welfare system which enables people to study whatever they want. Guess what? It doesn't work. It just makes people depressed.

This is my last attempt to talk to you as you're not able to have normal conversations with people.

You claimed we “effectively” have a UBI in Ireland. That is a false claim. Take one look at back to education allowance and you’ll see that people don’t have the ability to study whatever they want, when they want; they oftentimes have to wait 5 years to even be eligible. They have to be moving up in QQI levels. Take one look at Jobseeker’s Allowance and you’ll see that you can’t attend education and maintain your payment. We in no way, shape or form have a UBI. The only “effective” UBI is UBI itself. Let me once again reiterate, it is an periodic, unconditional, cash payment made available to all citizens of a country

I’m having a perfectly normal conversation. I’m telling you don’t know what UBI is, because it certainly seems like you don’t. Unless you can elucidate how we “effectively” have a UBI in line with the simple definition I gave above?

OMM 0000

Ludwig Wittgenstein wrote: »

Take one look at Jobseeker’s Allowance and you’ll see that you can’t attend education and maintain your payment.

This simply isn't true.

You keep changing facts to suit your narrative.

This is almost likely an ideological matter for you. Please stop being so extreme.

Here's some reading you can do to update your knowledge

https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/social_welfare/social_welfare_payments/unemployed_people/younger_jobseekers.html#

OMM 0000

Ah I just looked at your post history Ludwig Wittgenstein and it's entirely about giving people free stuff. This really is my last interaction with you.

OMM 0000

OMM 0000 wrote: »

This simply isn't true.

You keep changing facts to suit your narrative.

This is almost likely an ideological matter for you. Please stop being so extreme.

Here's some reading you can do to update your knowledge

https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/social_welfare/social_welfare_payments/unemployed_people/younger_jobseekers.html#

...

Students
Third-level students cannot claim Jobseeker's Allowance or Benefit while they are studying full-time. This disqualification also applies to the summer holiday periods between academic years (unless you are a mature student or are getting a Back to Education Allowance). However, once you have finished college permanently you can claim a jobseeker's payment if you cannot find work. This is also the case if you leave college without finishing your course. You may be able to claim a jobseeker’s payment while you are working on a project or research thesis if you are available for work during this time.

Student credits may help you to qualify for Jobseeker's Benefit. They are awarded where you were a full-time student during the relevant tax year and had paid contributions before going to college or during the period spent at college. You must have paid contributions at Class A, have started full-time education before 23 years of age and have re-entered insurable employment after the course has ceased. Student credits can only be awarded only once.

Ludwig Wittgenstein

OMM 0000 wrote: »

This simply isn't true.

You keep changing facts to suit your narrative.

This is almost likely an ideological matter for you. Please stop being so extreme.

Here's some reading you can do to update your knowledge

https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/social_welfare/social_welfare_payments/unemployed_people/younger_jobseekers.html#

Could you please point out how this entails an “effective UBI”, in line with the definition I outlined above? All I see is conditionality after conditionality, with each payment falling far short of universality. Those are the facts.

The DayDream

OMM 0000 wrote: »

We know this isn't true though.

We already effectively have UBI in Ireland for anyone who wants it (around 1k per month) and it just seems to make people depressed.

It's not 1k a month. It's 820ish (205 or 210 a week i forget which). And the reason it makes people depressed is because that isnt anywhere near enough to live on in Ireland. Even if you're on rent allowance (which isn't handed out easily either) most places are above the threshold so a claimant has to pay the shortfall from their 205 a week payment.

That payment will leave you unable to afford any type of education or to run a car, or to save for relocation to somewhere with more jobs. That lack of hope, constant stress over being able to afford the basic necessities, and being looked down on constantly are what cause depression, not the 'free money' as you call it.

What makes me depressed is paying more taxes.