D
durhamplumber
So,,you want a system of handouts,so people do not need to work??....smell the coffee!!!
B
Bodd
I think this can work... Means those who can't be bothered to work get no more than the rest of us...
Those earning a certain wage will receive less on a slide rule.
Those who choose to invest it back into their pensions should be rewarded to do so.
Those earning a certain wage will receive less on a slide rule.
Those who choose to invest it back into their pensions should be rewarded to do so.
Can you read? Honestly?
We've had this conversation before; your comprehension is incomprehensible.
- Joined
- 1 Apr 2016
- Messages
- 13,606
- Reaction score
- 550
- Country
No it has not.
Trials have been done, not the same thing
End of...... Simples
Since neither you nor JohnD have come up with an example of where UBI has been actually tried, I can take it that it has not.
Another strawman
I am not arguing on the amount.
I am saying you have given me an example of what you claim is universal income, which does not meet the criteria for universal income -as determined by the quote you include in your post.
Criteria as posted by you:
It is supposed to cover the socio-cultural subsistence minimum
If you can show that by some miracle, a dividend whose amount is set by oil revenue prices, IE market forces, can be deemed to match 'socio-economic minimum' -then you have a case.
Until then you don't.
Tried: (verb) past simple and past participle of try
Trials:
(Noun) a test of the performance, qualities, or suitability of someone or something.
(verb) test (something, especially a new product) to assess its suitability or performance.
I suggest you read up what the meaning of try and trials is. In either case you are wrong to say it hasn't been tried.
You can try something out so you can say you tried it. Has UBI been tried, yes it has. Even if you don't accept the Alaska scheme, others have been mentioned.
So if you are saying the Alaska scheme is not UBI because of the amount that is given does not equate to UBI then you conveniently miss the point that the amount given is a political issue not economic as I pointed out.
Keep trying notch. I think I will get you a dictionary for Xmas.
Notch has never suggested that it hasn't been tried, he's just claimed that nobody's ever tried it.
In the same way that he has never claimed he knew it would have to be expensive, he just said it was very expensive.
See the difference?
Notch does.
In the same way that he has never claimed he knew it would have to be expensive, he just said it was very expensive.
See the difference?
Notch does.
- Joined
- 1 Apr 2016
- Messages
- 13,606
- Reaction score
- 550
- Country
I supplied more than one example. The Alaska scheme was simply the longest running. Where does it say UBI cannot be variable from year to year - UBI only asserts the same amount is given to everyone. The amount itself is up for negotiation. The point stands to say UBI has not been tried is nonsense.
D
durhamplumber
Which bit is too difficult for you to understand,in my post?
D
durhamplumber
Universal benefits,never going to work.
D
durhamplumber
Not to worry, nobody died.The bit where you quoted me, and ascribed a completely-unrelated meaning to it
B
Bodd
Sorry
I just thought it funny
I just thought it funny
- Joined
- 7 Jan 2010
- Messages
- 14,140
- Reaction score
- 4,134
- Country
Surely for the scheme to be Universal means everyone & not just 1 state, so unless a whole country has "tried" it, then it doesn't count.
Im not wrong.
You dictionary definition concurs with me.
A trial is an experiment, a random sample are selected, the trials are undertaken for a period of time, results are recorded and at the end of the experiment the information is analysed and a conclusion drawn. An experiment is therefore distinct from 'trying' something, a trial has an end date.
The examples that have been mentioned are:
Finland: an experiment and not an example of UBI operating in practice.
And its not UBI:
The scheme – aimed primarily at seeing whether a guaranteed income might incentivise people to take up paid work by smoothing out gaps in the welfare system – is strictly speaking not a universal basic income (UBI) trial, because the payments are made to a restricted group and are not enough to live on
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/apr/23/finland-to-end-basic-income-trial-after-two-years
Alaska:
The Alaska scheme doesnt meet UBI criteria.
It is supposed to cover the socio-cultural subsistence minimum.
The amount paid out on the Alaskan scheme is determined by the value of the oil revenue, it is not calculated based on the needs of the recipients, it is therefore a simple dividend payout.
Neither schemes can be classed as universal basic income, they dont pay out enough. Therefore they arent useful models on which to estimate costs.
Ive already given research indicating potential impact on taxation and the research suggests UBI would result in much higher tax rates in the UK to fund it. Not surprisingly my post stating 'it would be very expensive' is still correct and true.
Similar threads
- Locked
