£1600 per month basic income

[nwgs]

Universal basic income: What it is and why people will be given free money for doing nothing

Universal basic income is being trialled for the first time in England. A group of people will be given a monthly payment that isn't means tested or tied to work, with researchers exploring what difference it makes to their lives.

news.sky.com

I know people who work very hard and don’t earn that.

It can’t be a serious idea ?

 

[denso13]

It's a very small research study, only 30 people. And only minimum wage.

 

[Mister Banks]

What, everyone gets it? Employed, self employed, low earners, high earners? The article states it’s not means tested. Who pays for it, the tax payer, so why not just lower income tax.

 

[denso13]

so why not just lower income tax.

They might. But it is only a bit of private research that'll never happen.

 

[Justin Passing]

That would be £24k before tax.
So if you fill a few shelves for 12kpa on top -

better off than say , a nurse.
It's double a pension.

Slob's charter.

 

[denso13]

better off than say , a nurse.

Not if the nurse gets it too.

 

[charliegolf]

Slob's charter.

I'm not sold on the idea, but 'slob's charter' is too quick a dismissal. Clearly it will never work if you're going to give it to say, benefit recipients, who then also get another 10 grand a year (made that up) for other reasons. But people's immediate response is "I have to pay for scroungers". Look first at the other end: A billionaire gets it too. Most will go in tax, so in his case, it's half (less?) the cost. Look at young working couples who want to start a family- it may allow one to give up work for a while (maybe longer than they would); or pay child care when they return to work. Remember when minimum wage was going to cripple the economy? Still waiting.

 

[charliegolf]

Not if the nurse gets it too.

Common sense warning lol.

 

[diy_fun_uk]

What, everyone gets it? Employed, self employed, low earners, high earners? The article states it’s not means tested. Who pays for it, the tax payer, so why not just lower income tax.

Unless I'm mis-reading, the article doesn't appear clear on this. It states:

Everyone gets it, regardless of how much they earn.

However the article refers frequently to the benefits system, so maybe the intention would be not 'everyone' qualifies if something like this was ever rolled out. If anything like this ever comes to fruition, there will be winners and losers as always, and if you're just over the line to qualify, it'll be a bitter pill to swallow knowing someone with a few pounds less than you (just below the line) gets the £1600 but you don't.

I'm not sure if it's related to this trial, however I read something a year or so back about future ways in which humankind will receive money for not working as AI/tech takes on more and more jobs that are currently serviced by humans. In short, there will be no expectation for a certain portion of society to work or seek work, with a societal acceptance they do however need an income to survive.

 

[Bod ...]

Isn't this what they do in Norway or Finland?

 

[Dork Lard]

UBI could be the best thing that has ever happened to society. It has many economists on its side.

The principle is that people will only have to work if they want to work, or if they wish to live in a standard raised above those that don't or can't work.

If your instant thoughts are negative then you need to do a bit more research about it . . . . . !

 

[JP_]

If it takes money from the filthy rich, and puts money in British residents hands that are more likely to spend in the British economy, then can't be a bad thing. Sure I read about a similar trial somewhere years ago and results were positive.

 

[Bod ...]

If it takes money from the filthy rich, and puts money in British residents hands that are more likely to spend in the British economy, then can't be a bad thing. Sure I read about a similar trial somewhere years ago and results were positive.

I don't know how it will work but it's a good idea if it does work.

 

[carmanmemoranda]

I don't know how it will work but it's a good idea if it does work.

That's me too. Understanding the financing of it. Money has to come from somewhere for it.

But if it works it's good.

 

[Justin Passing]

you need to do a bit more research

Nobody said it's the same as whatever scheme you have in your head. Maybe it's a new idea for you but not so for some of us. It's been around since "Utopia". A few centuries.

I have read about a few schemes over several years. This one is very different, because the amount of money is far higher - by a factor of 4 or so, than trial schemes all over the world. You can't use their conclusions to support this one. For example, a UBI of 400 Euros didn't discourage people from working in FInland - but then it's not enough to live on, is it? £1600 a month, each, IS enough.

Even where it's much smaller, one reason the trials stopped is because it's perceived as money for the wrong people. At £1600 a month, it's a slob's charter.
It ( if like some other schemes) replaces child benefit, income support, JSA, NI ,other state benefits (UC?), and pensions. So it's clearly not fair, apparently. So it's just "benefit". But not matched to those who need it. Bad.

There is merit in not having anyone so poor they have nothing - which happens now when they fall between different schemes for odd reasons. Like some zero hours contract workers - (a scheme which should go.)
If you leave SOME benefits as additions, the UB model is out of the window too and you have huge discrepancies and errors.

If everyone is appreciably better off, prices rise, because they can. I will charge you more for fitting a boiler/rewire/insulation because you can afford it, can't you? That pushes us back towards where we started.
If I need to employ you, I might decide minimum wage is good enough because you aren't broke. Same effect.

Another idea that gets regurgitated is negative tax. If you're on benefits but earn £100, you'd get extra from the government, to encourage you to work. Sounds great, but of course that would tail off so people would then feel less incentive to work more, and, as above, employers would know all about it.