REFERENDUM RESULTS AND DISCUSSION THREAD

[Deutsch Wolf]

But that wasn't my point. What do you think the minimum income should be for single/families? if you take welfare payments out of the equation. A minimum income where you don't rely on state support.

You're missing the point, it's a no strings safety net so you can survive if you lose your job, can't find a suitable one, are ill for a few months etc. Stops people who are genuinely trying to do the right thing from being totally penniless, having to jump through ludicrous hoops to pick up a pittance and being left to the whims of no marks in the DWP. It isn't to replace salary. It isn't to provide the option of doing nothing.

 

[Papper]

Those figures are what my employers pays me.

Or are you saying you'd oblige employers to pay everyone 30k a year?

No, they pay the value of the work. It then gets topped up. Tax is paid on the total.

 

[Papper]

You're missing the point, it's a no strings safety net so you can survive if you lose your job, can't find a suitable one, are ill for a few months etc. Stops people who are genuinely trying to do the right thing from being totally penniless, having to jump through ludicrous hoops to pick up a pittance and being left to the whims of no marks in the DWP. It isn't to replace salary. It isn't to provide the option of doing nothing.

Well that's where I differ in opinion but a no strings safety net is not necessarily empowering people when it is designed to basically keep them alive in their job search. I seriously think a minimum income of that level would empower people - they would contribute. Obviously some wouldn't bother but again I'm prepared to stand corrected if my level of £30K is too much.

 

[visage]

Then my examples all stand.

Maybe you could talk us through some scenarios - I dont want to put words in your mouth.

Lets take your hypothetical figure of 30k. Take someone on 20k, someone on 25k, someone on 30k and someone on 35k (paid by their employer in each case), and then imagine they get a 5k rise from their employer per year. Can you show us what they would actually take home on a year by year basis for, say, 5 years?

 

[Trips]

Nobody would work for less than £40-45k full time in your scenario. What's the point? Take a 40 hour week job for £35k, or spend all your time with your family on £30k?

 

[Papper]

Then my examples all stand.

Maybe you could talk us through some scenarios - I dont want to put words in your mouth.

Lets take your hypothetical figure of 30k. Take someone on 20k, someone on 25k, someone on 30k and someone on 35k (paid by their employer in each case), and then imagine they get a 5k rise from their employer per year. Can you show us what they would actually take home on a year by year basis for, say, 5 years?

Year 1 three of them taxed on £35K and the fourth £40K. Second year three taxed on £40K and the fourth on £45K. Realistically they wouldn't all be getting a pay rise unless the value of their job is over £30K or more. The manager would get a raise but not those who do low skilled work.

 

[Papper]

Nobody would work for less than £40-45k full time in your scenario. What's the point? Take a 40 hour week job for £35k, or spend all your time with your family on £30k?

Again the figures are open to debate. Tell me yours. My intention is to take all people out of poverty and give them a reasonable standard of living.

 

[Deutsch Wolf]

The Utrecht proposal—called “Weten Wat Werkt,” or “Know What Works”—includes six test groups, the members of which will receive slightly different stipends under slightly different conditions. In addition to the group that will receive €960 per month without any work obligations, there is a group that will be given that, plus an additional €150 at the end of the month if they provide volunteer services, such as doing maintenance work on schoolyards.

These are the kind of levels you would be looking at realistically. There is never any way that the Government is going to pay every single adult in the country £25-30k a year.

Current jobseekers in the UK are often actively stymied from searching effectively for employment because of the nonsensical conditions that the DWP impose on their activity (including sending them on worthless courses, making them attend Jobcentres for no real reason multiple times a week, forcing them to spend time and energy on applying for jobs they don't want, can't get to or won't get, etc etc) and also suffer intense stress from the fear of having their benefits unilaterally stopped, as the Government thinks it's a good idea to set targets for Jobcentres in terms of sanctioning people.

Hundreds of thousands of people are forced to take zero hours contracts which by rights should be illegal. No contractual protection whatsoever, no guarantee of work/pay.

People who would like to set up their own self-employed enterprise are discouraged from doing so because there is no safety net.

Anyone receiving any form of state support currently holds their breath with every Budget and Autumn Statement in trepidation at what the idiots in power might do.

Disabled people are forced to go through humiliating assessments at the hands of non-qualified people and are told they aren't sick enough or immobile enough to receive help.

It is these people you are looking to protect with UI, the people who are being forced to use food banks in the world's fifth largest economy and frequently suffering mental health problems due to the actions of a cruel regime.

UI is not a "hey, work, don't work, who cares. You get the equivalent of the average wage whatever happens" solution. That isn't the idea.

 

[Paddingtonwolf]

But you are disincentivising 50 per cent of the work force from turning up.

 

[Trips]

Again the figures are open to debate. Tell me yours. My intention is to take all people out of poverty and give them a reasonable standard of living.

I like the idea of a better, fairer system, but I don't think just giving people cash to spend as they wish is the way forward, especially not £30k which I think would cripple industry and the economy.

I don't know how feasible the plan would be, but my idea would be something along the lines of the following....

Build new social housing to ensure everyone has somewhere to live

Social housing is given to people who cannot afford to rent or buy, rather than paying housing benefits.

People that then rent privately or have a mortgage are given a nominal re-imbursement from the government.

All water, gas and electricity costs are picked up by the government.

Everyone receives a set figure (£35 per week, for example) toward buying food.

By doing this we can remove JSA, housing benefits, pensions etc. The incentive to work is still there because you will know, if I choose not to work, I get £35 per week. People who cannot find work will know they have the basics of a home, water, electricity, warmth and food.

There would still need to be some form of disability allowance for people who are physically unable to work.

Obviously the biggest cost will be building new social housing, and we would need to ensure that this is then not sold off down the line.

 

[Deleted Cyber]

These are the kind of levels you would be looking at realistically. There is never any way that the Government is going to pay every single adult in the country £25-30k a year.

Current jobseekers in the UK are often actively stymied from searching effectively for employment because of the nonsensical conditions that the DWP impose on their activity (including sending them on worthless courses, making them attend Jobcentres for no real reason multiple times a week, forcing them to spend time and energy on applying for jobs they don't want, can't get to or won't get, etc etc) and also suffer intense stress from the fear of having their benefits unilaterally stopped, as the Government thinks it's a good idea to set targets for Jobcentres in terms of sanctioning people.

Hundreds of thousands of people are forced to take zero hours contracts which by rights should be illegal. No contractual protection whatsoever, no guarantee of work/pay.

People who would like to set up their own self-employed enterprise are discouraged from doing so because there is no safety net.

Anyone receiving any form of state support currently holds their breath with every Budget and Autumn Statement in trepidation at what the idiots in power might do.

Disabled people are forced to go through humiliating assessments at the hands of non-qualified people and are told they aren't sick enough or immobile enough to receive help.

It is these people you are looking to protect with UI, the people who are being forced to use food banks in the world's fifth largest economy and frequently suffering mental health problems due to the actions of a cruel regime.

UI is not a "hey, work, don't work, who cares. You get the equivalent of the average wage whatever happens" solution. That isn't the idea.

Exactly. U I solves far moire problems than it creates. Time for change. Time for something completely different. Time to put UK on a unique footing post brexit.

 

[MARKakaJIM]

I like the idea of a better, fairer system, but I don't think just giving people cash to spend as they wish is the way forward, especially not £30k which I think would cripple industry and the economy.

I don't know how feasible the plan would be, but my idea would be something along the lines of the following....

Build new social housing to ensure everyone has somewhere to live

Social housing is given to people who cannot afford to rent or buy, rather than paying housing benefits.

People that then rent privately or have a mortgage are given a nominal re-imbursement from the government.

All water, gas and electricity costs are picked up by the government.

Everyone receives a set figure (£35 per week, for example) toward buying food.

By doing this we can remove JSA, housing benefits, pensions etc. The incentive to work is still there because you will know, if I choose not to work, I get £35 per week. People who cannot find work will know they have the basics of a home, water, electricity, warmth and food.

There would still need to be some form of disability allowance for people who are physically unable to work.

Obviously the biggest cost will be building new social housing, and we would need to ensure that this is then not sold off down the line.

I could get in line with this sort of idea.

I like the concept of UI being applied to everyone, giving everyone an equal footing from the start and letting them make of it what they will rather than handing things out to certain groups to try and balance the playing field somewhat, but as has been mentioned I can see problems with just throwing a load of cash at individuals and letting them sort it out from there. Think providing a range of services/facilities to provide an adequate standard of living across the board could be an good alternative, sort of with how everyone pays into the NHS and everyone can get what they need out of it yet there's still an option to go private if individuals wish for a different option.

I'd scrap your rent/mortgage contribution element though, if the government are providing adequate social housing, both in quantity and quality, then they shouldn't also be subsidising individuals who look to spend their own money for something above and beyond that, that's their choice so they should pay for it themselves. I'd tried to think of a non-cash alternative to the food issue too but you'd just be creating a sort of nationalised chain of soup kitchens or a huge meals on wheels type service so perhaps a cash allowance is the best solution for that problem, though no doubt there would still be some silly enough to priortise something else above food with that money.

There's perhaps scope to add a few other elements onto it too, again things that could improve the lives of those reliant on the government services/facilities yet also be available to everyone else unless they seek an alternate private service. Could something be done to provide free transport? Maybe an oyster card type system along with some nationalised rail/bus services where everyone is given a monthly or annual allowance that will cover x amount of travel, it could be topped up where necessary by those requiring more or people could veto it all together and fund their own means of transport. Similar could perhaps be done with sports/leisure facilities, people given a number of credits to redeem at leisure centres, swimming baths, etc. so those with no additional income still have access to these sorts of things, those in work still have access too yet again have the option to use their money on existing private gym memberships and such if they so choose.

 

[visage]

The problem (which conveniently gets us back on topic) is that the government is so desperate to keep all its stakeholders onside over brexit, is that anything radical becomes impossible.

 

[Deleted Cyber]

I could get in line with this sort of idea.

I like the concept of UI being applied to everyone, giving everyone an equal footing from the start and letting them make of it what they will rather than handing things out to certain groups to try and balance the playing field somewhat, but as has been mentioned I can see problems with just throwing a load of cash at individuals and letting them sort it out from there. Think providing a range of services/facilities to provide an adequate standard of living across the board could be an good alternative, sort of with how everyone pays into the NHS and everyone can get what they need out of it yet there's still an option to go private if individuals wish for a different option.

I'd scrap your rent/mortgage contribution element though, if the government are providing adequate social housing, both in quantity and quality, then they shouldn't also be subsidising individuals who look to spend their own money for something above and beyond that, that's their choice so they should pay for it themselves. I'd tried to think of a non-cash alternative to the food issue too but you'd just be creating a sort of nationalised chain of soup kitchens or a huge meals on wheels type service so perhaps a cash allowance is the best solution for that problem, though no doubt there would still be some silly enough to priortise something else above food with that money.

There's perhaps scope to add a few other elements onto it too, again things that could improve the lives of those reliant on the government services/facilities yet also be available to everyone else unless they seek an alternate private service. Could something be done to provide free transport? Maybe an oyster card type system along with some nationalised rail/bus services where everyone is given a monthly or annual allowance that will cover x amount of travel, it could be topped up where necessary by those requiring more or people could veto it all together and fund their own means of transport. Similar could perhaps be done with sports/leisure facilities, people given a number of credits to redeem at leisure centres, swimming baths, etc. so those with no additional income still have access to these sorts of things, those in work still have access too yet again have the option to use their money on existing private gym memberships and such if they so choose.

On top of that I would suggest if you go to prison you lose your ui while inside. If you get fined its taken direct from your ui. Prisoners. Helping to pay for themselves. Now I like that!

 

[MARKakaJIM]

On top of that I would suggest if you go to prison you lose your ui while inside. If you get fined its taken direct from your ui. Prisoners. Helping to pay for themselves. Now I like that!

My line of thinking was more of a services/facilities provision that replaces the need for UI, so there wouldn't really be any fund to take fines or prison costs from in that situation, people would only receive a small cash handout for food and such with pretty much everything else provided gratis.

 

[Deleted Cyber]

My line of thinking was more of a services/facilities provision that replaces the need for UI, so there wouldn't really be any fund to take fines or prison costs from in that situation, people would only receive a small cash handout for food and such with pretty much everything else provided gratis.

That is very star trek! I would love it if humanity were evolved enough for that but I fear we are someway off. That is noinoit to say I don't like your idea. I think its great. But using my stand, walk, run method ui is stand, yours is run.

 

[Parkins left foot]

My line of thinking was more of a services/facilities provision that replaces the need for UI, so there wouldn't really be any fund to take fines or prison costs from in that situation, people would only receive a small cash handout for food and such with pretty much everything else provided gratis.

One problem with that is that there would be no incentive to conserve resources. If say energy costs were paid for centrally then would people bother to try and reduce their consumption (most have to now if only to keep outgoings within their budget)

Whatever your view on global warming etc. it surely makes sense to minimise the use of finite resources

 

[Deleted Cyber]

https://www.thersa.org/discover/pub...ncome--introducing-the-rsa-basic-income-model

Some work already ongoing. Much less on offer with this model but the principles are very similar.

 

[So Long Architect]

I think that in 20, 30, 40 years' time, automation will have transformed the world of work to the extent that there will be no alternative to something like UBI or some such scheme. Look at the prefab houses on the UKIP thread, or the transformation of car factories (I visited the Skoda plant outside Prague a couple of years back - hardly anyone there but producing cars by the thousand), supermarkets will doubtless be entirely automated in the not-too-distant future. Even in my own little world of translation, machine translation is already changing the landscape - can't really see the profession of translator existing in 30 years time.

The capitalist imperative will force businesses down that road so less and less people will be employed at all, but, in theory, profits should increase as costs go down - which in turn (bear with me on this bit, it's a bit fanciful)... should lead to an increase in tax take (I know, I know...) Would that increased corporate tax take (stop laughing) be enough to fund UBI in some form?

 

[Penk Wolf]

I think that in 20, 30, 40 years' time, automation will have transformed the world of work to the extent that there will be no alternative to something like UBI or some such scheme. Look at the prefab houses on the UKIP thread, or the transformation of car factories (I visited the Skoda plant outside Prague a couple of years back - hardly anyone there but producing cars by the thousand), supermarkets will doubtless be entirely automated in the not-too-distant future. Even in my own little world of translation, machine translation is already changing the landscape - can't really see the profession of translator existing in 30 years time.

The capitalist imperative will force businesses down that road so less and less people will be employed at all, but, in theory, profits should increase as costs go down - which in turn (bear with me on this bit, it's a bit fanciful)... should lead to an increase in tax take (I know, I know...) Would that increased corporate tax take (stop laughing) be enough to fund UBI in some form?

I went to a high street retailer a couple of weeks ago and their warehouse was all automated. I questioned why a guy that makes £200m profit a year would automate his warehouse and put people out of jobs.