Universal Basic Income

[acnumber9]

No it wouldn't. The level of UBI would be so low that it would be almost impossible to live on, just as it is to live on social security now. The difference is we wouldn't be victimising people or paying hundreds of millions of pounds a year to do the means testing.

Of course it would. There’s already rampant bitterness at people getting money for not working. How would quadrupling that not bring resentment?

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Of course it would. There’s already rampant bitterness at people getting money for not working. How would quadrupling that not bring resentment?

The difference would be that tax payers would get paid the exact same amount of money that the unemployed are paid each month. That would surely make them feel less bitter than the current situation?

 

[Bert_]

Of course it would. There’s already rampant bitterness at people getting money for not working. How would quadrupling that not bring resentment?

If everyone gets it regardless then no one is getting anything you're not getting.

 

[The Corinthian]

Not at all. Everyone get UBI. Income tax rates are increased so the employed lose as much in income tax as they gain in UBI. That can be achieved in a number of ways e.g. UBI is exempt but there is no tax free threshold and or increase the marginal tax rates. Simply paying everyone UBI without raising taxes (corporate and/or income and/or VAT) is never going to be affordable and I've never seen it suggested.

Yea, the UBI amount would be generated by a rise in corporation tax - that's the model used elsewhere and the assumption I'm making.

If governments were to generate this via corporation tax and then subsequently raise income tax rates, that'd be a real shit thing to do.

 

[acnumber9]

The difference would be that tax payers would get paid the exact same amount of money that the unemployed are paid each month. That would surely make them feel less bitter than the current situation?

Not by what Wibble is claiming. Yes, employed people would get it, but that it would be taxed so heavily that your take home wouldn’t increase at all.

 

[acnumber9]

If everyone gets it regardless then no one is getting anything you're not getting.

Not if what Wibble says about it is true.

 

[HTG]

I would immediately start to work part time. That's my goal anyway.

 

[Bert_]

Not by what Wibble is claiming. Yes, employed people would get it, but that it would be taxed so heavily that your take home wouldn’t increase at all.

It comes tax free. You pay tax on any additional income you earn on top of it as you do now.

 

[RoadTrip]

It comes tax free. You pay tax on any additional income you earn on top of it as you do now.

I think someone said that for those who earn a certain amount (presumably) your income tax rates are increased and so the gain from £1.6k tax free UBI is offset by the additional tax you pay due to the increase in income tax.

 

[acnumber9]

It comes tax free. You pay tax on any additional income you earn on top of it as you do now.

Yeah, but Wibble said income tax would be raised so high that those currently working would be no better off.

 

[youngrell]

Yeah, but Wibble said income tax would be raised so high that those currently working would be no better off.

Wibble is wrong. How is someone going to pay £1,600 a month in extra tax if they don't even earn £1,600 per month? It doesn't make sense.

You'd have to be earning a fair old whack to be taxed an extra £1,600 per month, so much so that you probably wouldn't care too much about UBI anyway.

 

[stevoc]

Once we develop a machine that scans you and can diagnose to precision what your ailment is and what treatment you require, do you need doctors?

Why do you need humans for construction? Most of it is already done by machines.

In the future I imagine that machines will start doing more and more of the work involved with construction but I think we're a long way off a robot being able to completely replace Plumbers, Carpenters, Bricklayers, Plasterers etc.

I recently seen a brick laying robot that replaces 3 brick layers but needs 3 operators.

 

[Bert_]

Yeah, but Wibble said income tax would be raised so high that those currently working would be no better off.

I don't think that would be the case. Everyone working would be better off. But even if they weren't, so what? No one is losing anything.

 

[Bert_]

I think someone said that for those who earn a certain amount (presumably) your income tax rates are increased and so the gain from £1.6k tax free UBI is offset by the additional tax you pay due to the increase in income tax.

Even if income tax goes up, you still end up with more in your pocket than you do now

 

[Sparky Rhiwabon]

I think it's generated from increasing corporation tax, but not sure.

As an aside - I'm really shocked anyone would be against this.

The only downside is - we''ll see corporations raise their prices to mitigate the tax, and because they know consumers will have an extra £1.6k in their pocket. Just as they've been protecting their margins against rampant inflation and cost of living crisis.

Yes, I guess that would be the idea, but with AI the companies making all the money wouldn’t need to be based in the UK and would likely be based more in places like China and US, so they wouldn’t pay UK taxes.

 

[Sparky Rhiwabon]

Is this really affordable for everyone?
I don't know how much money goes into means testing and all the infrastructure behind it, but surely its not ~47 million people getting £1.6k * 12 = £902bn a year.
I based that on everyone in the UK aged 18 or over getting it (https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/uk-population-by-ethnicity/demographics/age-groups/latest#:~:text=data shows that:-,29.1% of all people in England and Wales (17.3 million,aged 60 years and over) - is that correct?

We spent about 231bn on all benefits so net that off but, yeah, a huge amount extra

 

[Bert_]

In the future I imagine that machines will start doing more and more of the work involved with construction but I think we're a long way off a robot being able to completely replace Plumbers, Carpenters, Bricklayers, Plasterers etc.

I recently seen a brick laying robot that replaces 3 brick layers but needs 3 operators.

To be fair, the last jobs to disappear will be the skilled jobs like Plumbers, Carpenters, Bricklayers, Plasterers. They will outlive Doctors etc. but they will eventually disappear. It all depends on how you define a long way off I suppose. I'm thinking a generation or two max.

 

[Sparky Rhiwabon]

I wouldn’t worry about this too much as it’s very probably not going to happen.

 

[Big Andy]

Once we develop a machine that scans you and can diagnose to precision what your ailment is and what treatment you require, do you need doctors?

Why do you need humans for construction? Most of it is already done by machines.

Is it feck. What about the management of the construction process? Just because the building has been designed by AI doesn't mean you don't need an Architect to implement changes, or a contract administrator, construction managers, quantity surveyors, construction lawyers, quality control, health and safety, labourers, multitude of various tradesmen (plumbers, joiners, electricians, roofers, etc) none of those can realistically be done by a machine. Sure you can maybe get a bricklaying machine or one of those plastering machines, but you still need people to load them, move them about, tell them where to lay bricks or plaster. Then you need to move them about, spend time setting them up, commissioning them, decommissioning them, taking them apart, putting them away.

There's no way any fully automated machine building can be done with any kind of cost benefit. It will be cheaper, easier and much more easy to manage with a fully human workforce. You'd be surprised how many things change from a day to day basis on a construction site, that all needs logging, costing, and arguing about whose fault it is.

 

[The Purley King]

The difference would be that tax payers would get paid the exact same amount of money that the unemployed are paid each month. That would surely make them feel less bitter than the current situation?

I doubt it because as @Wibble has said, that people who work and pay income tax will be taxed an additional £1,600 per month (on average), so for them nothing will change financially. Those who get paid more clearly will be taxed more than £1,600 per month to make up for those who's entire pay cheque would be wiped out by the additional tax.
I think its a much fairer system than what we have at the moment - can see it working if it was introduced.

 

[Big Andy]

We spent about 231bn on all benefits so net that off but, yeah, a huge amount extra

Won't this replace pensions as well though? So however much we spend as a country on state pension would be removed as well? Or have you taken that into account in your £231bn?

 

[acnumber9]

I don't think that would be the case. Everyone working would be better off. But even if they weren't, so what? No one is losing anything.

They aren’t but they’re getting comparatively less for their effort than previously. They would create considerable resentment. At least in the scenario Wibble is proposing.

 

[Bert_]

Is it feck. What about the management of the construction process? Just because the building has been designed by AI doesn't mean you don't need an Architect to implement changes, or a contract administrator, construction managers, quantity surveyors, construction lawyers, quality control, health and safety, labourers, multitude of various tradesmen (plumbers, joiners, electricians, roofers, etc) none of those can realistically be done by a machine. Sure you can maybe get a bricklaying machine or one of those plastering machines, but you still need people to load them, move them about, tell them where to lay bricks or plaster. Then you need to move them about, spend time setting them up, commissioning them, decommissioning them, taking them apart, putting them away.

There's no way any fully automated machine building can be done with any kind of cost benefit. It will be cheaper, easier and much more easy to manage with a fully human workforce. You'd be surprised how many things change from a day to day basis on a construction site, that all needs logging, costing, and arguing about whose fault it is.

Yeah fair point, there is no way you can take humans out of the process currently or in the near future. I was thinking longer term. I mentioned in another post that that the last professions to disappear will be skilled tradesman, but they will inevitably.

 

[Anustart89]

We spent about 231bn on all benefits so net that off but, yeah, a huge amount extra

Is that including the costs of admin related to paying out those benefits or is that just the benefits themselves? Maybe that’s just a drop in the ocean though.

 

[Red in STL]

The way I see how it could work would be as follows, this is a high-level take, the details of course need to be worked out:

Everyone gets an income that covers the basic levels of food and housing + healthcare and utilites, that is enough to live on, every adult gets the same amount and this is the threshold for paying income tax there are no other benefits, government pensions will be phased out

You have a choice to work or not, if you choose not to then that's your choice, your standard of living will be less than those that choose to work

To pay for it the tax rules would need to be changed, taxation will come from the country of use, not the country of origin

 

[Red in STL]

Is that including the costs of admin related to paying out those benefits or is that just the benefits themselves? Maybe that’s just a drop in the ocean though.

Don't forget that over time there'll be no pensions to pay out either, not sure if that's part of the annual benefits cost though

 

[Bert_]

They aren’t but they’re getting comparatively less for their effort than previously. They would create considerable resentment. At least in the scenario Wibble is proposing.

Comparatively maybe. Realistically you are getting more. If comparative income is your driver rather than covering the cost of your lifestyle then UBI or any social policy is probably not for you.

If you got an extra £1,600 per month tax free, but lose a couple hundred quid extra in tax on your salary with the only condition being anyone not working also gets the £1,600. Would you turn your nose up at it?

 

[jeff_goldblum]

The major benefits of UBI would be difficult to measure but very easy to see in practice. I think you'd see a lot more people working 3-4 day weeks, which would mean a lot of people having an extra couple of days free to pursue their hobbies/passions, spend time with friends/kids/other family.

You'd probably see significantly fewer workdays lost to stress or illness, a lot more people eating better and exercising more regularly. More people continuing their education into adulthood and learning new skills alongside a career.

 

[acnumber9]

Comparatively maybe. Realistically you are getting more. If comparative income is you're driver rather than covering the cost of your lifestyle then UBI or any social policy is probably not for you.

If you got an extra £1,600 per month tax free, but lose a couple hundred quid extra in tax on your salary with the only condition being anyone not working also gets the £1,600. Would you turn your nose up at it?

I’m only commenting on the scenario Wibble laid out. Which is that you do not gain a single penny because income tax would be raised so high as to wipe it out entirely for working people. Obviously you wouldn’t turn your nose up at an extra £1000 a month if that was what was actually going to happen.

 

[acnumber9]

but Wibble said this

That’s usually how you debate a point raised by an individual. Ultimately nobody knows how it will be funded so every argument put forward is hypothetical.

 

[The Corinthian]

I’m only commenting on the scenario Wibble laid out. Which is that you do not gain a single penny because income tax would be raised so high as to wipe it out entirely for working people. Obviously you wouldn’t turn your nose up at an extra £1000 a month if that was what was actually going to happen.

But that's not going to happen - Wibble is wrong.

The model used in other countries is that it's a tax free amount that's generated from an increase in corporation tax to fund it.

Whether countries adjust their tax bandings remains to be seen, but that's not mentioned in any of the proposed models I've seen.

 

[The Corinthian]

That’s usually how you debate a point raised by an individual. Ultimately nobody knows how it will be funded so every argument put forward is hypothetical.

I deleted that comment as I pressed send too early (and will subsequently delete this if your reply to me is deleted).

 

[RoadTrip]

Even if income tax goes up, you still end up with more in your pocket than you do now

I know how income tax works!

But I don’t think you understand the point here. If my pay goes up, I pay tax on that - so yes, I keep some and pay the tax man the rest. This is what you’re thinking, but not what the discussion is.

Simple example. I earn £100,000 a year. Tax rate is 50%. I pay £50,000 in tax.

I then get UBI - £1,600 in my pocket. But what if, as a consequence, the government correspondingly change the tax rate to 51.6%? I end up paying all of that back in extra tax. That’s the discussion here.

Now I have no idea if that’s the plan, it probably isn’t. But that’s what the debate was.

 

[acnumber9]

But that's not going to happen - Wibble is wrong.

The model used in other countries is that it's a tax free amount that's generated from an increase in corporation tax to fund it.

Whether countries adjust their tax bandings remains to be seen, but that's not mentioned in any of the proposed models I've seen.

I’m sure he is. But that was the point I was raising. His way is completely unworkable. It will be interesting what happens but I would tend to agree with those that feel the Government don’t want it to work.

 

[The Corinthian]

I’m sure he is. But that was the point I was raising. His way is completely unworkable.

Yep agree.

 

[Sparky Rhiwabon]

Won't this replace pensions as well though? So however much we spend as a country on state pension would be removed as well? Or have you taken that into account in your £231bn?

I think the £231bn includes pensions

 

[Bert_]

I know how income tax works!

But I don’t think you understand the point here. If my pay goes up, I pay tax on that - so yes, I keep some and pay the tax man the rest. This is what you’re thinking, but not what the discussion is.

Simple example. I earn £100,000 a year. Tax rate is 50%. I pay £50,000 in tax.

I then get UBI - £1,600 in my pocket. But what if, as a consequence, the government correspondingly change the tax rate to 51.6%? I end up paying all of that back in extra tax. That’s the discussion here.

Now I have no idea if that’s the plan, it probably isn’t. But that’s what the debate was.

UBI would be included in the tax free allowance so 0% tax. You're income over the threshold would then be taxed progressively up to the theoretical 51.6%. No different to how it works now.

Even if you assume it isn't tax free and current income tax rates apply, then a salary of £100k would see you about £800 per month better off.

 

[Sparky Rhiwabon]

It comes tax free. You pay tax on any additional income you earn on top of it as you do now.

UBI would be included in the tax free allowance so 0% tax. You're income over the threshold would then be taxed progressively up to the theoretical 51.6%. No different to how it works now.

Even if you assume it isn't tax free and current income tax rates apply, then a salary of £100k would see you about £800 per month better off.

What you’ve described in the second quote contradicts your first quote. Your second quote is saying that it is taxable not tax free.

 

[4bars]

I know how income tax works!

But I don’t think you understand the point here. If my pay goes up, I pay tax on that - so yes, I keep some and pay the tax man the rest. This is what you’re thinking, but not what the discussion is.

Simple example. I earn £100,000 a year. Tax rate is 50%. I pay £50,000 in tax.

I then get UBI - £1,600 in my pocket. But what if, as a consequence, the government correspondingly change the tax rate to 51.6%? I end up paying all of that back in extra tax. That’s the discussion here.

Now I have no idea if that’s the plan, it probably isn’t. But that’s what the debate was.

But that is not how income taxes work. it works with brackets. And a person that makes 100,000 might need to pay back the 1,600 (or more) back. But a person that makes 100,000 will not renounce to that salary as he would lose a lot. And losing 1,600 (19,000, 10560 after taxes as it would be the last bracket) would not be the most substantial part of it. This person would continue working

A person that makes 20,000 a year, with a 1,600 would see his income almost doubling if it works. the tax bracket would be 20% losing 4K in the process if it decides to work, so basically keeping still 15,300 vs 17,874 (taxes would apply a bit over 12,570 if you would not work). That would mean that yes, you might have some incentive not to work if you would like to live with just over the cost of living for a while, but definitely you would like to do better over time. So a person with little job security can get by, can consume and sustain the industry and is not left behind.at the same time, they can have some spikes of work when the job market allows them to work

And yes, we can discuss that income taxes might be twitched to accommodate UBI, but it will not be linear and it will be proportional, so the idea would still stand

The idea is that, fortunately, the world is going to a phase that we will need to work less (finally) because technology will allow it. That will mean that there will be less job availability. rich will still be very rich and poor and middle class will still exist but will not have to work as much. UBI would be pure rent redistribution as the same way brackets work currently

UBI seems counterintuitive, for me as well, and if it is implemented, I am sure it will be a big feck up at the beginning but it will be twitched to make it work. It is redistribution and the first steps for a society with more free time based of what we built as society during the centuries but there is so many unknowns that can feck up a country, that is scary

 

[arnie_ni]

But that would potentially create 2 part time jobs for other people who only want to work 2-3 days a week.

So it wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing.

Ah good point. The jobs still need staffed