Good. What else are they going to spend money on?
It's not too expensive to house or feed people, but the greed angle applies to all people. Nobody is content with 'just' food and housing and governments inevitably pay for a lot more than just that. It's a balancing act and its going to swing far in the wrong direction for a lot of countries over the next few months.
True and fair. I think most economic and political systems are pretty broken so fitting things like this into them isn't something that interests me much, I fall back to 'feck the system' pretty fast when it gets in the way tbh.
Of course.
Of course. The vast majority of Western societies have socialised healthcare so it's no surprise 3 of the top 5 are socialised. In fact I would say it's somewhat extraordinary that 2 of the top 5 aren't socialised given the numbers (I also believe one or two of the three non-private are hybrid systems, rather than fully socialised).
As has been stated above healthcare isn't the only metric for life expectancy. I wonder for example how many years gun deaths take of the US figures, let alone life choices (obesity for example).
The UK has private healthcare, but it's very restricted due to the NHS. If I need emergency surgery I'll be taken to a (much poorer) NHS hospital irrespective of my private health cover.
I'm saying that allowing people to have better healthcare, whilst not harming the current base level is only a positive. Is it better to have a society full of poor people, or a society with some poor people but where the majority are not poor? As I stated previously I'm not advocating for a perfect system as this doesn't and won't ever exist, I'm merely arguing for a better one.
I didn't mean to use life expectancy as a single metric, as intimated in this post. Apologies if it came across this way.
Some people can't at the moment, as I say I'm looking for a better system not a perfect one and I believe a UBI system would reduce (not eradicate) the inability to afford food.
The disabled would receive additional support (that's why I guessed at 80% of the welfare budget, rather than 100%).
The other option is to split the amount per family. The £500b budget I stated divided by the 19.2 million UK families would mean £26k per family if that's a better way of doing it? I wouldn't want to incentivise procreation though given the current climate crises which is largely due to over-population of the planet.
If not solve the crises it would certainly be an improvement on the current system. Also looking at people who're currently not homelessness, but through something outside of their control such as losing their jobs because of COVID-19; surely you'd cede that UBI would provide a safety net for them (even if they did have to temporarily move a few dozen miles North).
I disagree, the people at the bottom would benefit the most as they'd actually have some level of financial freedom for the first time. Rather than be stuck in a dead-end cycle of barely surviving on food banks in London, they'd have the opportunity and liquidity on the aforementioned £26k per annum to move to a less expensive area, choose their own house rather than have it chosen for them and ultimately live a much more prosperous and comfortable life. The area's that they migrated to would also see the benefit of more people with more money to spend.
As you say the system is complicated but often that means the most vulnerable don't end up receiving the kind of payments you suggest. Many people (including the homeless) often end up receiving nothing, very little or a hugely delayed payment that takes them to the brink simply because of the bureaucratic processes involved in claiming benefits. Amending the system to £26k per family as stated previously would also provide a greater net. It's also worth noting that the UBI of the father would be taken into account when calculating his child support (so these payments to the mother would increase also).
Good man.I tried green tea but couldn't keep it up. I tried a few fruit teas and you can feel the acid dissolving your tooth enamel at speed. I tried decaff tea, it's tasteless and doing without proper tea didn't help me sleep any better, so back to PG tips it was. One pint, every hour.
How would giving the poorest people less money let them afford more?
Right. So a two children family would double their money if they separated and took a child each? Incentivising family separations is about as bad an idea as it gets.
People need a security net, I totally agree. What you're proposing is a reduction in the existing safety net though (and its not amazing now). This isn't a matter of opinion, the calculations are simple.
As mentioned above, that £26K figure is wrong and most homeless people are single anyway so the comparison is also meaningless.
I’m still ambivalent towards UBI as a concept, but the results are a good counter to the myth that “free stuff” will make people lazy and disincentivise work
This. If someone gives me 500 bucks a month for nothing, I will also feel more content with things. Not exactly a shocker.
Never believed that to be the case anyway.
It was just slightly less stressful form of unemployment benefit and wasn't a UBI.
In Canada, too, it gets mentioned more and more. Except if it really goes wrong somewhere else or the Conservatives become dominant (they generally oppose it over here), we're likely to get some variant of it introduced or get a big-scale test over here.
My understanding is that no new money would be printed, that it is a redistribution of existing money.
How does that work? By who and whose wealth is it drawn from? Plus I assumed that everyone got it irrespective of existing wealth or earnings?
The government would pay out the UBI and yes, it would need to get its money from somewhere. There wouldn't necessarily be a lot of new money in it though; it depends on how it's done.
Thanks for taking the time for a comprehensive reply - useful insight mate, appreciate it.The government would pay out the UBI and yes, it would need to get its money from somewhere. There wouldn't necessarily be a lot of new money in it though; it depends on how it's done.
The idea of UBI is to ensure that everyone can have at least a certain level of income. Most governments have stats indicating what an annual living wage would be in different areas of the country for different household types, so that would be a reasonable figure.
Your question, then, is about distribution. One way would be to give everyone a lump sum, which simply goes on top of your income (whatever it is, if any), and is fully taxable. That's easy to administer and means there is never a delay in receiving the UBI (e.g., if you're suddenly unemployed, you don't have to first apply and wait a while before the UBI starts coming in). However, it's a little weird, since no income is taxed at 100%, so even the rich would retain some of it. It could instead be earmarked as UBI by the state and clawed back after the year depending on your total income, but that could be hard on people that have spent it already (you can't expect everyone to plan their finances that way). Therefore, the more likely way of paying out, would be to top up existing income (if any) until the threshold.
Neither variant would particularly affect inflation though. In case of the latter approach, the government would not actually be spending all that much extra. First, UBI would come in place of existing benefits programs, so that part is simply a different name for the same money. Second, while UBI payments would most likely far exceed exisiting benefits payments, the idea is that a large part of the extra cost would be recouped through less administration (many countries have a complex network of benefits programs that could entirely be removed), lower health care costs (since poverty correlates strongly with health issues), and increased economic growth (UBI would provide the financial security that would allow people to get additional training, start a company, etc.; it's been shown that entrepreneurship is higher in countries with stronger social security nets). Whatever additional cost of UBI has not yet been covered by this point won't be sufficiently significant to affect inflation.
In the former payment scenario (everyone gets a lump sum), there would be a huge additional cost to the state in year 1, but in year 2, this would immediately drop back to similar levels as in the second scenario, as then the state would start recouping excess payments through income tax.
Along the way in all this, I'vee also touched on what I think are the supposed benefits of UBI, so I hope this helps. I'm sure some people will also jump in to add further details - and correct me.
Uhm, isn't that what @Heardy and I were talking about just above?
Ok, i did not read that. I just watched the SK video.
Ha, good timing then!
Its a valid concern imo. I really think people being bored and miserable about having nowhere to go every day will be a far more significant problem than freeloaders. Not that i think doomed or bullshit jobs are a particularly good solution to the problem.
I understood it different to this I think. I thought it was an amount given to everyone to cover the living wage, people would then have the choice of whether they want to work to top up that income for luxuries via working.The government would pay out the UBI and yes, it would need to get its money from somewhere. There wouldn't necessarily be a lot of new money in it though; it depends on how it's done.
The idea of UBI is to ensure that everyone can have at least a certain level of income. Most governments have stats indicating what an annual living wage would be in different areas of the country for different household types, so that would be a reasonable figure.
Your question, then, is about distribution. One way would be to give everyone a lump sum, which simply goes on top of your income (whatever it is, if any), and is fully taxable. That's easy to administer and means there is never a delay in receiving the UBI (e.g., if you're suddenly unemployed, you don't have to first apply and wait a while before the UBI starts coming in). However, it's a little weird, since no income is taxed at 100%, so even the rich would retain some of it. It could instead be earmarked as UBI by the state and clawed back after the year depending on your total income, but that could be hard on people that have spent it already (you can't expect everyone to plan their finances that way). Therefore, the more likely way of paying out, would be to top up existing income (if any) until the threshold.
Neither variant would particularly affect inflation though. In case of the latter approach, the government would not actually be spending all that much extra. First, UBI would come in place of existing benefits programs, so that part is simply a different name for the same money. Second, while UBI payments would most likely far exceed exisiting benefits payments, the idea is that a large part of the extra cost would be recouped through less administration (many countries have a complex network of benefits programs that could entirely be removed), lower health care costs (since poverty correlates strongly with health issues), and increased economic growth (UBI would provide the financial security that would allow people to get additional training, start a company, etc.; it's been shown that entrepreneurship is higher in countries with stronger social security nets). Whatever additional cost of UBI has not yet been covered by this point won't be sufficiently significant to affect inflation.
In the former payment scenario (everyone gets a lump sum), there would be a huge additional cost to the state in year 1, but in year 2, this would immediately drop back to similar levels as in the second scenario, as then the state would start recouping excess payments through income tax.
Along the way in all this, I'vee also touched on what I think are the supposed benefits of UBI, so I hope this helps. I'm sure some people will also jump in to add further details - and correct me.
Not sure what the difference is? Also, how would UBI affect most people negatively?
The amount in my example isn't taxable, its a set amount of money given to everyone regardless of income, so isn't impacted by what you earn.
Ah ok. I was just going through possible scenarios because of the inflation question. I agree that UBI will more likely be used like a benefit, to top up any income until a threshold. Having to pay back UBI would be a horrible idea that would definitely go wrong for individuals. But you know, governments tend to do new things half-assed, so whoever actually implements it might mess things up in all kinds of ways...
Sounds amazing who would have thought that a select group of people getting some free money each month would actually benefit them? Incredible. The real experiment would be to give it to everyone and see how fast it takes for everything to reach hyper inflation and everyone to be back to square one.. earning what the free market says they are worth.
Even then you don't get back to square one because proportionally incomes have increased by significantly different margins. For some UBI will be irrelevant, for others it my be a bump of 100% or more on what they earn. It reduces the gaps.
