Good to see someone doing the research anyway. If it ends up wasted on Balenciaga coats we’ll find out soon enough. Without this research we won’t know, will we?
Last edited:
Universal Basic Income
- Thread starter esmufc07
- Start date
I'm hugely sceptical of this having seen the lives of some of the kids that my brother fostered. Many of them come from backgrounds with parents that are drug addicts. They have so many potential negative influences around them. The lad who lived with my brother for the longest period was a really nice kid but now he's a young adult he's been sucked back into that world. I'm not sure how having money for nothing would help that situation, rather it could make it a lot worse.
Many people fall into drug addiction because they see few prospects in life. If this move helps one of the most at risk groups to live a healthy and productive life, then it's probably money well invested.
I think that's why it is important that there is a team in place to guide this income. Obviously people are allowed to spend their own money however they want but you'd hope that they realise how giving a large sum to people for 'free' each month can have negative consequences in some scenarios.
Like all these pilot schemes it will look nice because the participants' purchasing power will rise, because it's not universal. Give it to all people and purchasing power will return to what it is now i.e there will be no difference.
Yeah, we rock
That seems like a lot of money, I only earn a little more than that.
Which is more of an indictment on wages compared to the cost of living per person, than it is on the scheme.
You think giving them the opportunity to learn to live independently is a bad idea? They’re being given a finite amount of money and they’re going to have to learn how to budget it. I’m not sure how that is somehow “worse” than paying similar in benefits, most of which they never see or have to learn to take responsibility for.
I’m sure all the single parents struggling on £400 a month will be ecstatic for them.
You do realise this is research for whether it could be rolled out to wider society, including single parents struggling on £400 a month. It looks like 18 year old (min age) coming out of care (max vulnerable, min support structure) is a way of testing one extreme.
I think that in the medium term first movers on this (governments that is) will benefit the most. The key is what will be the inflationary impact of such a policy. If everyone is given £1,600 per month, what will that mean for the already criminally high energy prices and house prices in the country (and everything else)? I think you’d see things increase more, but ultimately not at the same level as the universal basic income, therefore helping the bottom 20% or whatever the most.
However, you’re point on it not being universal will be the same, when comparing one country with the policy to another without. Therefore, purchasing power globally will be much more pointed for those countries that enact this policy first vs the countries who end up playing catch up because they’ve held off.
I’m not necessarily for it but I can see the benefits it’ll have in decreasing the wealth gap.
It’s a nice concept and I’m sure everyone would love £1600 a month in hand, but I don’t see it working nationwide. I think with inflation, cost of living and struggling NHS, the money could be used elsewhere.
Part of the point is that it also saves a lot of money though. No more need for all the means-tested benefits, and with a better and safer source of income, people also use health care a lot less. For a significant part, a UBC scheme pays for itself.
Plus, inequity is high and rising. Whatever is done about it will be costly. And yes, I would argue that this should absolutely be a top government priority; virtually everything else a government could do that affects household finances is a bandaid in comparison.
So why did Tory government cut JSA to UC if they want the inequality to be lessened, cutting hundreds off the most needy in society. If you expect Tory’s to realistically take a UBI on board I think you are very naïve.
Also, if everyone is given more money it won’t be long before the landlords put up rent and supermarkets put up prices.
There's no point arguing for anything being a good idea if you add the caveat "Would the tories do it?"
They don’t seem to be going anywhere fast!There's no point arguing for anything being a good idea if you add the caveat "Would the tories do it?"
The Tories won't be in for ever. I know it seems that way to many on the caf but they're wrong. Yeah, I know about Scotland, that won't stay the same either. Parties never stay in power for ever in the UK, there is always change after a while.
Many of the arguments used against UBI are the same ones that were used vigorously against minimum wage, and even the Tories are for that now.
Also, don't vote Tory.
Do you honestly think Labour would implement UBI if they were in power? I don't. (Though I wish they would)
It's not just about that though is it. It means if you become unemployed you automatically have a safety net - it means if you are in work you could potentially save some money every month when you normally couldn't. It would have a transformative impact on society.
This isn't quite true. UBI can't replace housing benefit, which is a large part of the benefits bill, and it can't replace disability benefits (or arguably incapacity benefits), since the cost of living is higher for those people whatever the base income level.
But, if we all don’t realistically think a Tory government will go through with it, isn’t it essentially pouring £20m down the drain?
UBI is inevitable irrespective of which party is in power. It’s only foolish to not embrace it sooner.
What are the best academic arguments in favour of UBI? Is it incorrect to view it as Fordist? Insofar as the state (playing the role of private corporation) provides its citizens the capital with which to purchase items from the state (the workers who make the cars buy the cars). In some ways, it seems quite a right wing proposal when you consider the rise of state spending over the past fifty years. A recognition of the concentration of wealth and those locked out of the economic system and an attempt to grant an allowance to solve it. Which is sort of radical but also maintains the status quo.
The point when everybody has it, it's no longer a safety net. The resulting inflation will bring everybody back to the same level over time.
It's impossible to study isolating UBI experiments because the laws of supply and demand can't be tested unless its done on a global scale.
Of course, but it also had its intended effects of stimulating the economy by arresting deflation and moving back towards inflation. If the policy remained for long enough eventually the effect would be wiped out.
You are missing the point I'm trying to make. If everybody receives an income - whether they work or not - that is transformational for society. It could lead people to go part-time if they want, take a career break, start a business with a safety net of the bills being paid regardless of it being a success or not. Yes it may cause inflation but you must see the overall benefit and it is extremely positive.
To clarify: I mean, by extending the Fordist analogy, that once upon a time the workers who produced the things used their wages to buy the things that they produced. Now, because of many reasons, those who produce the commodities are no longer capable of buying them. So, viewed from this angle, UBI is just the state acting on behalf of business to grant a supplement which papers over deteriorating working conditions (the purchasing power of the worker no longer being sufficient to engage, as consumer, within the economy s/he in fact produces). That is why it seems quite right-wing to me.
I can see how it might be useful, but UBI is not really a wealth tax, is it? What are you buying and who owns the things you buy? The state plays intermediary as it compensates the private sector's inability or unwillingness to compensate workers through wage increases. The supplementary income is then expended on commodities which are owned by the same corporations which have created the mess.
Not dissimilar to governments giving people "relief" regarding the rise of energy costs. The people incur national debt to provide themselves with vouchers which pay private industries.
I'd be more in favour of this if there was a comprehensive nationalisation scheme involved where key energy and transport companies were also publicly owned.
Surely this just leads to a higher concentration of wealth amongst the already extreme few? The public takes on debt, or UBI, which acts as credit where credit also equals increased private profit (as the public's money will flow into the private sector, and a concentrated band within that sector, as it stands).
Last edited:
But they already do, to some extent. Benefits. All UBI is is a benefits payment that goes to everybody, so eventually inflation will catch it up and potentially make things worse than now, as everybody has it. Not just the poorest.
I think this is far more sensible. At least, in the absence of nationalisation, I am certain that UBI will, long-term, increase the concentration of wealth which is the problem we are supposed to be addressing. Weirdly, you can find very few left wing academics who have even considered this (from an admittedly brief search only a handful of articles exist with results showing key-terms). So I've had to go full on socialist to find this:
"...UBI within capitalism is quite likely to mean the redistribution of income from higher- to lower-paid workers, rather than taking capital income and redistributing it to labour".
And that, to me, seems to be the exact problem. You are taking from workers to give to workers (central bank debt games) rather than taking from capital and redistributing it to labour, as noted. I'm surprised this has such left-wing acceptance as it is basically a right-wing program dressed up in radical left-wing/centrist clothing.
Exactly. Will be interesting to see what happens...
They did minimum wage though didn't they? despite a lot of opposition at the time.
None of us know for certain whether it is a good idea or not, although I personally think it probably would be, but to answer your question I think the very least Labour would do is implement research and pilot schemes to find out, yes.
@Mciahel Goodman, the right-wing reference is a good one. In fact, in Canada, the main proponent of UBI has long been a conservative senator who primarily saw it as an efficient tool to reduce government bureaucracy, due to UBI's potential to replace a complex patchwork of benefits.
Ultimately though, whom it appeals most to depends on perspective and implementation. For me, for example, it's obvious that a UBI would have to be accompanied by minimum wage laws that guarantee that people on full-time employment earn as least as much as their UBI would give them. Otherwise, as you say, you can end up with a situation like now, where Walmart in the US pays some people so poorly, that they are eligible for government food stamps. (That they spend at Walmart!)
Another thing to add here is that UBI doesn't have to be seen as a purely financial phenomenon. Having this sort of social security allows people to have greater confidence in their financial situation. For example, they are more likely to take time away from work to pursue further education or retool - as I think the Manitoba pilot showed. It might also augment entrepreneurship, as e.g. Sweden has higher levels of that than the US (yeah, virtually zero of the US's national myths are actually true), precisely because people know that it won't wreck them for life if their project goes wrong.
I guess these last two again economic examples, but just to say that the ramifications of UBI can be quite widespread (and positive).
That's not so complicated though. Statistics Canada is already working on something like that, for example (not in a UBI context).
Ultimately though, whom it appeals most to depends on perspective and implementation. For me, for example, it's obvious that a UBI would have to be accompanied by minimum wage laws that guarantee that people on full-time employment earn as least as much as their UBI would give them. Otherwise, as you say, you can end up with a situation like now, where Walmart in the US pays some people so poorly, that they are eligible for government food stamps. (That they spend at Walmart!)
Another thing to add here is that UBI doesn't have to be seen as a purely financial phenomenon. Having this sort of social security allows people to have greater confidence in their financial situation. For example, they are more likely to take time away from work to pursue further education or retool - as I think the Manitoba pilot showed. It might also augment entrepreneurship, as e.g. Sweden has higher levels of that than the US (yeah, virtually zero of the US's national myths are actually true), precisely because people know that it won't wreck them for life if their project goes wrong.
I guess these last two again economic examples, but just to say that the ramifications of UBI can be quite widespread (and positive).
Good point, I hadn't thought of that. UBI anyway has some complications, as what constitutes a liveable income can vary considerably in different regions of a country. So there would have to be some kind of evergreen table indicating what money buys you in different areas, with top-ups related to children, disability, and possibly other things.
That's not so complicated though. Statistics Canada is already working on something like that, for example (not in a UBI context).
Sorry, I'm not sure what this responds to. I said that I think that UBI should be a priority for every government, and I'm well aware that there don't seem to be a lot of governments agrees with me.
I guess there are different opinions of what UBI should be, but I thought the idea was that everyone gets the UBI whether working or not, and that anything earned would be additional to the UBI, not an alternative to it. All taxed of course.@Mciahel Goodman, the right-wing reference is a good one. In fact, in Canada, the main proponent of UBI has long been a conservative senator who primarily saw it as an efficient tool to reduce government bureaucracy, due to UBI's potential to replace a complex patchwork of benefits.
Ultimately though, whom it appeals most to depends on perspective and implementation. For me, for example, it's obvious that a UBI would have to be accompanied by minimum wage laws that guarantee that people on full-time employment earn as least as much as their UBI would give them. Otherwise, as you say, you can end up with a situation like now, where Walmart in the US pays some people so poorly, that they are eligible for government food stamps. (That they spend at Walmart!)
Another thing to add here is that UBI doesn't have to be seen as a purely financial phenomenon. Having this sort of social security allows people to have greater confidence in their financial situation. For example, they are more likely to take time away from work to pursue further education or retool - as I think the Manitoba pilot showed. It might also augment entrepreneurship, as e.g. Sweden has higher levels of that than the US (yeah, virtually zero of the US's national myths are actually true), precisely because people know that it won't wreck them for life if their project goes wrong.
I guess these last two again economic examples, but just to say that the ramifications of UBI can be quite widespread (and positive).
Good point, I hadn't thought of that. UBI anyway has some complications, as what constitutes a liveable income can vary considerably in different regions of a country. So there would have to be some kind of evergreen table indicating what money buys you in different areas, with top-ups related to children, disability, and possibly other things.
That's not so complicated though. Statistics Canada is already working on something like that, for example (not in a UBI context).
Sorry, I'm not sure what this responds to. I said that I think that UBI should be a priority for every government, and I'm well aware that there don't seem to be a lot of governments agrees with me.
Last edited:
Yeah, it depends on how it's implemented. It can be a blanket check, but it could also be a supplement. I don't think that changes the minimum wage point though?
A blanket cheque for everyone yes, so any wages would be on top. Anything else would be a different form of means-tested benefit with new rules no doubt, but not a new concept at all.
edit: Actually I suppose right-wingers might argue this would make a good minimum wage less necessary. This would have to be resisted.
Last edited:
I wish people scrutinised the mammoth amounts of money the government has wasted on bailing out banks and corporations over the last 15 years, while inequality has increased, rather than focusing on a measly 20 million going to some of the most vulnerable in society.
If this were done in a whole country would it not just cause the price of things to rise?
Yeah, a blanket check works best, it's the least bureaucracy, and easily gotten back through taxation.
That right-wing point is what @Mciahel Goodman also said - which exactly triggered my point that it would be important to tie minimum wage to the UBI (regionally diversified ideally). Cause yes, otherwise companies are actually transferring their responsability to provide a reasonable wage to the government (which of course many currently do already).
There are not that many people that would need this though, and they would likely primarily use it for key needs. So I think fears of inflation are greatly overblown here.