You referring to the tax free allowance bit? I should have been more clear and said in addition to it rather than part of the current allowance.
Universal Basic Income
- Thread starter esmufc07
- Start date
Your maths is terrible because the £1600 will fly upwards and it will be 3/4 of the new value. God knows how high.
FFS, I know how income taxes work
I am not talking about brackets. I’m talking about a purely hypothetical increase in effective tax rate.
The sole point I am making that you can raise tax rates to negate that £1,600. Literally that’s the only point I’m making.
The notion that this isn’t possible because tax is paid by brackets is false.
I'm pretty sure in the age of UBI the tax free allowance will be whatever the amount of UBI is, the current allowance won't likely exist
Ok that’s if you move only the top tax band. I was talking about an effective tax rate to keep it simple - but for arguments sake - what if the 40% tax rate band changed to 50% tax rate. Not realistic but the point I’m making is that an increase in income tax rate by the government as a method to fund the UBI scheme COULD result in you paying more tax than the £1,600 you receive.
If you’re paying over a grand for your mortgage but your total fixed monthly outgoings is only 1600 you’re still winning.
FFS, I know how income taxes work
I am not talking about brackets. I’m talking about a purely hypothetical increase in effective tax rate.
The sole point I am making that you can raise tax rates to negate that £1,600. Literally that’s the only point I’m making.
The notion that this isn’t possible because tax is paid by brackets is false.
ok okFor what I read about UBI, it will be negated and only partially for the highest incomes, basically as another type of income that will be taxed currently. Lower incomes don't pay or pay little and highest rents pays a big chunk or all of it.
Nothing will change on taxes, just adding some additional income and twitch the brackets and put more fiscal pressure to the highest incomes and big companies (as it should be)
Ah sorry you mean now. Yeah mortgage is just under £900 p/m @ 2%. I haven’t yet done the maths on what it’s going to be when it’s 5%+ I’d rather have another 10 months of ignorance and accept that my balls are going to retract back up to my throat when I do figure it out. Cheers Liz and Kwasi.
That would be pretty much guaranteed. I didn't want to muddy the waters any further though.
The long term idea is that it would be paid out of increased business tax rather than the individual as I understand it so that wouldn't be applicable. If it was applicable, then we'd be talking about a tiny fraction of the population losing out or breaking even. They won't get much sympathy from anywhere though.
It's all muddy waters at the moment because no one really has any idea how it would be done, if its ever done.
It would be a good way to overhaul the tax system though, ensure that corporations don't avoid paying tax thru loopholes and also to be more progressive with personal tax rates
It's not happening any time soon in a country with a large population, my guess would be a Scandinavian country to be the first
Well I'd agree there, who knows what advancements will be made in robotics and AI but I can't see anything changing in construction for at least a few decades.
Prostitution too. I suppose robots will be lifelike one day, but not in my lifetime.
If anyone was to go for it, it probably would be the Scandis first! The idea is gaining momentum though, it will be a hot topic across the western world in the next decade or so.
So what we need is the UBI party, no Tories, Lib Dems or Laborites need apply
I think the idea that this is funded by corporation tax not particularly viable. We are talking in the region of 500-600bn annually. Why would big firms locate in the uk any more if there are cheaper alternatives elsewhere? If it is to be neutral financially it’ll be people who work that pay for it.
Edit- uk raised 68bn from corporation tax last year. Big big difference
Edit- uk raised 68bn from corporation tax last year. Big big difference
I like the idea - I think it provides a level playing field and ends the endless debate about who deserves benefits and who doesn’t.
Longer term thinking. If no one has a job no one can buy stuff. We end up in a crazy but not unrealistic scenario were companies sacrifice profit to fund some UBI and then compete for a larger share of that UBI back. Like a buy in poker.
Long, long term maybe. But we aren’t anywhere near that yet.
I think it’s a great idea but funding solely through companies would mean everywhere has to do it otherwise we’d see everyone locate in the cheapest possible location.
I can’t see that happening for the next 50-100 years at least.
We all know politicians can’t think beyond the next 5 years so it’s probably doomed for the time being unless funded by income tax
The tax system will change, it'll not be just corporation tax and one would hope a lot of the current loopholes would be shut off
We recently moved and managed to port our remaining previous mortgage at 2% for another two years. The new, bigger, part is at 4.5% and I live in constant fear of March 2025.
I saw an interesting article that suggested the funding of UBI via a negative interest rate on assets over X - admittedly this would require some MAJOR legislative involvement to ensure people don’t just do non-dom on crack, but would be an interesting way to look at it - ensures the constant flow of assets and therefore money to increase economic productivity.
I also wouldn’t believe for a second that a national rollout would be £1600pcm, more likely to be closer to an even £1000.
To those who suggest people would stop working, I couldn’t disagree more. In my example, and using the £1600 value in the pilot - that is my take home monthly pay. I have three options:
1. Stop work and have my life be the same (a bit of a margin left over each month, but nothing to write home about. No chance of a holiday any time soon)
2. Reduce to a 4 day week for example, have a better work / life balance and have a generally healthier lifestyle, reducing the likelihood of stress-induced illnesses and potentially being able to work longer into my latter years should I want to.
3. I keep working as I am but get double the take home pay! I get to enjoy nice things, take a holiday or two a year, and do more than simply subsist.
I do however believe it would impact things like NHS staffing, as things like overtime or working additional shifts (out of financial) necessity would be a thing of the past. So bosses would then have to increase pay & staffing to cover these extra shifts.
In terms of finances you’d have to also consider the financial easing of pressures on the NHS for example, as (longer term) the impact of hospitalisations due to mental health issues or stress-related illnesses would be reduced, and the majority of other benefits would be amalgamated into this.
I think it’s an inevitability to avoid civil unrest, especially with the rise of AI in business and the impact on jobs that it will have.
I also wouldn’t believe for a second that a national rollout would be £1600pcm, more likely to be closer to an even £1000.
To those who suggest people would stop working, I couldn’t disagree more. In my example, and using the £1600 value in the pilot - that is my take home monthly pay. I have three options:
1. Stop work and have my life be the same (a bit of a margin left over each month, but nothing to write home about. No chance of a holiday any time soon)
2. Reduce to a 4 day week for example, have a better work / life balance and have a generally healthier lifestyle, reducing the likelihood of stress-induced illnesses and potentially being able to work longer into my latter years should I want to.
3. I keep working as I am but get double the take home pay! I get to enjoy nice things, take a holiday or two a year, and do more than simply subsist.
I do however believe it would impact things like NHS staffing, as things like overtime or working additional shifts (out of financial) necessity would be a thing of the past. So bosses would then have to increase pay & staffing to cover these extra shifts.
In terms of finances you’d have to also consider the financial easing of pressures on the NHS for example, as (longer term) the impact of hospitalisations due to mental health issues or stress-related illnesses would be reduced, and the majority of other benefits would be amalgamated into this.
I think it’s an inevitability to avoid civil unrest, especially with the rise of AI in business and the impact on jobs that it will have.
They wouldn’t want to miss out on a market where there’s 50m people with extra disposable income, I’d imagine.
1. If automation, AI, etc. is going to create an excess of wealth and productivity - as is the suggestion linked to certain types of UBI, then why should we channel these extra resources towards those that need them, rather than to those who already have an excess of wealth?
2. Well then why don't we do that already? Because we could and aggressively don't.
The assumption that this paradigm shift of malignant greed morphing into a benign justice is just around the corner (and has been for years) seems increasingly fanciful. We live in a world today that sees the rich and powerful content to destroy the ground they walk on and feck their kids into a future of hell, all in the quest for greater personal riches. How is it that these lot are expected to suddenly have a change of heart and start spreading money out to (also) the poorest in society?
I'm all for some axe to the face Nat Turner style redistribution but short of something so drastic, I don't understand where it can come from. We don't even fund our current healthcare system properly. If we can't fund an institution that people claim to love then how are they ever going to agree to a system that funds people they despise - namely the poor. This isn't a serious discussion, it's just more utopian spam, up there with "tech will save us from global warming, tech always saves us" and "AI will solve morality".
Look at the latest stories of the vindictive DWP's brutal financial deprivation of the disabled and tell me again about UBI's benign, bureaucratic panacea.
A just UBI based on people's needs (rather than the other types of proposed UBIs based on removing existing assistance) seem to be policies that can only be adopted when existing social and political shifts occur, such as providing for those in need and halting the rampant accumulation of wealth amongst the richest in society. We'd be better off wasting our time trying to shift these before calculating an infinitely complex blanket income with unforeseeable implications.
2. Well then why don't we do that already? Because we could and aggressively don't.
The assumption that this paradigm shift of malignant greed morphing into a benign justice is just around the corner (and has been for years) seems increasingly fanciful. We live in a world today that sees the rich and powerful content to destroy the ground they walk on and feck their kids into a future of hell, all in the quest for greater personal riches. How is it that these lot are expected to suddenly have a change of heart and start spreading money out to (also) the poorest in society?
I'm all for some axe to the face Nat Turner style redistribution but short of something so drastic, I don't understand where it can come from. We don't even fund our current healthcare system properly. If we can't fund an institution that people claim to love then how are they ever going to agree to a system that funds people they despise - namely the poor. This isn't a serious discussion, it's just more utopian spam, up there with "tech will save us from global warming, tech always saves us" and "AI will solve morality".
Look at the latest stories of the vindictive DWP's brutal financial deprivation of the disabled and tell me again about UBI's benign, bureaucratic panacea.
A just UBI based on people's needs (rather than the other types of proposed UBIs based on removing existing assistance) seem to be policies that can only be adopted when existing social and political shifts occur, such as providing for those in need and halting the rampant accumulation of wealth amongst the richest in society. We'd be better off wasting our time trying to shift these before calculating an infinitely complex blanket income with unforeseeable implications.
Whatever this model proposes the usual model that would becused does not involve employed people being better off by the amount of UBI. Raising the cost from corporations tax alone sounds good but in practice there is no was it would raise anywhere near enough, even with big savings coming from not having to administer most social payments, and income taxes would have to be adjusted. UBI would either be tax free and the income tax threshold reduced to zero or UBI would be taxable but the threshold increased so that nobody just on UBI would be taxed. The former is theoretically cheaper to administer. Further admin savings would occur as most social payments would be abolished so wouldn't need to be means tested or administered.
Thats the whole point. In an ideal world in hundreds of years with AI and robotics, humans would not need to work anymore as we would be supplied any goods by artificial beings. They would force us to work? what would be the incentive of the rich to sell anything? human work would not be a resource anymore and consumism would not matter anymore. They will need to find another way towards exclusivity, and they will if it ever happens. But not work
UBI will be the first very small step towards the more free time, because it will not be any other option with the new technology advances....If we survive climate change
I think the issue with UBI at this stage is that, if the rollout of AI has the devastating impact on jobs that many predict, then something like UBI will be needed in order to counter the massive job losses etc. Without that, with unemployment at unprecedented levels, civil unrest would be the next step without some form of intervention.
So not implementing something like this would not be in their interest.
What about the option that sees a handful of omnipowerful humans that keep the rest of us around for the flesh games?
Perhaps. Personally I think that the roll out will be gradual enough and in the hands of so few and a few so powerful that any unrest will be easily quelled. You only have to look at the current Tory part or the Nazi party in the 30s to see that even extremly harmful and minority ideaologies can insidiously grow right up to ruination.
UBI could be a tool that solves problems of inequality and automation. UBI could just as easily be implemented to increase inequality.
As of now I would have much more faith in a party that is committed to policies that would strengthen the welfare state, than one who wants to replace it with a UBI.
I'm not worried about it but I think it's very probably going to happen
I just don't see how enough new jobs will be created when 90% of current jobs become automated
The post that you quoted is widely fantasy but maybe could be real but for the fun of it, yes: This people will always exist but how will be done and if theyll succeed
I guess would be the same cycle of classes - revolution. Slavery vs ownership, then servitude vs lords, then proletariat vs capitalism, future the same old same old vs shitty omnipowerfull humans. So the same under different name using a different tool
Or maybe robots with AI and game over
Don't we already know what happens with point 1 with the advances in tech we've had over the last few decades? The wealthy just get wealthier?
I love coming back to this thread from time to time to see if attitudes have changed in anyway........ Usually they haven't.
I’m in a similar boat I think, I already earn a very good salary, adding an extra £1600 a month seems mental, especially as I have no kids and am currently not married. I know how beneficial this would be to a lot of people from my home town though so I think it’s a pretty good idea.
I'm not debating the automation part but in that case there certainly won’t be enough taxes to pay everyone UBI
Oh it would, but taxing enough the rich/companies not an option
So who's eligible for this supposed windfall? People who have x amount of years living in the UK? Anyone registered in the country? If it's the latter then a good Xmas present to yourself would be a lifejacket as the weight of everyone trying to get into the island would probably sink it.
Responses to this always just underline how much people hate other people