Universal Income.

[RolandRat]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-57120354

"A universal basic income scheme is to be trialled in Wales, meaning adults, regardless of their means, will receive a regular sum of money.

The idea is that this would cover the basic cost of living.

First Minister Mark Drakeford said the pilot would "see whether the promises that basic income holds out are genuinely delivered" in people's lives."

I'm not quite sure I understand the intent. We already have things such wages top ups and for the unemployed, Universal Credit. If this is extra money on top, is Unemployment and other related benefits being cut?

It seems everyone, no matter what their income will get it. How will this be funded?

Surprisingly, the Tories are against it:

"But the Welsh Conservatives said: "The Joseph Rowntree Foundation is clear that UBI is not the answer to solving poverty, in fact they claim it can actually increase poverty.

"The first minister needs to get on with kickstarting the Welsh economy, creating long-term, well-paid jobs for people rather than using Wales as a petri dish for failed left-wing policies."

They also claim it will increase poverty.

Thoughts?

 

[The Great Zaganza]

I think a UBI is the best thing that could happen to an employer. You know that the people who work for you don't just do it because they have no alternative.
But a UBI can't be a replacement for a minimum social safety net or a universal healthcare system.

 

[Francesca R]

I used to think this was inefficient. Now I support it as I think the benefits outweigh any of that

 

[Francesca R]

UBI can't be a replacement for a minimum social safety net or a universal healthcare system.

It replaces part of the safety net. By being part of it. I don't think Wales is about to opt out of the NHS.

 

[Chanakya]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-57120354

"A universal basic income scheme is to be trialled in Wales, meaning adults, regardless of their means, will receive a regular sum of money.

The idea is that this would cover the basic cost of living.

First Minister Mark Drakeford said the pilot would "see whether the promises that basic income holds out are genuinely delivered" in people's lives."

I'm not quite sure I understand the intent. We already have things such wages top ups and for the unemployed, Universal Credit. If this is extra money on top, is Unemployment and other related benefits being cut?

It seems everyone, no matter what their income will get it. How will this be funded?

Surprisingly, the Tories are against it:

"But the Welsh Conservatives said: "The Joseph Rowntree Foundation is clear that UBI is not the answer to solving poverty, in fact they claim it can actually increase poverty.

"The first minister needs to get on with kickstarting the Welsh economy, creating long-term, well-paid jobs for people rather than using Wales as a petri dish for failed left-wing policies."

They also claim it will increase poverty.

Thoughts?

I'm all for UBI myself. But I do see how there might be valid arguments against, absolutely. I just don't see "it will increase poverty" might be a valid argument at all, no matter how you look at it.

Regardless of efficiencies, UBI is redistribution, and the broad direction is towards the have-nots. I don't see how that can possibly actually increase poverty (assuming that the UBI itself is designed to be higher than whatever poverty thresholds you're using).

 

[Chanakya]

I think a UBI is the best thing that could happen to an employer. You know that the people who work for you don't just do it because they have no alternative.But a UBI can't be a replacement for a minimum social safety net or a universal healthcare system.

Playing devil's advocate here, because I'm all for UBI mysef; but as far as the above, not necessarily, I should think, because after all there are quite a few jobs that no one will probably want to do if there's an alternative, jobs that still need doing.

Long run that would mean redesigning all jobs so that these are got rid of, ideally at least. Short run, though, employers will not be able to fill those positions, and yet not be able to do without them either.


eta: I guess the solution to that might be to announce well in advance that you're going to do a UBI -- maybe five years prior? -- rather than announcing one overnight. Of course, five years isn't long term, really, but probably as long as might be practically feasible. Might make sense to make it the plank for the next term, so that that becomes kind of a referendum as well, in terms of what people at large want.

 

[Elaedith]

Playing devil's advocate here, because I'm all for UBI mysef; but as far as the above, not necessarily, I should think, because after all there are quite a few jobs that no one will probably want to do if there's an alternative, jobs that still need doing.

Long run that would mean redesigning all jobs so that these are got rid of, ideally at least. Short run, though, employers will not be able to fill those positions, and yet not be able to do without them either.


eta: I guess the solution to that might be to announce well in advance that you're going to do a UBI -- maybe five years prior? -- rather than announcing one overnight. Of course, five years isn't long term, really, but probably as long as might be practically feasible. Might make sense to make it the plank for the next term, so that that becomes kind of a referendum as well, in terms of what people at large want.

UBI as commonly understood is not an alternative to doing those jobs. You take the job and keep your UBI. Therefore you are always better off working.

 

[Chanakya]

UBI as commonly understood is not an alternative to doing those jobs. You take the job and keep your UBI. Therefore you are always better off working.

Agreed as far as the highlighted. But your conclusion does not necessarily follow, given that "better off" is a subjective assessment.

I was responding to Zaganza's argument that UBI means that employers will be assured of employees who are willingly doing a job, as opposed to being compelled to take some job just because they cannot do without the money. That's true enough long term, at least best case it is; but short term, not so much.

As for your specific point, if you're trapped in a job or a business that you dislike, but cannot afford to leave, then being assured of a UBI may see you forego that additional income. At least it might, with low-level, low-paying jobs and businesses -- although probably not if your salary/income is large enough that the UBI amount becomes insignificant in comparison.

 

[Francesca R]

Regardless of efficiencies, UBI is redistribution, and the broad direction is towards the have-nots. I don't see how that can possibly actually increase poverty (assuming that the UBI itself is designed to be higher than whatever poverty thresholds you're using).

I think the argument is that total taxation has to be higher and the burden of this will be that the economy is smaller as a result. That part is probably true but it doesn't mean it makes the poorest poorer

 

[rjh01]

I like the idea. The big question is how is it to be paid for? Suggest
- Any income other than the UBI be taxed at a minimum of 30%.
- Abolition of all pensions and similar benefits.
- Something else is also required here.

 

[Olmstead]

Agreed as far as the highlighted. But your conclusion does not necessarily follow, given that "better off" is a subjective assessment.

I was responding to Zaganza's argument that UBI means that employers will be assured of employees who are willingly doing a job, as opposed to being compelled to take some job just because they cannot do without the money. That's true enough long term, at least best case it is; but short term, not so much.

As for your specific point, if you're trapped in a job or a business that you dislike, but cannot afford to leave, then being assured of a UBI may see you forego that additional income. At least it might, with low-level, low-paying jobs and businesses -- although probably not if your salary/income is large enough that the UBI amount becomes insignificant in comparison.

The result would be that important jobs people hate doing would be paid much better. Sounds good.

 

[Chanakya]

I think the argument is that total taxation has to be higher and the burden of this will be that the economy is smaller as a result. That part is probably true but it doesn't mean it makes the poorest poorer

We're clearly in agreement that poverty per se cannot possibly be increased by UBI, as these people are claiming.

As far as the highlighted, though, I don't see why higher taxes will mean a shrinkage of the economy. The money is being redistributed, not removed from the economy.

I don't think shrinkage is necessary, or even likely; but I can see three eventualities that might, just perhaps, end up doing that. First, if inefficiencies are too high. Two, if the resultant increases in taxation stifles growth. And three, if people started dropping off from the workforce altogether in droves.

One or more of these is possible, but I don't think likely, and certainly not a given.

 

[Chanakya]

The result would be that important jobs people hate doing would be paid much better. Sounds good.

Long term, yes, ideally, hopefully. Paid better, plus the unpleasant bits minimized.

Short term, though? I don't think they'll overnight start paying garbage collectors what chartered accountants make. And nor will small businesses suddenly start making a great deal more money than before. Short term it's more likely that garbage collector positions will go unfilled, and many/some small businesses will close down.

---

But of course, that's just one side of the issue, purely short term. Longer term these wrinkles will end up shaken into place. Hopefully.

 

[smartcooky]

"But the Welsh Conservatives said: "The Joseph Rowntree Foundation is clear that UBI is not the answer to solving poverty, in fact they claim it can actually increase poverty.

That is just right-wing/conservative BS spin.

With UBI, people can afford something over and above "bottom rung of the ladder" subsistence, which leads to them being able to afford necessities of life that they might have to go without. This means they spend more... if they spend more, they pay more tax. The businesses they spend it with do better, and they also pay more tax, and they have to spend more with their suppliers to cope with demand, so the supplies pay more tax. That works its way up the chain, to importing and manufacturing and services. The increased tax take means the government has more to spend on things such as social programmes, health, education and services. Less poverty also leads to less crime.

Its a philosophy which holds that everyone is important and no-one gets left behind, that can only be a good thing for society as a whole.

 

[deadrose]

I'm sure it can increase poverty - in the people who make their living selling cheap crap to people too poor to buy better, to the people making payday loans (or whatever version Wales has), and to businesses who make their profits by paying the lowest possible wages to desperate people. In other words, a lot of Tories.

 

[Rolfe]

We've had at least one thread on this before, but I wouldn't support a merge - it's good to start with a fresh slate sometimes.

A major part of the thinking is that increasing automation and the increased use of AIs will mean that fewer people are required in the workforce. In the past it has been possible to redeploy the people made redundant but that's not going to work forever. If there isn't a way to redistribute the money made from the robots and the AIs to actual living breathng people, then the people who own the robots and the AIs will be sitting like dragons on all the money there is and everyone else will be starving.

Giving everyone enough money to live at a basic level is one solution. People who choose to work will always be better off and most people will probably do that. It will also free creative and artistic people to work on projects that might benefit everyone, and allow people with new business ideas to work them up without starving while they're doing it.

Yes the Rab C Nesbitts of this world will sit back and live at that basic level, but that's a hell of a lot better than having them stealing and robbing each other and other people because they have no hope of a job and no way to get any money.

Every time this has been tried it has worked, then governments back off with Calvinistic protestations about work ethic and how people should be punished if they don't work - even if there's no work for them. It's about time it was trialled more extensively.

 

[Roboramma]

We're clearly in agreement that poverty per se cannot possibly be increased by UBI, as these people are claiming.

I only have a problem with the highlighted words. If the UBI makes the economy less efficient, it can shrink the total pie and that could lead to more poverty. In this particular case I doubt it would have that effect, because it would need to shrink the total economy a lot to leave the poorest worst off.

I also don't think it will necessarily shrink the economy, even a little. I think Francesca is certainly right that there will be some inefficiencies involved, but there may also be attendant gains. An example of something that increases the tax burden but probably also helps grow the economy is government funding of K-12 education.

One reason I support UBI is that I think people will tend to use it to make themselves more productive. One reason people stay in relatively unproductive work is that they lack the capital to shift to more productive work. That can include being able to feed themselves while also having the free time to pursue education, it can mean the capital to start a small business, etc.

 

[Andy_Ross]

I like the idea. The big question is how is it to be paid for? Suggest
- Any income other than the UBI be taxed at a minimum of 30%.
- Abolition of all pensions and similar benefits.
- Something else is also required here.

cut the tax breaks for billionaires and tax corporations properly maybe?

 

[cullennz]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-57120354

"A universal basic income scheme is to be trialled in Wales, meaning adults, regardless of their means, will receive a regular sum of money.

The idea is that this would cover the basic cost of living.

First Minister Mark Drakeford said the pilot would "see whether the promises that basic income holds out are genuinely delivered" in people's lives."

I'm not quite sure I understand the intent. We already have things such wages top ups and for the unemployed, Universal Credit. If this is extra money on top, is Unemployment and other related benefits being cut?

It seems everyone, no matter what their income will get it. How will this be funded?

Surprisingly, the Tories are against it:

"But the Welsh Conservatives said: "The Joseph Rowntree Foundation is clear that UBI is not the answer to solving poverty, in fact they claim it can actually increase poverty.

"The first minister needs to get on with kickstarting the Welsh economy, creating long-term, well-paid jobs for people rather than using Wales as a petri dish for failed left-wing policies."

They also claim it will increase poverty.

Thoughts?

The idea keeps being floated here.

Personally disagree with it, but only because we have one of the broadest, most generous benefit systems in the world.

Personally think it would negate the motivation to get of your **** if too much and harm those that are getting enough to live using the things we have.

Might be good for countries that don't though.

 

[smartcooky]

A major part of the thinking is that increasing automation and the increased use of AIs will mean that fewer people are required in the workforce. In the past it has been possible to redeploy the people made redundant but that's not going to work forever. If there isn't a way to redistribute the money made from the robots and the AIs to actual living breathng people, then the people who own the robots and the AIs will be sitting like dragons on all the money there is and everyone else will be starving..

This cannot be overstated... its a law of diminishing returns.

The population continues to increase and automation continues to reduce the number of jobs available.... you can only keep doing this for so long before you have a massive population with almost no jobs - and without something like UBI, no income and an eventual societal breakdown.