Rather than have it lost over many threads. This topic intrigues me but im not sure it would ever work in a capitalist society / real world. It would be interesting to find out what it really means. Off the top of my head i know the benefits is meant to be less beauracracy and admin costs Valuing of jobs that currently serve society but unpaid like mothers, social care etc Allows people to retrain and have periods off work Generally make the population happy Ways to pay for this is through more taxation Offsetting costs for means testing There is no personal allowance so the government get higher tax receipts So does this really work and from what i was looking at figures wise it does not although i have been told otherwise. @Looney Leftie @PowerSpurs over to you
The biggest flaw in ubi is the basic cost of living. The solution is universal basic services. Say society says no one needs be without a basic level of water. So pass law that says the first X amount is free and those who use more pay extra to cover it. The effect is ubi no longer needs to cover a water bill and those who waste water pay the price. Move that idea to energy. The government can invest in renewables and could set a basic level of electricity that everyone is allowed to use before they pay a bill, again those who waste energy pay the price and ubi no longer need cover heating and lighting. You can do this for most things, transport, housing, internet use etc. All these things increase disposable income and benefit society. Then you can look at a ubi to cover basic food etc at a level society can afford.
I'm still unsure about what exactly this is but reading between the lines it looks like a daft socialist idea. Higher taxes and no personal allowance? **** that.
I like the idea here. I think that is far better than ubi from the sounds of it. Wonder why no one has ever put this forward. I guess where it might be harder is on something like housing. Why the hell have they not cancelled the rtb policy yet
But you also give people free money. I know you are deffo not in board with this but i i wi be awaiting the thoughts of people to get a more rounded view
It is possible to implement it without anyone's net income changing if you want to. I don't think it is a socialist idea. Socialism was originally about rewarding work. This is just a more efficient way of providing for basic needs.
Where does the money come from to pay everyone a UBI? Sounds unworkable like a Ponzi/Pyramid Scheme on a national scale
It can just be the current social security money renamed. It is already mostly the case that people get enough to live on from once source or another. It's the mechanism by which this happens that causes a lot of problems. At the beginning there would need to be some neutrality measure so that everyone over a certain income paid extra tax to balance out the new income stream. But you could abolish most benefits and a lot of the bureaucracy that goes with them.
They have put this forward. Johnathon Portes has done a study on it. https://www.ucl.ac.uk/bartlett/igp/...es_-_the_institute_for_global_prosperity_.pdf It's worth looking at the mincome study from the 1970s that had some surprising results like fewer divorces, lower demand on public health services. http://www.lse.ac.uk/LSEE-Research-...das/2018/FORGET-MINCOME-and-Ontario-short.pdf
Socialism Open borders Free money for everyone that chooses to live here regardless if they want to work or not Tax the **** out of everyone especially the rich , extort 70% from them employ loads more Government workers to redistribute the wealth . Holodomor
Capitalism Greed is good. Mire everyone with extortionate debt whilst the banks are bailed out by the taxpayers. Same taxpayers end up in extended period of austerity leading to rising costs of living and large sections in poverty scrounging out of food banks. Massive bonuses and protection to the the CEOs who got the country into the mess. Blame the EU and foreigners for everything.
I think it's a given that this could not exist alongside open borders unless the basic income had some sort of qualifying period or buy in. It ought to have the effect of reducing taxes in the long run both because it is a more efficient safety net than social security and also because it removes disincentives to work.
It made no difference to whether people worked or not but there was a general improvement in health and well being.
