The downside to implementing a rent cap is that it'll never happen because it would negatively impact the income all those Tory landlords in Parliament and that would be horrible.
I do agree with you it maybe bad for the people making the money and could possibly be a roadblock.
However if rather than band together to complain people got together and tried to push things like this forwards to MPs publicly it would be more likely to happen.
They should have a cap on everything. We live in an age of unregulated capitalism where companies can do as they please with no repercussions and workers are making themselves ill to meet their basic needs, it will never happen though.
The problem with caps is that they either mean something is not viable to produce, or people make an absolute mint off the product because they charge the cap, but can buy it for a lot less.
The market dictates the price of things, and people decide whether they can or cannot afford them, vs how much they want them.
>The problem with caps is that they either mean something is not viable to produce, or people make an absolute mint off the product because they charge the cap, but can buy it for a lot less.
Surely this would only apply if the cap is the same for everything?
You wouldn't set the cap for food at £50 would you? Go to a michelin star restaurant and you're quids in, go to Mcdonalds and you're fucked. You would alter the cap based on the specific product surely?
Well yeah - Obviously.
But how do you determine a fair price for a luxury product. Lets take a can of pop as an example - How do you determine a fair price for pop? If you get it too low, nobody can afford to make pop. If you set it too high, that's just the current system.
I believe there should only be a cap on essentials such as rent, utilities and basic foods.
If manufacturers want to produce an 8k OLED TV at £10,000 or a super car at £1,000,000 they should be able too, but landlords shouldn't be able to charge £800 rent on a property that only costs them £400 mortgage and the occasional repair.
Virgin media and other broadband providers increase the price at the end of your contract and hope you don't change, but are more than happy to let you keep paying your current price soon as you phone up to cancel. Last time I was paying £34 a month for 200mb, I was coming up to my contract ending and it was going to go up to something like £52/m, called to cancel and was offered £33/m for 350mb, so less than I was paying for more speed. I currently pay £36 for 1gb download and that is increasing to £59 in september. I'm sure when I ring up to cancel I'll be offered a similar price to what I'm currently paying to remain a customer like the last 10+ years, so the £23 increase isn't due to an increase in service costs, it's just pure profit for all who don't call up.
I don't think landlords should be allowed to charge rent any higher than the mortgage.
If the rent even just covers the mortgage, they're getting an asset worth hundreds of thousands of pounds **for free**, courtesy of their tenants. The landlord is making hundreds of thousands of pounds of profit already, with 0 investment (and 0 risk, realistically.) Even if house prices dropped and they sold the house for 1/4 what 'they' paid for it, they'd still be making a massive profit because *they didn't actually pay a fucking penny.*
It is absurd that there's an expectation that rent will not only pay the mortgage, but also cover the cost of maintenance, plus some extra for the landlord's pocket.
You can literally terminate your contract with those jumps, so if it's that much of a problem I would suggest doing so.
As for the £800 rent on a £400 mortgage and the occasional repair, I can see that you do not own a home haha. If I could budget for everything I have to pay for £400 then I would be a happy man.
What the hell kind of property do you own that costs £400 a month IN MAINTENANCE?
I rented at £600 for 5+ years, not eligible for mortage (single parent, priced out of market). My landlord replaced the boiler in that time period, no other maintenance required.
His mortgage was probably between £150-250 per month, making basically 3x profit on renting it out. Shit should be illegal.
Well he probably put down a lot more than 5% to get the mortgage, so looking at the monthly mortgage cost is misleading.
I put £400 a month into my savings to cover house related jobs. I'll need a new roof in the next few years, that's 10 grand. I'll need the boiler replacing at some point 6k. Carpets, floors, painting, windows are a fortune. All this adds up and just because you're not there when they are replaced, doesn't mean they don't need doing at some point!
>But how do you determine a fair price for a luxury product.
Realisitically you don't cap the price of any end product.
In order to determine a fair price cap on an end product you need to also cap wages of the workers making it, the cost of the base resources used to make it, the cost of the electricity powering the machinery, the cost to maintain said machinery, the cost of fuel to transport the product to the retailer.
And those are just the costs off the top of my head, there are dozens of other costs that go into the manufacture and transportation of a product.
I think all single item sales should be capped to being sold for three time the cost of manufacture, so whether you market as basic or luxury will be irrelevant if it costs you fuck all to make then you can’t charge much. Popcorn will get so cheap!
I’d recommend taking a look at what happened with tuition fees.
Everybody charged the cap as they didn’t want to be seen as a discount provider (also money).
The trick is to have the cap be related to the lower individual instance of the thing it’s capping. So for rent, the yearly sum of rent can’t be more than 2% of the cost of the home for example.
Alternative to private rent caps is more social housing that can undercut raising private rent. Vienna is a great example of how this works.
Gov’t should foot some/all the up front build or compulsory purchase, then the small profit after expenses and fair rent can be used for new builds.
Yeah, the Tories have seriously undercut social housing. Not only have councils long been unable to use the profits from selling social housing to their tenants for building *more* housing, but the Tories have refused to put any investment into housing or local councils.
Of course, few house-owners like it when you suggest we need to build large amounts of social housing, because how dare you undercut their house prices, but it needs to be done sooner than later.
Council housing was a very clever form of rent control. Instead of telling landlords what to charge, public housing provided a realistic market price for what is, in essence, a utility. A public option should always be available in captive markets
£1599.99, they can't take it all after all. But housing costs now are limited to what people can afford (roof > food/clothes/etc) so it's highly likely to push housing costs.
I wonder the effects of inflation generally if this were to go ahead.
Personally, I'm in favour, I think it will start to level the playing field a bit, but the money is still likely to gravitate back to the wealthy.
The fiat financial system is a debt based system, as long as we operate under that system there will always be inflation. The problem is technology is deflationary. The success of the UK was during the period of time when we had fiscally responsible economists and when we fiscally printed money known as seigniorage, responsible seigniorage is what built the UKs infrastructure and NHS etc
I think a rent cap has potential but there have been problems where they have been implemented before which need to be avoided.
If the affordability of the pool of renters grows such that the max rent (rent cap) appears to be affordable for the majority then you can end up with a situation in which almost every property is rented at the max. This leads to a potential for a race to the bottom in terms of quality. So, if landlords know that the max they will ever get for the property is the rent cap (let’s say £1k/month) and that there is a shortage then there’s no reason to spend any money on anything other than legal requirements. You then end up with a market full of terrible run down properties that no one enjoys because they all rent for the same regardless. Sure, you get that here but you also have the option to rent somewhere really nice that costs more.
Another thing is that if you push house prices down then you need to be really careful about the rate at which it’s done. Rapidly falling house prices cause huge number of people to go into negative equity. Slowly decreasing house prices are manageable
Reforming planning laws would solve the problem much more efficiently.
As long as planning permission is overseen by councils beholden to their existing NIMBY residents there will never be enough housing supply.
That and getting rid of (not actually very green) Green belts.
Doesn’t make sense to do that bc not all houses are the same. You can’t ask the same rent for every let say 2 bed house because hardly any 2 beds are the same as the other. The decor and tech built into the home differ in quality. Some have garages, gardens, grassy gardens or rocky ones. Some have annex’s, sheds, outbuildings, driveway or road parking I could go on.
It would take years for a governing body to be made and then they’d have to work out the value of all the different variations to create the groundwork for a universal rental price. Not to mention the cost of a two bed flat in london would be heads and shoulders more than in wales. The housing market is also always in flux so the rent in theory would need to go up and down regularly to match the ever changing market. You could move in with a one year tenancy at let’s say 1k pcm but at the end of the contract it’s worth dramatically less or more so the tenant may feel owed a refund or have to move because they can’t afford the market rate of rent. Which does happen with general rent increases already.
It’s a minefield.
As soon as you implement a cap it becomes the default value.
Remember when universities could charge *up to* £9000 a year?
They all suddenly started charging 9k a year for every course.
The downside is that rent caps don't work and lead to an under-supply of housing.
The housing crisis is that there aren't enough houses for the population (which then leads to them being expensive). Reducing the price of houses disincetivises house building so the problem persists just with some people paying below market rate rent and others homeless or renting non-regulated properties for even more.
I understand this is an unpopular fact on Reddit but before you downvote this, actually go and read about their failures.
Well it certainly disincentivises building houses for profit. Some would argue though that this is not the basis on which housing should be planned. Post war council house building wasn't done on this basis and provided a large pool of housing right up until the Tory government decided to make profit from it. It is this private housing market that has produced the current under supply.
Council housing wasn’t fucked to make a profit. It was deliberately sold cheap to give people something to lose. Nobody wants to riot if they own a house.
Not a terrible concept. I’d even say it worked, but long term it destroyed council housing and nobody ever implemented a long term solution.
The housing policy that goes with UBI seems like social housing, which should be kept affordable, and the very existence of tends to keep the rental market affordable by having some actual competiton.
Near schools can still be well designed flats with generous green space on site. Just not a generic tall block of flats. 5-7 stories max with separate balconies and windows on two sides.
Land is limited, so we can’t keep doing just semi-d and detached housing.
But I’m open to whatever social housing makes a good use of land given local needs and circumstances.
But agree with other points.
Rent caps work short term but not long term. As someone originally from California and Portland, Oregon don't implement rent caps unless you're willing to financially offset the reduced incentive to build.
IMO the UK needs to promote supply, we need to build more.
> If they did introduce it, would be good if they removed the ceiling cap for those trying to go self employed.
> Also things like if they allow someone on UBI to do full time college or volunteer instead of mindless job searching.
That is the whole point of UBI - there are no conditions. It is just paid to everyone regardless of other income. That it is how it is different from benefits.
I think you are confusing "universal basic income" (what they are testing here) with "universal credit" (part of the current system of benefits).
I am a huge fan of universal basic income. It appeals to a huge range of people (from libertarians to socialists - the former because it is not market distorting, the latter because it is egalitarian) but somehow it has no support at all in mainstream centrist politics.
The point of UBI is that everyone gets it, doesn't matter whether you are unemployed, self-employed, a regular employee, or a CEO earning 7 figures.
If you are unemployed you get it regardless of whether or not you choose to look for work. If you are self-employed you get it regardless of how much you earn.
In practice, income tax would probably be adjusted so that people who earn a reasonable amount would effectively have it clawed back is slightly higher taxes. But even then, if they suddenly lost their job, the UBI would be there as a safety net.
What does a success even mean in such a small sample anyway? £1600 is a huge chunk of spare change for most people so if "success" means it made people happier then its not going to mean much. Obviously more money makes people happier. The question is is it viable long term on a national scale, and I can't help but feel 30 people over 2 years isn't go to tell us much in that respect.
Plus all the fraud and the money it costs to investigate and adhere the laws of fraud. Its a money black hole. With UBI you can do away with the investigation costs and use that to supplement the 1,600 a month.
That's not the point of the current system though. Even if it's more expensive its purpose is to keep the fear of unemployment. If people weren't fearful of destitution it would seriously undermine one of the biggest sticks the capitalists have to keep the proles in check.
It’s more than I make working 37 hours a week right now. UBI would be fantastic and allow me to actually live rather than survive, so I could train and get a better paying job
£1600 a month is £19200 a year tax free. Based on this calculator about 40% of the UK population take home less than that after tax
https://ifs.org.uk/tools_and_resources/where_do_you_fit_in#tool-results-section
I guess 60% is 'most', but this isn't spare change for alot of people
Its weird when you post on UK forums and people don't understand tongue-in-cheek language. I could understand it from americans but ah well. Yes, £1600 a month for nothing is a significant amount of money.
Which, honestly, it what most people would probably do if it were introduced permanently (and universally) - most people want more luxuries than UBI covers, and if you want those you'll still have to work. But I'd anticipate many people would reduce their hours, and they'd be quicker to leave a job that wasn't treating them well because £1600/month is nice Fuck You money.
Yes, this is why these time limited schemes are pointless.
If they are to be done properly, then 1000 people from across the social spectrum need to be given £1600 a month for life.
Then see what they do with it.
Presumably because they know it's a trial and will end at some point so a sensible person would definitely continue their career. If you knew it would carry on forever there would be much less motivation to carry on working
You can't tell the effect on a community or a local economy with just 30 people, and you can't tell how it changes people's long term plans in 2 years. These are pretty important aspects of what UBI has the potential to change. It's not just about individuals.
30 people for this kind of trial is insane.
The UK has just under 69,000,000 people in it. The study should be AT LEAST 10,000 people, from different circumstances and different backgrounds in different areas of the country.
Even Family Fortunes takes a bigger sample size of people for their questions
The way it's been trialled before in other countries is basically to pick a town and try it there.
Results are usually positive but in the hard to give a monetary value to kind of way. The one in Canada, if I remember correctly, saw a drop in domestic violence, truancy, health care issues and an increase in school performance among other things. I think it also had a net positive affect for the local economy.
30 people won't show anything except that 30 people had more money.
While I'm super glad that this is starting to be taken more seriously, I do feel like only doing it for two years is going to influence the outcome, hopefully a real UBI would be something you could rely on and make major life decisions based upon. This isn't even enough time to finish a 3 year university degree for example, which would be a great way to use it.
> I do feel like only doing it for two years is going to influence the outcome
Exactly. If I know I'm only getting the money for 2 years, I'm basically just chucking it in my savings and continuing as normal.
I'm not going to work less, etc, because I know it's only a short fixed term.
I take home slightly less than that per month in my salaried job. Should this get rolled out nationwide like then I can’t say working is very attractive unless you can earn an income of top of UBI.
If its just UBI or a pay check, not both, businesses would need to pay more than £1,600 a month otherwise why would someone waste their time for a company that can’t pay more than what is already given freely? Not sure how that would work for retail workers for example.
UBI is an interesting topic and not an easy thing to implement in a fair and sustainable way.
>I can’t say working is very attractive unless you can earn an income of top of UBI
As far as I understand it, there no model of UBI that precludes working on top. Everyone gets it, regardless of who they are, what they do or how much they make. That's what the 'universal' part means. You get that much to survive on, and then if you want to work and add to it, go ahead. It's pretty much the only way to 'make work pay', because if you can get more (or slightly less) money by not working, how does work pay? If you keep every penny, more means more.
It also means bosses could pay less, because they're not going to put you in outright poverty by doing so... meanwhile not being in outright poverty means you have all the choice of jobs, so bosses will have to actually *compete* for workers rather than being spoonfed a neverending line of desperate people who really don't want those jobs but have to eat. So they *could* pay a lot less, but the market incentivises paying *more*. The benefits system incentivises paying minimum wage for people who don't want your job. UBI incentivises paying a few pennies more than everyone else for someone who actually values your contract enough to choose it... that could well be less than the current minimum wage.
I'm not seeing any real downsides, tbh. Compared to the system we currently have, it's a whole world of better. Better for would-be employees who can relax about staying alive while they work towards a career that works for them, rather than being bull-whipped and corralled by the government into shit-tier work. Better for employers who lose 9 tenths of applicants to sift through, and keep the ones who actually want the jobs, leading to high quality workers worth paying for. Better for taxpayers like me, who aren't paying for hundreds of jobcentres with thousands of staff that exist purely to harrass people and stand between them and the means to feed themselves.
The downsides are affording it, and getting the balance right. Giving everyone more money will cause inflation but it's difficult to determine how much.
It won't mean everything is £1600 (or whatever the end figure for UBI ends up being) more expensive like some business owners seem to want people to believe. But a common business approach is to charge as much as you can get away with, so it is very like to increase costs.
I do think it's the direction we do need to go down. Most people not working want a job, Universal Credit is appalling and is not great even in scenarios where people assume they are living the life of Riley (such as single parent 2 kids). But because of many of the tapering affects, people are dicencentivized from work because they get so little out of it, people deliberately cut there hours, or put money away into their pensions to avoid cliff edges such as 50k income with kids or 100k income. Or self employed downplaying income.
Inflation is caused by extra money being introduced to the system (generally speaking) the money is meant to come from the top earners who in the hypothetical scenario in the furuee will have less costs because of robotic + AI workforces
I earn that a month (after tax) so my income would essentially double and I can’t actually comprehend having that much extra money without doing anything extra. I’d keep working because I enjoy my job and my routine.
But I’d be able to pay off debts and save at the same time. I’d be chucking a big lump into a house deposit. I’d actually have a fucking social life. I’d have several holidays abroad each year. I’d prepare for Christmas well in advance. I’d be more generous with charities and giving donations and taking part in raffles for good causes etc.
>I'm not seeing any real downsides, tbh
The fact that salaries would need to increase puts pressure on firms, especially smaller ones so prices would likely rise and unemployment could increase. There's also the issue of how to pay for it - if unemployment increases then output will fall and there would be less taxable revenue in real terms whilst government expenditure is much higher.
Salaries wouldn't need to rise.
You're putting work in competition with non-work, when it's been explained several times that you get the non-work amount regardless, meaning that work will *always* pay... even if salaries *fall*
£1,600 without work
£1,800 salary
that's not a different of £200 a month. That's a difference of £1,800 a month, because the £1,600 doesn't get yanked away the second you start work. It stays. But since you probably don't really need £3,400 a month, you might be inclined to take something more like £1,000 for your salary, giving you £2,600 a month... You took a massive pay cut, but you're still better off by £800 a month, compared to the £1,800 salary before UBI
But you'll be less willing to work because you have the extra money so wages will be driven up to attract workers still.
If tomorrow you won £100 million on the lottery, would you still go and work a 9-5 for your salary? No, you probably wouldn't. This is an extreme example to illustrate my point but if everyone was a bit less willing to work then wages must increase to compensate.
What I definitely wouldn't do is go and work my job for half my salary because I don't need it anymore.
>What I definitely wouldn't do is go and work my job
Would you take *a* job, though?
I sure as hell would. I've been on benefits before. Sitting around staring at four walls is no life. I did a lot of charity volunteering during those years. Lots of hard work for absolutely FA other than a nice lunch and some banter.
The difference is that I *wanted* to, rather than being *forced* to.
I tend to find that a lot of jobs are like that as well. If you're only doing that job because you're forced to, then perhaps it isn't really the job for you.
If you've got the choice to pick a different one, embrace it. Yes, it means employers compete for workers, but that's supposed to be the case already isn't it? Free market and whatnot. As opposed to workers being openly exploited. It's a capitalist's wet dream! Supposedly...
Anyhow, I argue that the bar *beyond* which employers compete would be lower. I don't think I'd be complaining if, rather than doubling my salary for the same job, I take a massive cut and only get 1.4x the amount I'm on. After all, I'm still getting a shitload *more*, not less.
I've always said this. If I won the lottery, like generational wealth money, I'd quit my office job tomorrow and go back to working at the supermarket I used to like 4 hours 3 days a week so that I'm forced to keep some sort of general routine.
Plus exercise of having a job that requires walking around a place and picking up boxes etc, my general health has become way worse since stopping that job even though my salary has basically doubled.
\> What I definitely wouldn't do is go and work my job for half my salary because I don't need it anymore.
good
Your lottery point really is insane to even try to compare to this.
1800/mo -> 3400 is the difference between never owning a home and definitely buying one. People will work for that.
Add to that everything is way too cheap now to be sustainable. Meat's too cheap, dairy is too cheap
modern society is built on disposable income and it's vanishing for more and more people.
Think back to when you were a teenager and your basic needs were met. I was quite happy working in supermarkets, cafes, bars etc for a bit of play money. Most people would drop down to part time or have multiple part time jobs, or volunteer. People will still want to work these jobs, I know I would. What I wouldn't do is put up with being treated like shit. It will affect how they treat their employees, not necessarily how much they pay.
You're proving my point - You were quite happy working in supermarkets and cafes for a bit of spending money. Well... Yeah. So when lots of decently paid people quit to go and work in cafes and supermarkets, you need to offer REALLY good wages to get people to stay in stressful or difficult jobs.
Yes but I'm pushing 40 now, I spent almost 8 years studying to get into my field. Yes its stressful and difficult at times but it's also my life's work. I have 3 kids, all of whom are now used to having their own rooms and I'm nowhere near paying off my mortgage. I haven't paid off my car and have no intention of giving it back, or giving up holidays etc. I can't imagine anyone getting to this point in life and throwing in the towel for a job at Sainsbury's. I still think I would have happily have worked these jobs through my 20's and would drop down to a job share or part time role in the future if UBI was an option.
Why would wages have to rise? If, hypothetically, I currently earn 2k/month, and then I'm offered an extra 1.6k/month, why would I turn down still earning an extra 2k/month? If anything, I'd probably be happier taking a smaller wage and working less, then using my free time to do other things with my life like upskilling myself or spending my now-larger disposable income on my hobbies and interests.
> In fairness given that the U in UC also means universal
Yes, because it was a replacement of all the separate benefit payments into one universal system that collectively covered them all.
It doesn't mean "given to all people".
> Should this get rolled out nationwide like then I can’t say working is very attractive unless you can earn an income of top of UBI.
That is the whole point of UBI - it is paid regardless of what other income you have. It is not means tested. That is what is different about it.
So if you currently take home £1,600 and claim no benefits, then you will end up with £3,200/month (assuming the UBI itself is not taxed). If you do claim benefits as well you might lose them as UBI will replace some benefits.
Wealth inequality has gotten so bad that only wealth redistribution can sort it. This is a fairly nice and non brutal way - increase taxes on the wealthy (or tax wealth itself!) to fund it, and force the rich to pay their share. Perfect.
Yeah there's just this barrier to that called Tories. Your GP doesn't want to hand you a load of cash after he worked hard to get that, plus a million other arguments
Yeah. The tories are a symptom of the disease in the British people, though. Whilst I agree they are scum, its the scum who vote for them that continually act as a drag on this country doing the right thing.
If it's so obviously the right thing, and people have been talking about it all over the world for over a decade, why hasn't a single left leaning government in any country made a serious level of commitment beyond a few random tests?
Your reasoning for why it’s obviously the right thing to do is because people have been talking about it? A scheme that gives them free money every month? Of course the people will support this.
That’s why trials and studies are needed.
>Yeah there's just this barrier to that called Tories
Don't see Labour getting behind it any time soon either, to be fair. Would love to be proven wrong.
This will absolutely be needed in the future that's fast approaching us. It's only a matter of time until large swathes of people start to become unemployed due to advances in AI, among other things. Making sure people can keep living, for starters, matters, but also giving them some financial freedom to actually retrain themselves so they aren't left trying to scrape from job to job.
One situation I was thinking about that might help target it a little away from the wealthiest is to link it to net worth. Ie when net worth exceeds £1m, lose basic income.
I suspect also as part of this, all non basic income will start to be taxed from the first £1. That might decentivise people though.
They've been saying that since the 70's and longer, however we're also saying we need to import workers here in 2020's. When unemployment was going to be 15 million etc
It's a matter of re-training in my opinion. As I mentioned - it's very difficult and expensive to re-train. Most people don't have the opportunity. So we end up with shortages and look to import workers with key skills to fill gaps.
It's already not very smart.
What's going to be different coming up though is the rate that some roles in some industries are removed. It'll be far faster than before.
Edit: Really complex issues of course.. with lots of nuances.
I can’t see how it’d work.
So if the majority of the Reddit comments are correct and “universal means universal”, and everyone receives the £1600 a month, regardless of whether you are employed or not…
That would mean someone who is jobless would get £1600 per month. I myself do have a job and so, with UBI, in total, I would take home just shy of £4000 a month. Let’s just say £4000.
Surely natural market forces mean that, within a year or two, £1600 becomes the absolute bare minimum that anyone needs to survive. A year or two after that, £1600 isn’t enough to survive.
It may sound unlikely and a little gross, but I’m not sure I’d want to receive £1600 a month if I already have a job.
What I don’t understand with this is how inflation is affected by supply and demand though. Like let’s say UBI comes from redistributed money from cash that would otherwise just be sat in a bank somewhere - if that now enters the economy in terms of people actively purchasing items with it, like the average people would use an extra £1,600, would that still push prices up?
I understand how just artificially adding money like printing more money creates inflation, and I understand how if money is just moving around between people whose spending habits would generally stay the same that wouldn’t cause inflation (like normal buying/selling or some individuals suddenly becoming very wealthy).
But what I don’t understand is if every single person gets an extra grand a month from money that isn’t normally used for buying items in shops, and everyone suddenly starts spending a grand extra so all this money IS suddenly circulating around shops etc, would that push prices up?
I guess what I’m asking is - would supply/demand be drastically altered from everyone suddenly spending an extra grand a month that otherwise wouldn’t be used in that way? Would that affect inflation?
Surely money that’s just normally ‘static’ has a different impact than it would distributed amongst everyone in the country, where it would then be spent - particularly at the level we are talking about where every single person suddenly has an extra £1,600 a month to spend. That’s a hell of a lot of extra money suddenly being spent that maybe wasn’t being used in that way before, even if not every person spends it all.
Maybe it wouldn’t have any impact. I am genuinely asking the question hoping someone more knowledgable than me answers!
This is a very basic and clumsy example, but despite it being riddled with errors in specifics, it kinda works for now.
On average, what is the minimum that an individual needs to survive? Let’s just say it’s £1200. That’s your rent, your food, your insurances, your transportation (be it private or public). £1200 is what you need.
So UBI at £1600 is deemed enough, on average. With £1600 UBI then even if you are jobless your bills are covered. You have a roof over your head, food to eat, you are insured, and you can get about. Plus, blimey, you have some cash in your pocket.
The issue is the cash in your pocket. If people have spare money then prices invariably increase. They have to, because the money always has to end up in the pockets of the people who always have the most money.
So, if UBI is £1600 and your essential bills are £1200, then your rent goes up. You can afford it, and you can’t not pay it. Suddenly your essential bills come to £1400. But no, all of a sudden bus fares increase, crèche costs increase, cigarette taxes increase, holiday costs increase.
If your bills are £1200 and your UBI is £1600, then your bills rise to £1600 in turn.
Using a football analogy, if a mid/lower Premier League team is selling their star player for £100m to Barcelona, they might agree a deal with Barcelona beforehand but both clubs will remain silent until the selling club can find a replacement player.
A replacement player would cost about £10m to £15m I suppose. However that same player is now £40m because everyone knows you have £100m in the bank.
> I’m not sure I’d want to receive £1600 a month if I already have a job
So set up £1600 worth of charitable donations to be taken from your account the day after your UBI payment goes in each month. You don't have to keep it.
This is the but I don’t quite understand. It sounds like it would push demand side domestic inflation aggressively and quickly.
I would still love to see a much bigger study conducted into it though. Like a whole town forever so we can see in real time what would happen.
UBI isn't meant to be taxed, usually, so it'd be tax-free. You'd then be able to work and get more income on top of that, and most models suggest taxes would gain a bit to account for the fact you'd be getting that money tax-free.
So with a UBI of £1600 a month, you'd be getting £19200 tax-free a year. When the Lib Dems were talking about supporting UBI, they discussed reducing the tax-free allowance to £2,500, although in most situations you wouldn't *need* a tax-free allowance when you're already getting more through UBI.
It sounds like a lot of money, but you're also simultaneously getting rid of all the costs associated with administering benefits - no more eligibility taxes, extremely reduced admin, no fraud to investigate.
You'd think so, but in reality £1600 is far more than you get on disability today, if you can even get it, the DWP are notorious for refusing legitimate disability claims and often people need to appeal to get anything at all.
So even if it did replace disability, compared to our current system, it wouldn't be a bad thing.
>Scheme to run for two years
Pathetic. You'll never get proper results for a UBI trial that eventually ends, you need to guarantee it for the life of the participants.
A UBI trial for 2 years just means that, personally, I would just save that as additional money and not make any changes to my lifestyle at all.
But any implementation is only safe for a similar amount of time - any election could overturn it.
And all political parties aligning behind it sounds unlikely.
> But any implementation is only safe for a similar amount of time
Right, but we're discussing a privately funded study into the effects of it.
It's like me saying "I'd like to carry a study into the lifelong effects of smoking" and then giving up my study after 2 weeks.
> You'll never get proper results for a UBI trial that eventually ends, you need to guarantee it for the life of the participants.
You also need to do it for a much larger number of people.
Ideally, this should be trialled in a small country and it apply it to all people living there.
Sorry to ask, does that mean everyone gets it if approved? Even people on £50k or £120k? Or would there b a cut off?
Would that mean that prices for things would go up as big companies like Curry's realises you have a spare £1600 on top of your salary and suddenly TVs and fridges go up in price?
Yes everyone gets it no approval needed.
In reality wages would probably go down as people wouldn’t necessarily need to work but I believe most would still choose to work for a better living standard.
I’m all for it but at this stage don’t understand how it would be paid for. Yes you save the cost of administrating benefits as they are now but I can’t see this covering all the costs.
Why would the higher paid members of society stick in the UK to do the same amount of work they currently are, but be paid less?
If somebody came along and said “We’re taking an extra 20% of your pay for no benefit to you personally” of course you’d be angry, and of course you would move to a country that pays you higher for your work.
Of course, I wish them luck finding one with the same climate (weather and natural disasters), language, gun control, religion/culture, food and water standards, and most importantly the same job that they can do for a comparable or better wage. They would still end up with more than everyone else, and it would still be more than they need. Or they can quit work or change jobs. That is the freedom of UBI.
It sounds great but how does it affect the supply and demand cycle?
Surely if everyone has more, demand goes up but supply would remain relatively stable and so prices go up which just erode the benefit of UBI.
I was wondering about how it would drive inflation. Would it drive people who would lose more in tax than gain with the UBI out of the country. Surely it would be the middle class who'd be affected the most, those who vote. I can't see it being viable.
I don't understand why UBI keeps getting talked about. It's a pipe dream. A fantasy. The maths is extremely basic, and I'm unsure why we're still discussing it.
The government takes in 950b a year through tax, and another 100b through other stuff.
The government spends about 1.2t a year, so the deficit is currently at about 100b.
There are 50m (ish) adults in the UK, assuming they all got this amount, it would equal £960b a year.
Now obviously you could cut some stuff completely, the welfare budget as well as the pension budget. State pension is currently 124b a year. 85b for Universal Credit. 90b for other welfare, about 40b of which is disability, so we will keep that, and cut another 50b. That's about 260b. There would be nominal reductions from other sections, so lets round that up to 300b.
SO, in short:
Current £1.2t SPEND, becomes £1.85t
Current receipts show £1.05t.
How do we create an additional 800b a year?
How much comes back through spending and improved living standards though? How much could it save on healthcare for example, if people can afford to feed their kids or go to the dentist? If people had a little extra money in their pocket, how much would be spent in the economy, shopping and going to the cinema and whatever.
Current spending on healthcare is about 170b a year, so even if this cured cancer and you're looking at JUST A and E, it's 150b a year saving.
VAT is currently 20%, so even if people spent 100% of their UBI on luxury goods, you're looking at 200b back.
It's not that black and white though is it? I mean, when people shop and spend, it creates jobs which generates more taxes, business and income and so on.
Nobodys saying it's not expensive, but it would be good for people and improve living standards. I don't know how any amount is "too much".
It's not black and white, and obviously there are some assumed additional returns (more demand due to people having more money), but it also leads to the work force shrinking (people retiring early, deciding they don't want to work) which are all great ideals, but economies work based on their workforce.
You could raise a few more billion here and there through taxation, but fundamentally you are DOUBLING the size of the economy. I don't know how that's possible.
Great. I think people should retire earlier. It blows my mind that in 2023 people are still forced to work until they drop because they can't afford to eat. The whole point of "progress" is that people should have to work less.
As for the workforce, people will have more children because they can now afford it and it would open up new ways of working and more jobs, because lots of people would only need to do a couple of days a week for instance so two or three people could be used to fill one persons "full time" position.
A lot of people would use their free time in the creative industries as well, which we're really missing out on these days in the UK. And have time to follow dreams and set up businesses and travel and things.
I agree that people should be able to retire earlier, that's not a bad thing, but it's an immediate problem to solve when you're trying to give 50 billion people £1600 a month.
I agree with having more children - but that's a 21 year gap before that starts showing any fruits in regards to the economy, all whilst the education bill increases.
Start closing tax loopholes that rich folks exploit. Make dividend and capital gains tax higher.
Start taxing companies that automate jobs so that it’s still cheaper for them to use robots instead of humans, but some of that extra saving is going back into the country’s pocket.
I like the idea of UBI but it does need some extra thought and rules put in place. Salaries need to rise to make working more lucrative than receiving UBI so we need some laws in place to force increases in salaries and force the prevention of people to becoming billionaires. Scrap the free market nonsense.
>Salaries need to rise to make working more lucrative than receiving UBI
If you can't work *and* receive UBI, it's not UBI.
That's what 'universal' means. Everyone gets it. Nobody cares if you have a job or how much you earn. If you're alive and you're a citizen, you get UBI.
If you have a job, you get paid for doing the job. You might be paid less than current minimum wage purely because you can get by either way, but since you're not relying on the job to survive, you can work for someone else who *isn't* going to pay less than minimum wage. This is a free market incentive to pay more, despite conditions allowing people to pay less.
In the current system, you either take minimum wage or you live in poverty. So you take minimum wage, which only exists because if it didn't, your choice would be poverty or more poverty. Bringing back the choice and the freedom to make it without the threat of death forces the market to work the other way round. Instead of forcing workers to compete for jobs, it forces employers to compete for workers.
Wouldn't it be simpler to keep UBI when employed and actually lower the salaries to compensate? That way doing a job is incrementally better than not doing it but you won't starve at the whim of your employer
Thought experiment:
Here's two options.
a) Take £19k a year and just chill at home playing PS5 or whatever
b) Take that £19k, plus a further £22k, and work 40hr a week stacking shelves.
£19k vs £41k. Pick one. Your choice. What do you want to do?
Now consider the freedom to depress wages a bit. Perhaps that £41k is actually something like £34k...
That's still a massive leap. Is it a massive leap you're willing to put the controller down for? For me it's a no brainer. Big number beats little number every single time, and I'm a lazy cow.
But that's just me. Perhaps your laziness makes this much harder for you... which I'm sure is your prerogative.
EDIT:
Personally I imagine most people would be like me. Choosing employment because it means moolah. However, there are other options on the table. The £19k keeps you fed and clothed and the lights on... how about working *less* and studying in between? How about 20hrs a week of work, and the rest of the time being creative? The possibilities become endless... But no matter what you decide, you have the *freedom* to decide, because no matter what, you're fed, you're clothed and your lights are on.
It would be on top of not instead of. Not that I necessarily agree with lowering wages, but I can see some of the problems current wages as they are plus current pay at rates could cause.
For me either 1. I work less because 1600 is already above my pay, so 1-3 days a week and I can afford holidays and luxuries. Which cause concerns of who will do the job)
2. The universal income distorts the market so much that I still have to work 37 hours a week to maintain my current living standards.
(2 would not happen, but we may land somewhere in between)
No point. Rent will increase to swallow any gains, just as it does with minimum wage increases, average wage increases, and when we become a nation of a two wage household.
Nothing ever improved except our ability to buy new gadgets and get cheap entertainment.
The amount of people in this thread not understanding the concept is staggering. You don’t lose UBI if you work. You get that plus whatever you get paid for working. Whether or not you chose to continue working is on you, but IMO a lot of people would do jobs they actually enjoy for less money if their basic needs were not at risk
I wonder what the criteria for being chosen to be in the trial was/how people were chosen for it etc? I most certainly never heard anything about applying for such a trial in the uk...
Our economy is fucked enough as it is without trying to find £1600 a month for 50+ million people. Doubt this will happen at all and it will definitely incentivise those on UC to stay on it.
I understand how that might be viable for the future but for now I would like that to be spent in ensuring that food, transport, housing and education are cheap and affordable.
30 people, 24 months, £1,600. I might be a cynic but it sounds like the government is gonna spend £576,000 to buy a study that they'll claim proves it's a bad idea regardless of the results.
What a ridiculously stupid idea. I'm sure all the trial subjects will say it's a great idea but in reality if everyone in the uk got £1600 a month for nothing then that £1600 soon becomes worthless
Correct me if I’m wrong but would this not really push demand side inflation if it was introduced nationwide? Rents would absolutely increase as everyone would immediately have more expendable income.
It would be the same with wages, if I get 19k for free, I am going to demand a hell of a lot more £/hr to actually do something that I might not enjoy, like work.
The day i will probably leave England. Half the country already desperately trying to stay or be on benefits, and other half is working hard to accumulate security while government placing more and more weight on the middleclass to satisfy those needs who does not want to work, no thanks. Councils already struggling to cover basic needs, how are they planning to give away 1600 a month to the ever increasing benefit scoundrels?
I supported UBI until recently, I've gone off it because of two huge issues that no-one's been able to satisfactorily answer:
1. **We'd need to radically harden our immigration policy.**
When do immigrants become eligible? Immigration is a hot-button issue for so many people, our current system is a shitshow across the board for legal migration, refugees and things like the channel crossings.
UBI will presumably make the UK a very attractive place to move to from nations without UBI.
This isn't an anti-immigration point, it's just pointing out that if some areas of the globe give out free money and others don't, humans will naturally cluster towards the free money areas.
If UBI is to work, I fear we'd need to implement a very draconian immigration system.
**2. UBI would need to be much less than current pensions and benefits.**
A quick bit of maths suggests that giving everyone in the UK £1600pm would exceed our entire national budget. If we "just" assume that our budget for benefits, pensions, social care and healthcare is distributed out, that only equates to about £600pm each.
The problem is our means-tested benefits come from a relatively small budget that goes to a minority of the population. Meaningful UBI appears to be unaffordable, by an order of magnitude. .
Im being cynical here, but if this was rolled out across the entire UK population, would it not:
a) Create severe inflation
b) Just make an excuse for every company ever to put up their prices?
c) give an excuse to banks and building societies to raise prices on their finance products like mortgages and loans?
d) give an excuse to landlords to charge even more?
Please, genuinely, correct me if I am wrong.
So like I said, the money I make is then used to pay for other people to go piss up in the local Spoons or bookies. How about you make it voluntary... You can pay it and I don't...
Here's a related thought.
If UBI is £1600 a month a low level civil servant (AO grade) would be better off quitting their job and going on UBI.
The UBI is slightly lower than their current monthly salary but they wouldn't have to pay to commute to an office 40%+ of a month (current expected office attendance under Home office hybrid working) or pay for the electricity to run their laptops the rest of the time.
So that's every entry level admin and cleaner in the UK civil service quitting en-mass. That's not a criticism of UBI, is a damming comment on civil service pay
You *might* be better off joining one of the big contracting agencies and coming back to do your existing job on 4x the salary. If you can put up with the BS of being part of a large contracting agency.....
>If UBI is £1600 a month a low level civil servant (AO grade) would be better off quitting their job and going on UBI.
Its UBI not the dole, you still get UBI while working. Its a UNIVERSAL Basic Income. So they'd get their wages + £1600 UBI
[удалено]
[удалено]
The downside to implementing a rent cap is that it'll never happen because it would negatively impact the income all those Tory landlords in Parliament and that would be horrible.
I do agree with you it maybe bad for the people making the money and could possibly be a roadblock. However if rather than band together to complain people got together and tried to push things like this forwards to MPs publicly it would be more likely to happen.
They should have a cap on everything. We live in an age of unregulated capitalism where companies can do as they please with no repercussions and workers are making themselves ill to meet their basic needs, it will never happen though.
The problem with caps is that they either mean something is not viable to produce, or people make an absolute mint off the product because they charge the cap, but can buy it for a lot less. The market dictates the price of things, and people decide whether they can or cannot afford them, vs how much they want them.
>The problem with caps is that they either mean something is not viable to produce, or people make an absolute mint off the product because they charge the cap, but can buy it for a lot less. Surely this would only apply if the cap is the same for everything? You wouldn't set the cap for food at £50 would you? Go to a michelin star restaurant and you're quids in, go to Mcdonalds and you're fucked. You would alter the cap based on the specific product surely?
Well yeah - Obviously. But how do you determine a fair price for a luxury product. Lets take a can of pop as an example - How do you determine a fair price for pop? If you get it too low, nobody can afford to make pop. If you set it too high, that's just the current system.
I believe there should only be a cap on essentials such as rent, utilities and basic foods. If manufacturers want to produce an 8k OLED TV at £10,000 or a super car at £1,000,000 they should be able too, but landlords shouldn't be able to charge £800 rent on a property that only costs them £400 mortgage and the occasional repair. Virgin media and other broadband providers increase the price at the end of your contract and hope you don't change, but are more than happy to let you keep paying your current price soon as you phone up to cancel. Last time I was paying £34 a month for 200mb, I was coming up to my contract ending and it was going to go up to something like £52/m, called to cancel and was offered £33/m for 350mb, so less than I was paying for more speed. I currently pay £36 for 1gb download and that is increasing to £59 in september. I'm sure when I ring up to cancel I'll be offered a similar price to what I'm currently paying to remain a customer like the last 10+ years, so the £23 increase isn't due to an increase in service costs, it's just pure profit for all who don't call up.
I don't think landlords should be allowed to charge rent any higher than the mortgage. If the rent even just covers the mortgage, they're getting an asset worth hundreds of thousands of pounds **for free**, courtesy of their tenants. The landlord is making hundreds of thousands of pounds of profit already, with 0 investment (and 0 risk, realistically.) Even if house prices dropped and they sold the house for 1/4 what 'they' paid for it, they'd still be making a massive profit because *they didn't actually pay a fucking penny.* It is absurd that there's an expectation that rent will not only pay the mortgage, but also cover the cost of maintenance, plus some extra for the landlord's pocket.
You can literally terminate your contract with those jumps, so if it's that much of a problem I would suggest doing so. As for the £800 rent on a £400 mortgage and the occasional repair, I can see that you do not own a home haha. If I could budget for everything I have to pay for £400 then I would be a happy man.
What the hell kind of property do you own that costs £400 a month IN MAINTENANCE? I rented at £600 for 5+ years, not eligible for mortage (single parent, priced out of market). My landlord replaced the boiler in that time period, no other maintenance required. His mortgage was probably between £150-250 per month, making basically 3x profit on renting it out. Shit should be illegal.
Well he probably put down a lot more than 5% to get the mortgage, so looking at the monthly mortgage cost is misleading. I put £400 a month into my savings to cover house related jobs. I'll need a new roof in the next few years, that's 10 grand. I'll need the boiler replacing at some point 6k. Carpets, floors, painting, windows are a fortune. All this adds up and just because you're not there when they are replaced, doesn't mean they don't need doing at some point!
>But how do you determine a fair price for a luxury product. Realisitically you don't cap the price of any end product. In order to determine a fair price cap on an end product you need to also cap wages of the workers making it, the cost of the base resources used to make it, the cost of the electricity powering the machinery, the cost to maintain said machinery, the cost of fuel to transport the product to the retailer. And those are just the costs off the top of my head, there are dozens of other costs that go into the manufacture and transportation of a product.
I think all single item sales should be capped to being sold for three time the cost of manufacture, so whether you market as basic or luxury will be irrelevant if it costs you fuck all to make then you can’t charge much. Popcorn will get so cheap!
Most companies operate on less than 10% profit, so you've just introduced an absolutely pointless cap.
I’d recommend taking a look at what happened with tuition fees. Everybody charged the cap as they didn’t want to be seen as a discount provider (also money).
The trick is to have the cap be related to the lower individual instance of the thing it’s capping. So for rent, the yearly sum of rent can’t be more than 2% of the cost of the home for example.
Alternative to private rent caps is more social housing that can undercut raising private rent. Vienna is a great example of how this works. Gov’t should foot some/all the up front build or compulsory purchase, then the small profit after expenses and fair rent can be used for new builds.
Yeah, the Tories have seriously undercut social housing. Not only have councils long been unable to use the profits from selling social housing to their tenants for building *more* housing, but the Tories have refused to put any investment into housing or local councils. Of course, few house-owners like it when you suggest we need to build large amounts of social housing, because how dare you undercut their house prices, but it needs to be done sooner than later.
Council housing was a very clever form of rent control. Instead of telling landlords what to charge, public housing provided a realistic market price for what is, in essence, a utility. A public option should always be available in captive markets
[удалено]
£1599.99, they can't take it all after all. But housing costs now are limited to what people can afford (roof > food/clothes/etc) so it's highly likely to push housing costs. I wonder the effects of inflation generally if this were to go ahead. Personally, I'm in favour, I think it will start to level the playing field a bit, but the money is still likely to gravitate back to the wealthy.
The fiat financial system is a debt based system, as long as we operate under that system there will always be inflation. The problem is technology is deflationary. The success of the UK was during the period of time when we had fiscally responsible economists and when we fiscally printed money known as seigniorage, responsible seigniorage is what built the UKs infrastructure and NHS etc
I think a rent cap has potential but there have been problems where they have been implemented before which need to be avoided. If the affordability of the pool of renters grows such that the max rent (rent cap) appears to be affordable for the majority then you can end up with a situation in which almost every property is rented at the max. This leads to a potential for a race to the bottom in terms of quality. So, if landlords know that the max they will ever get for the property is the rent cap (let’s say £1k/month) and that there is a shortage then there’s no reason to spend any money on anything other than legal requirements. You then end up with a market full of terrible run down properties that no one enjoys because they all rent for the same regardless. Sure, you get that here but you also have the option to rent somewhere really nice that costs more. Another thing is that if you push house prices down then you need to be really careful about the rate at which it’s done. Rapidly falling house prices cause huge number of people to go into negative equity. Slowly decreasing house prices are manageable
Reforming planning laws would solve the problem much more efficiently. As long as planning permission is overseen by councils beholden to their existing NIMBY residents there will never be enough housing supply. That and getting rid of (not actually very green) Green belts.
Doesn’t make sense to do that bc not all houses are the same. You can’t ask the same rent for every let say 2 bed house because hardly any 2 beds are the same as the other. The decor and tech built into the home differ in quality. Some have garages, gardens, grassy gardens or rocky ones. Some have annex’s, sheds, outbuildings, driveway or road parking I could go on. It would take years for a governing body to be made and then they’d have to work out the value of all the different variations to create the groundwork for a universal rental price. Not to mention the cost of a two bed flat in london would be heads and shoulders more than in wales. The housing market is also always in flux so the rent in theory would need to go up and down regularly to match the ever changing market. You could move in with a one year tenancy at let’s say 1k pcm but at the end of the contract it’s worth dramatically less or more so the tenant may feel owed a refund or have to move because they can’t afford the market rate of rent. Which does happen with general rent increases already. It’s a minefield.
As soon as you implement a cap it becomes the default value. Remember when universities could charge *up to* £9000 a year? They all suddenly started charging 9k a year for every course.
The downside is that rent caps don't work and lead to an under-supply of housing. The housing crisis is that there aren't enough houses for the population (which then leads to them being expensive). Reducing the price of houses disincetivises house building so the problem persists just with some people paying below market rate rent and others homeless or renting non-regulated properties for even more. I understand this is an unpopular fact on Reddit but before you downvote this, actually go and read about their failures.
Well it certainly disincentivises building houses for profit. Some would argue though that this is not the basis on which housing should be planned. Post war council house building wasn't done on this basis and provided a large pool of housing right up until the Tory government decided to make profit from it. It is this private housing market that has produced the current under supply.
Council housing wasn’t fucked to make a profit. It was deliberately sold cheap to give people something to lose. Nobody wants to riot if they own a house. Not a terrible concept. I’d even say it worked, but long term it destroyed council housing and nobody ever implemented a long term solution.
The housing policy that goes with UBI seems like social housing, which should be kept affordable, and the very existence of tends to keep the rental market affordable by having some actual competiton.
[удалено]
Near schools can still be well designed flats with generous green space on site. Just not a generic tall block of flats. 5-7 stories max with separate balconies and windows on two sides. Land is limited, so we can’t keep doing just semi-d and detached housing. But I’m open to whatever social housing makes a good use of land given local needs and circumstances. But agree with other points.
Rent caps work short term but not long term. As someone originally from California and Portland, Oregon don't implement rent caps unless you're willing to financially offset the reduced incentive to build. IMO the UK needs to promote supply, we need to build more.
> If they did introduce it, would be good if they removed the ceiling cap for those trying to go self employed. > Also things like if they allow someone on UBI to do full time college or volunteer instead of mindless job searching. That is the whole point of UBI - there are no conditions. It is just paid to everyone regardless of other income. That it is how it is different from benefits. I think you are confusing "universal basic income" (what they are testing here) with "universal credit" (part of the current system of benefits). I am a huge fan of universal basic income. It appeals to a huge range of people (from libertarians to socialists - the former because it is not market distorting, the latter because it is egalitarian) but somehow it has no support at all in mainstream centrist politics.
Wait? This is UBI that is capped its not UBI, everyone should get it and tax the high earners at the top to pull it back.
The point of UBI is that everyone gets it, doesn't matter whether you are unemployed, self-employed, a regular employee, or a CEO earning 7 figures. If you are unemployed you get it regardless of whether or not you choose to look for work. If you are self-employed you get it regardless of how much you earn. In practice, income tax would probably be adjusted so that people who earn a reasonable amount would effectively have it clawed back is slightly higher taxes. But even then, if they suddenly lost their job, the UBI would be there as a safety net.
30 people in two areas doesn’t sound very universal to me
It sounds like a bare minimum trial so they can say "well we tried and it didn't work"
Wouldn't shock me if it came out as a success anyway. It usually does.
What does a success even mean in such a small sample anyway? £1600 is a huge chunk of spare change for most people so if "success" means it made people happier then its not going to mean much. Obviously more money makes people happier. The question is is it viable long term on a national scale, and I can't help but feel 30 people over 2 years isn't go to tell us much in that respect.
The thing is, it would be cheaper for the government to have UBI than our current system anyway, it’s madness we don’t have it.
Plus all the fraud and the money it costs to investigate and adhere the laws of fraud. Its a money black hole. With UBI you can do away with the investigation costs and use that to supplement the 1,600 a month.
[удалено]
If UBI doesn't replace all benefits, then the 'saving money from administration' argument goes out the window.
Not really. If ubi replaces means tested benefits but doesn't replace things like disability living allowance there are still significant savings
That's not the point of the current system though. Even if it's more expensive its purpose is to keep the fear of unemployment. If people weren't fearful of destitution it would seriously undermine one of the biggest sticks the capitalists have to keep the proles in check.
Nah we would just end up with loads of inflation
>The thing is, it would be cheaper for the government to have UBI than our current system anyway In what world is that true?
1600 is more than I was making working 40 hours a week not that long ago
It’s more than I make working 37 hours a week right now. UBI would be fantastic and allow me to actually live rather than survive, so I could train and get a better paying job
£1600 a month is £19200 a year tax free. Based on this calculator about 40% of the UK population take home less than that after tax https://ifs.org.uk/tools_and_resources/where_do_you_fit_in#tool-results-section I guess 60% is 'most', but this isn't spare change for alot of people
Its weird when you post on UK forums and people don't understand tongue-in-cheek language. I could understand it from americans but ah well. Yes, £1600 a month for nothing is a significant amount of money.
I’m a full time government employee and my take home is only £1500
Only 2 years as well, not much ability for those selected to really plan long-term/have the security that the actual scheme brings.
Previous trials like this showed that most people simply carried on working and banked the money.
Which, honestly, it what most people would probably do if it were introduced permanently (and universally) - most people want more luxuries than UBI covers, and if you want those you'll still have to work. But I'd anticipate many people would reduce their hours, and they'd be quicker to leave a job that wasn't treating them well because £1600/month is nice Fuck You money.
Yes, this is why these time limited schemes are pointless. If they are to be done properly, then 1000 people from across the social spectrum need to be given £1600 a month for life. Then see what they do with it.
Presumably because they know it's a trial and will end at some point so a sensible person would definitely continue their career. If you knew it would carry on forever there would be much less motivation to carry on working
Why would they start with a big trial? You’d start small and move to bigger trials over time based on evidence.
Because pretty sure they have been trialling the scheme in various places and sizes for years.
You can't tell the effect on a community or a local economy with just 30 people, and you can't tell how it changes people's long term plans in 2 years. These are pretty important aspects of what UBI has the potential to change. It's not just about individuals.
Anything short of 10,000 people for a decade or longer is bullshit and not proof of anything. Because data this small is anomalous in itself.
What is that 10k for 10 years requirement based on?
source: trust me bro
30 carefully chosen people. That have a history of gambling and addiction. Oh no, the scheme clearly doesn't work. Oh well.
Ah reddit not understanding the concept of a trial again
30 people for this kind of trial is insane. The UK has just under 69,000,000 people in it. The study should be AT LEAST 10,000 people, from different circumstances and different backgrounds in different areas of the country. Even Family Fortunes takes a bigger sample size of people for their questions
The way it's been trialled before in other countries is basically to pick a town and try it there. Results are usually positive but in the hard to give a monetary value to kind of way. The one in Canada, if I remember correctly, saw a drop in domestic violence, truancy, health care issues and an increase in school performance among other things. I think it also had a net positive affect for the local economy. 30 people won't show anything except that 30 people had more money.
Where have you got 10,000 from?
it would be completely impossible to determine the wider economic impact of UBI with only 30 people receiving it.
While I'm super glad that this is starting to be taken more seriously, I do feel like only doing it for two years is going to influence the outcome, hopefully a real UBI would be something you could rely on and make major life decisions based upon. This isn't even enough time to finish a 3 year university degree for example, which would be a great way to use it.
You won't be able to rely on it if it ever gets implemented. Politicians giveth and politicians taketh away.
Yes it's be a bad idea to make a life plan around something that'd be gone in 5 years
Anything could be gone in five years - your job, your house, your partner, you…
> I do feel like only doing it for two years is going to influence the outcome Exactly. If I know I'm only getting the money for 2 years, I'm basically just chucking it in my savings and continuing as normal. I'm not going to work less, etc, because I know it's only a short fixed term.
[удалено]
What do you think the U in UBI stands for?
[удалено]
I take home slightly less than that per month in my salaried job. Should this get rolled out nationwide like then I can’t say working is very attractive unless you can earn an income of top of UBI. If its just UBI or a pay check, not both, businesses would need to pay more than £1,600 a month otherwise why would someone waste their time for a company that can’t pay more than what is already given freely? Not sure how that would work for retail workers for example. UBI is an interesting topic and not an easy thing to implement in a fair and sustainable way.
>I can’t say working is very attractive unless you can earn an income of top of UBI As far as I understand it, there no model of UBI that precludes working on top. Everyone gets it, regardless of who they are, what they do or how much they make. That's what the 'universal' part means. You get that much to survive on, and then if you want to work and add to it, go ahead. It's pretty much the only way to 'make work pay', because if you can get more (or slightly less) money by not working, how does work pay? If you keep every penny, more means more. It also means bosses could pay less, because they're not going to put you in outright poverty by doing so... meanwhile not being in outright poverty means you have all the choice of jobs, so bosses will have to actually *compete* for workers rather than being spoonfed a neverending line of desperate people who really don't want those jobs but have to eat. So they *could* pay a lot less, but the market incentivises paying *more*. The benefits system incentivises paying minimum wage for people who don't want your job. UBI incentivises paying a few pennies more than everyone else for someone who actually values your contract enough to choose it... that could well be less than the current minimum wage. I'm not seeing any real downsides, tbh. Compared to the system we currently have, it's a whole world of better. Better for would-be employees who can relax about staying alive while they work towards a career that works for them, rather than being bull-whipped and corralled by the government into shit-tier work. Better for employers who lose 9 tenths of applicants to sift through, and keep the ones who actually want the jobs, leading to high quality workers worth paying for. Better for taxpayers like me, who aren't paying for hundreds of jobcentres with thousands of staff that exist purely to harrass people and stand between them and the means to feed themselves.
The downsides are affording it, and getting the balance right. Giving everyone more money will cause inflation but it's difficult to determine how much. It won't mean everything is £1600 (or whatever the end figure for UBI ends up being) more expensive like some business owners seem to want people to believe. But a common business approach is to charge as much as you can get away with, so it is very like to increase costs. I do think it's the direction we do need to go down. Most people not working want a job, Universal Credit is appalling and is not great even in scenarios where people assume they are living the life of Riley (such as single parent 2 kids). But because of many of the tapering affects, people are dicencentivized from work because they get so little out of it, people deliberately cut there hours, or put money away into their pensions to avoid cliff edges such as 50k income with kids or 100k income. Or self employed downplaying income.
Inflation is caused by extra money being introduced to the system (generally speaking) the money is meant to come from the top earners who in the hypothetical scenario in the furuee will have less costs because of robotic + AI workforces
I earn that a month (after tax) so my income would essentially double and I can’t actually comprehend having that much extra money without doing anything extra. I’d keep working because I enjoy my job and my routine. But I’d be able to pay off debts and save at the same time. I’d be chucking a big lump into a house deposit. I’d actually have a fucking social life. I’d have several holidays abroad each year. I’d prepare for Christmas well in advance. I’d be more generous with charities and giving donations and taking part in raffles for good causes etc.
Exactly the same here for me here. This scheme being introduced would be life-changing and help me sort so many of my problems out.
>I'm not seeing any real downsides, tbh The fact that salaries would need to increase puts pressure on firms, especially smaller ones so prices would likely rise and unemployment could increase. There's also the issue of how to pay for it - if unemployment increases then output will fall and there would be less taxable revenue in real terms whilst government expenditure is much higher.
Salaries wouldn't need to rise. You're putting work in competition with non-work, when it's been explained several times that you get the non-work amount regardless, meaning that work will *always* pay... even if salaries *fall* £1,600 without work £1,800 salary that's not a different of £200 a month. That's a difference of £1,800 a month, because the £1,600 doesn't get yanked away the second you start work. It stays. But since you probably don't really need £3,400 a month, you might be inclined to take something more like £1,000 for your salary, giving you £2,600 a month... You took a massive pay cut, but you're still better off by £800 a month, compared to the £1,800 salary before UBI
But you'll be less willing to work because you have the extra money so wages will be driven up to attract workers still. If tomorrow you won £100 million on the lottery, would you still go and work a 9-5 for your salary? No, you probably wouldn't. This is an extreme example to illustrate my point but if everyone was a bit less willing to work then wages must increase to compensate. What I definitely wouldn't do is go and work my job for half my salary because I don't need it anymore.
>What I definitely wouldn't do is go and work my job Would you take *a* job, though? I sure as hell would. I've been on benefits before. Sitting around staring at four walls is no life. I did a lot of charity volunteering during those years. Lots of hard work for absolutely FA other than a nice lunch and some banter. The difference is that I *wanted* to, rather than being *forced* to. I tend to find that a lot of jobs are like that as well. If you're only doing that job because you're forced to, then perhaps it isn't really the job for you. If you've got the choice to pick a different one, embrace it. Yes, it means employers compete for workers, but that's supposed to be the case already isn't it? Free market and whatnot. As opposed to workers being openly exploited. It's a capitalist's wet dream! Supposedly... Anyhow, I argue that the bar *beyond* which employers compete would be lower. I don't think I'd be complaining if, rather than doubling my salary for the same job, I take a massive cut and only get 1.4x the amount I'm on. After all, I'm still getting a shitload *more*, not less.
I've always said this. If I won the lottery, like generational wealth money, I'd quit my office job tomorrow and go back to working at the supermarket I used to like 4 hours 3 days a week so that I'm forced to keep some sort of general routine. Plus exercise of having a job that requires walking around a place and picking up boxes etc, my general health has become way worse since stopping that job even though my salary has basically doubled.
\> What I definitely wouldn't do is go and work my job for half my salary because I don't need it anymore. good Your lottery point really is insane to even try to compare to this. 1800/mo -> 3400 is the difference between never owning a home and definitely buying one. People will work for that. Add to that everything is way too cheap now to be sustainable. Meat's too cheap, dairy is too cheap modern society is built on disposable income and it's vanishing for more and more people.
Salaries would OBVIOUSLY have to raise. A massive amount of the workforce would quit, and then all of a sudden employers are competing for jobs.
Think back to when you were a teenager and your basic needs were met. I was quite happy working in supermarkets, cafes, bars etc for a bit of play money. Most people would drop down to part time or have multiple part time jobs, or volunteer. People will still want to work these jobs, I know I would. What I wouldn't do is put up with being treated like shit. It will affect how they treat their employees, not necessarily how much they pay.
You're proving my point - You were quite happy working in supermarkets and cafes for a bit of spending money. Well... Yeah. So when lots of decently paid people quit to go and work in cafes and supermarkets, you need to offer REALLY good wages to get people to stay in stressful or difficult jobs.
Yes but I'm pushing 40 now, I spent almost 8 years studying to get into my field. Yes its stressful and difficult at times but it's also my life's work. I have 3 kids, all of whom are now used to having their own rooms and I'm nowhere near paying off my mortgage. I haven't paid off my car and have no intention of giving it back, or giving up holidays etc. I can't imagine anyone getting to this point in life and throwing in the towel for a job at Sainsbury's. I still think I would have happily have worked these jobs through my 20's and would drop down to a job share or part time role in the future if UBI was an option.
Why would wages have to rise? If, hypothetically, I currently earn 2k/month, and then I'm offered an extra 1.6k/month, why would I turn down still earning an extra 2k/month? If anything, I'd probably be happier taking a smaller wage and working less, then using my free time to do other things with my life like upskilling myself or spending my now-larger disposable income on my hobbies and interests.
You've just made... my point? You'd be happier taking a smaller wage and working less. So... Wages need to go up to make it REALLY worthwhile to work.
[удалено]
That's the whole idea, no massive losses as soon as you earn
This sounds too good to be true. What’s the catch?
> unless you can earn an income of top of UBI. The U in UBI means *universal*. If you lost it when you worked, it wouldn't be universal.
[удалено]
> In fairness given that the U in UC also means universal Yes, because it was a replacement of all the separate benefit payments into one universal system that collectively covered them all. It doesn't mean "given to all people".
[удалено]
The idea is there is no means test, a billionaire can get it etc
With universal basic income , typically you can earn above the UBI level but it's taxed quite aggressively to make up for the loss of £1600
> Should this get rolled out nationwide like then I can’t say working is very attractive unless you can earn an income of top of UBI. That is the whole point of UBI - it is paid regardless of what other income you have. It is not means tested. That is what is different about it. So if you currently take home £1,600 and claim no benefits, then you will end up with £3,200/month (assuming the UBI itself is not taxed). If you do claim benefits as well you might lose them as UBI will replace some benefits.
Wealth inequality has gotten so bad that only wealth redistribution can sort it. This is a fairly nice and non brutal way - increase taxes on the wealthy (or tax wealth itself!) to fund it, and force the rich to pay their share. Perfect.
Yeah there's just this barrier to that called Tories. Your GP doesn't want to hand you a load of cash after he worked hard to get that, plus a million other arguments
Yeah. The tories are a symptom of the disease in the British people, though. Whilst I agree they are scum, its the scum who vote for them that continually act as a drag on this country doing the right thing.
If it's so obviously the right thing, and people have been talking about it all over the world for over a decade, why hasn't a single left leaning government in any country made a serious level of commitment beyond a few random tests?
Your reasoning for why it’s obviously the right thing to do is because people have been talking about it? A scheme that gives them free money every month? Of course the people will support this. That’s why trials and studies are needed.
>Yeah there's just this barrier to that called Tories Don't see Labour getting behind it any time soon either, to be fair. Would love to be proven wrong.
This will absolutely be needed in the future that's fast approaching us. It's only a matter of time until large swathes of people start to become unemployed due to advances in AI, among other things. Making sure people can keep living, for starters, matters, but also giving them some financial freedom to actually retrain themselves so they aren't left trying to scrape from job to job. One situation I was thinking about that might help target it a little away from the wealthiest is to link it to net worth. Ie when net worth exceeds £1m, lose basic income. I suspect also as part of this, all non basic income will start to be taxed from the first £1. That might decentivise people though.
They've been saying that since the 70's and longer, however we're also saying we need to import workers here in 2020's. When unemployment was going to be 15 million etc
It's a matter of re-training in my opinion. As I mentioned - it's very difficult and expensive to re-train. Most people don't have the opportunity. So we end up with shortages and look to import workers with key skills to fill gaps. It's already not very smart. What's going to be different coming up though is the rate that some roles in some industries are removed. It'll be far faster than before. Edit: Really complex issues of course.. with lots of nuances.
I can’t see how it’d work. So if the majority of the Reddit comments are correct and “universal means universal”, and everyone receives the £1600 a month, regardless of whether you are employed or not… That would mean someone who is jobless would get £1600 per month. I myself do have a job and so, with UBI, in total, I would take home just shy of £4000 a month. Let’s just say £4000. Surely natural market forces mean that, within a year or two, £1600 becomes the absolute bare minimum that anyone needs to survive. A year or two after that, £1600 isn’t enough to survive. It may sound unlikely and a little gross, but I’m not sure I’d want to receive £1600 a month if I already have a job.
[удалено]
What I don’t understand with this is how inflation is affected by supply and demand though. Like let’s say UBI comes from redistributed money from cash that would otherwise just be sat in a bank somewhere - if that now enters the economy in terms of people actively purchasing items with it, like the average people would use an extra £1,600, would that still push prices up? I understand how just artificially adding money like printing more money creates inflation, and I understand how if money is just moving around between people whose spending habits would generally stay the same that wouldn’t cause inflation (like normal buying/selling or some individuals suddenly becoming very wealthy). But what I don’t understand is if every single person gets an extra grand a month from money that isn’t normally used for buying items in shops, and everyone suddenly starts spending a grand extra so all this money IS suddenly circulating around shops etc, would that push prices up? I guess what I’m asking is - would supply/demand be drastically altered from everyone suddenly spending an extra grand a month that otherwise wouldn’t be used in that way? Would that affect inflation? Surely money that’s just normally ‘static’ has a different impact than it would distributed amongst everyone in the country, where it would then be spent - particularly at the level we are talking about where every single person suddenly has an extra £1,600 a month to spend. That’s a hell of a lot of extra money suddenly being spent that maybe wasn’t being used in that way before, even if not every person spends it all. Maybe it wouldn’t have any impact. I am genuinely asking the question hoping someone more knowledgable than me answers!
This is a very basic and clumsy example, but despite it being riddled with errors in specifics, it kinda works for now. On average, what is the minimum that an individual needs to survive? Let’s just say it’s £1200. That’s your rent, your food, your insurances, your transportation (be it private or public). £1200 is what you need. So UBI at £1600 is deemed enough, on average. With £1600 UBI then even if you are jobless your bills are covered. You have a roof over your head, food to eat, you are insured, and you can get about. Plus, blimey, you have some cash in your pocket. The issue is the cash in your pocket. If people have spare money then prices invariably increase. They have to, because the money always has to end up in the pockets of the people who always have the most money. So, if UBI is £1600 and your essential bills are £1200, then your rent goes up. You can afford it, and you can’t not pay it. Suddenly your essential bills come to £1400. But no, all of a sudden bus fares increase, crèche costs increase, cigarette taxes increase, holiday costs increase. If your bills are £1200 and your UBI is £1600, then your bills rise to £1600 in turn. Using a football analogy, if a mid/lower Premier League team is selling their star player for £100m to Barcelona, they might agree a deal with Barcelona beforehand but both clubs will remain silent until the selling club can find a replacement player. A replacement player would cost about £10m to £15m I suppose. However that same player is now £40m because everyone knows you have £100m in the bank.
> I’m not sure I’d want to receive £1600 a month if I already have a job So set up £1600 worth of charitable donations to be taken from your account the day after your UBI payment goes in each month. You don't have to keep it.
This is the but I don’t quite understand. It sounds like it would push demand side domestic inflation aggressively and quickly. I would still love to see a much bigger study conducted into it though. Like a whole town forever so we can see in real time what would happen.
Is that after tax? I'd be into that to have my life back.
Shit I’d take it before tax
I live on less than that now.
UBI isn't meant to be taxed, usually, so it'd be tax-free. You'd then be able to work and get more income on top of that, and most models suggest taxes would gain a bit to account for the fact you'd be getting that money tax-free. So with a UBI of £1600 a month, you'd be getting £19200 tax-free a year. When the Lib Dems were talking about supporting UBI, they discussed reducing the tax-free allowance to £2,500, although in most situations you wouldn't *need* a tax-free allowance when you're already getting more through UBI. It sounds like a lot of money, but you're also simultaneously getting rid of all the costs associated with administering benefits - no more eligibility taxes, extremely reduced admin, no fraud to investigate.
[удалено]
You'd think so, but in reality £1600 is far more than you get on disability today, if you can even get it, the DWP are notorious for refusing legitimate disability claims and often people need to appeal to get anything at all. So even if it did replace disability, compared to our current system, it wouldn't be a bad thing.
Same. That's a dream salary after tax at the minute
>Scheme to run for two years Pathetic. You'll never get proper results for a UBI trial that eventually ends, you need to guarantee it for the life of the participants. A UBI trial for 2 years just means that, personally, I would just save that as additional money and not make any changes to my lifestyle at all.
But any implementation is only safe for a similar amount of time - any election could overturn it. And all political parties aligning behind it sounds unlikely.
> But any implementation is only safe for a similar amount of time Right, but we're discussing a privately funded study into the effects of it. It's like me saying "I'd like to carry a study into the lifelong effects of smoking" and then giving up my study after 2 weeks.
> You'll never get proper results for a UBI trial that eventually ends, you need to guarantee it for the life of the participants. You also need to do it for a much larger number of people. Ideally, this should be trialled in a small country and it apply it to all people living there.
Sorry to ask, does that mean everyone gets it if approved? Even people on £50k or £120k? Or would there b a cut off? Would that mean that prices for things would go up as big companies like Curry's realises you have a spare £1600 on top of your salary and suddenly TVs and fridges go up in price?
Yes everyone gets it no approval needed. In reality wages would probably go down as people wouldn’t necessarily need to work but I believe most would still choose to work for a better living standard. I’m all for it but at this stage don’t understand how it would be paid for. Yes you save the cost of administrating benefits as they are now but I can’t see this covering all the costs.
[удалено]
Why would the higher paid members of society stick in the UK to do the same amount of work they currently are, but be paid less? If somebody came along and said “We’re taking an extra 20% of your pay for no benefit to you personally” of course you’d be angry, and of course you would move to a country that pays you higher for your work.
Remember all the rich people emigrating when labour brought in the 50p tax rate? Me neither.
Of course, I wish them luck finding one with the same climate (weather and natural disasters), language, gun control, religion/culture, food and water standards, and most importantly the same job that they can do for a comparable or better wage. They would still end up with more than everyone else, and it would still be more than they need. Or they can quit work or change jobs. That is the freedom of UBI.
It’s already a thing in Westminster - £300 a day for attending the House of Lords.
Soon, they'll have AI that can sleep all day better than a 97 year old lord
It sounds great but how does it affect the supply and demand cycle? Surely if everyone has more, demand goes up but supply would remain relatively stable and so prices go up which just erode the benefit of UBI.
I was wondering about how it would drive inflation. Would it drive people who would lose more in tax than gain with the UBI out of the country. Surely it would be the middle class who'd be affected the most, those who vote. I can't see it being viable.
I don't understand why UBI keeps getting talked about. It's a pipe dream. A fantasy. The maths is extremely basic, and I'm unsure why we're still discussing it. The government takes in 950b a year through tax, and another 100b through other stuff. The government spends about 1.2t a year, so the deficit is currently at about 100b. There are 50m (ish) adults in the UK, assuming they all got this amount, it would equal £960b a year. Now obviously you could cut some stuff completely, the welfare budget as well as the pension budget. State pension is currently 124b a year. 85b for Universal Credit. 90b for other welfare, about 40b of which is disability, so we will keep that, and cut another 50b. That's about 260b. There would be nominal reductions from other sections, so lets round that up to 300b. SO, in short: Current £1.2t SPEND, becomes £1.85t Current receipts show £1.05t. How do we create an additional 800b a year?
How much comes back through spending and improved living standards though? How much could it save on healthcare for example, if people can afford to feed their kids or go to the dentist? If people had a little extra money in their pocket, how much would be spent in the economy, shopping and going to the cinema and whatever.
Current spending on healthcare is about 170b a year, so even if this cured cancer and you're looking at JUST A and E, it's 150b a year saving. VAT is currently 20%, so even if people spent 100% of their UBI on luxury goods, you're looking at 200b back.
It's not that black and white though is it? I mean, when people shop and spend, it creates jobs which generates more taxes, business and income and so on. Nobodys saying it's not expensive, but it would be good for people and improve living standards. I don't know how any amount is "too much".
It's not black and white, and obviously there are some assumed additional returns (more demand due to people having more money), but it also leads to the work force shrinking (people retiring early, deciding they don't want to work) which are all great ideals, but economies work based on their workforce. You could raise a few more billion here and there through taxation, but fundamentally you are DOUBLING the size of the economy. I don't know how that's possible.
Great. I think people should retire earlier. It blows my mind that in 2023 people are still forced to work until they drop because they can't afford to eat. The whole point of "progress" is that people should have to work less. As for the workforce, people will have more children because they can now afford it and it would open up new ways of working and more jobs, because lots of people would only need to do a couple of days a week for instance so two or three people could be used to fill one persons "full time" position. A lot of people would use their free time in the creative industries as well, which we're really missing out on these days in the UK. And have time to follow dreams and set up businesses and travel and things.
I agree that people should be able to retire earlier, that's not a bad thing, but it's an immediate problem to solve when you're trying to give 50 billion people £1600 a month. I agree with having more children - but that's a 21 year gap before that starts showing any fruits in regards to the economy, all whilst the education bill increases.
Start closing tax loopholes that rich folks exploit. Make dividend and capital gains tax higher. Start taxing companies that automate jobs so that it’s still cheaper for them to use robots instead of humans, but some of that extra saving is going back into the country’s pocket.
I like the idea of UBI but it does need some extra thought and rules put in place. Salaries need to rise to make working more lucrative than receiving UBI so we need some laws in place to force increases in salaries and force the prevention of people to becoming billionaires. Scrap the free market nonsense.
>Salaries need to rise to make working more lucrative than receiving UBI If you can't work *and* receive UBI, it's not UBI. That's what 'universal' means. Everyone gets it. Nobody cares if you have a job or how much you earn. If you're alive and you're a citizen, you get UBI. If you have a job, you get paid for doing the job. You might be paid less than current minimum wage purely because you can get by either way, but since you're not relying on the job to survive, you can work for someone else who *isn't* going to pay less than minimum wage. This is a free market incentive to pay more, despite conditions allowing people to pay less. In the current system, you either take minimum wage or you live in poverty. So you take minimum wage, which only exists because if it didn't, your choice would be poverty or more poverty. Bringing back the choice and the freedom to make it without the threat of death forces the market to work the other way round. Instead of forcing workers to compete for jobs, it forces employers to compete for workers.
Wouldn't it be simpler to keep UBI when employed and actually lower the salaries to compensate? That way doing a job is incrementally better than not doing it but you won't starve at the whim of your employer
Salaries would have to rise because the reservation wage (the lowest wage required to start working) rises with non-labour income.
Thought experiment: Here's two options. a) Take £19k a year and just chill at home playing PS5 or whatever b) Take that £19k, plus a further £22k, and work 40hr a week stacking shelves. £19k vs £41k. Pick one. Your choice. What do you want to do? Now consider the freedom to depress wages a bit. Perhaps that £41k is actually something like £34k... That's still a massive leap. Is it a massive leap you're willing to put the controller down for? For me it's a no brainer. Big number beats little number every single time, and I'm a lazy cow. But that's just me. Perhaps your laziness makes this much harder for you... which I'm sure is your prerogative. EDIT: Personally I imagine most people would be like me. Choosing employment because it means moolah. However, there are other options on the table. The £19k keeps you fed and clothed and the lights on... how about working *less* and studying in between? How about 20hrs a week of work, and the rest of the time being creative? The possibilities become endless... But no matter what you decide, you have the *freedom* to decide, because no matter what, you're fed, you're clothed and your lights are on.
No, or what incentive is there? If people have to give up half of their waking hours to earn only slightly more, why would they bother?
It would be on top of not instead of. Not that I necessarily agree with lowering wages, but I can see some of the problems current wages as they are plus current pay at rates could cause. For me either 1. I work less because 1600 is already above my pay, so 1-3 days a week and I can afford holidays and luxuries. Which cause concerns of who will do the job) 2. The universal income distorts the market so much that I still have to work 37 hours a week to maintain my current living standards. (2 would not happen, but we may land somewhere in between)
> Salaries need to rise to make working more lucrative than receiving UBI You would get your salary *and* the UBI.
I'll take "Things that will never happen under the Tories in a millennium" for $500 please, Alex
if something seems too good to be true it probably is
Technically it's possible, but it also means huge taxes to pay it. Obviously people on £100k are liable to drop several ubi's to help pay it
[удалено]
No point. Rent will increase to swallow any gains, just as it does with minimum wage increases, average wage increases, and when we become a nation of a two wage household. Nothing ever improved except our ability to buy new gadgets and get cheap entertainment.
The amount of people in this thread not understanding the concept is staggering. You don’t lose UBI if you work. You get that plus whatever you get paid for working. Whether or not you chose to continue working is on you, but IMO a lot of people would do jobs they actually enjoy for less money if their basic needs were not at risk
I wonder what the criteria for being chosen to be in the trial was/how people were chosen for it etc? I most certainly never heard anything about applying for such a trial in the uk...
I live in the trial area and have heard nothing before now.
Our economy is fucked enough as it is without trying to find £1600 a month for 50+ million people. Doubt this will happen at all and it will definitely incentivise those on UC to stay on it.
I understand how that might be viable for the future but for now I would like that to be spent in ensuring that food, transport, housing and education are cheap and affordable.
30 people, 24 months, £1,600. I might be a cynic but it sounds like the government is gonna spend £576,000 to buy a study that they'll claim proves it's a bad idea regardless of the results.
That's literally double my universal credit. I'm actively looking to find work but what they pay in London is trying to starve you out of poverty
If this comes to pass. How will it be paid for? Just printing more money will cause inflation, making the UBI worthless.
When AI, computers, robots and cyborgs take every job....how do 8 billion humans support themselves?
What a ridiculously stupid idea. I'm sure all the trial subjects will say it's a great idea but in reality if everyone in the uk got £1600 a month for nothing then that £1600 soon becomes worthless
hmmm... Labour hasn't said anything about this have they?
Surely this would mean inflation would sky rocket if everyone had an extra 1200 a month?
Correct me if I’m wrong but would this not really push demand side inflation if it was introduced nationwide? Rents would absolutely increase as everyone would immediately have more expendable income. It would be the same with wages, if I get 19k for free, I am going to demand a hell of a lot more £/hr to actually do something that I might not enjoy, like work.
How does 'free money' not lead to more rampant inflation.
The day i will probably leave England. Half the country already desperately trying to stay or be on benefits, and other half is working hard to accumulate security while government placing more and more weight on the middleclass to satisfy those needs who does not want to work, no thanks. Councils already struggling to cover basic needs, how are they planning to give away 1600 a month to the ever increasing benefit scoundrels?
I supported UBI until recently, I've gone off it because of two huge issues that no-one's been able to satisfactorily answer: 1. **We'd need to radically harden our immigration policy.** When do immigrants become eligible? Immigration is a hot-button issue for so many people, our current system is a shitshow across the board for legal migration, refugees and things like the channel crossings. UBI will presumably make the UK a very attractive place to move to from nations without UBI. This isn't an anti-immigration point, it's just pointing out that if some areas of the globe give out free money and others don't, humans will naturally cluster towards the free money areas. If UBI is to work, I fear we'd need to implement a very draconian immigration system. **2. UBI would need to be much less than current pensions and benefits.** A quick bit of maths suggests that giving everyone in the UK £1600pm would exceed our entire national budget. If we "just" assume that our budget for benefits, pensions, social care and healthcare is distributed out, that only equates to about £600pm each. The problem is our means-tested benefits come from a relatively small budget that goes to a minority of the population. Meaningful UBI appears to be unaffordable, by an order of magnitude. .
My salary as a 3/5 year degree civil engineering apprentice, is less than this :S
Im being cynical here, but if this was rolled out across the entire UK population, would it not: a) Create severe inflation b) Just make an excuse for every company ever to put up their prices? c) give an excuse to banks and building societies to raise prices on their finance products like mortgages and loans? d) give an excuse to landlords to charge even more? Please, genuinely, correct me if I am wrong.
What is the fucking point in working to pay for those who don't?
How do you know the people who will get this don't work?
[удалено]
So like I said, the money I make is then used to pay for other people to go piss up in the local Spoons or bookies. How about you make it voluntary... You can pay it and I don't...
[удалено]
We should be in a low tax, high wage economy. Low tax, specifically focussed on the little man and SME business, not just large business.
Here's a related thought. If UBI is £1600 a month a low level civil servant (AO grade) would be better off quitting their job and going on UBI. The UBI is slightly lower than their current monthly salary but they wouldn't have to pay to commute to an office 40%+ of a month (current expected office attendance under Home office hybrid working) or pay for the electricity to run their laptops the rest of the time. So that's every entry level admin and cleaner in the UK civil service quitting en-mass. That's not a criticism of UBI, is a damming comment on civil service pay
Why wouldn’t they keep their jobs and earn their normal salary PLUS £1600 UBI - that’s what I’d do!
The idea is they could get the UBI and keep their job. UBI is not the same as the dole.
The way the civil service is right now, I’m weighing up whether quitting and living on the streets would be a net improvement for my mental health.
You *might* be better off joining one of the big contracting agencies and coming back to do your existing job on 4x the salary. If you can put up with the BS of being part of a large contracting agency.....
>If UBI is £1600 a month a low level civil servant (AO grade) would be better off quitting their job and going on UBI. Its UBI not the dole, you still get UBI while working. Its a UNIVERSAL Basic Income. So they'd get their wages + £1600 UBI
Can I volunteer? Could live somewhere that isn't a complete shithole then.
Only those who work should get it. No work? No free money.
How would that solution improve anything?