Guaranteed Basic Income for All

ontario claret · Post by **ontario claret** » Mon Dec 19, 2016 8:54 pm

Don't think that this is a new idea. It was first proposed by Milton Friedman, a very, very conservative economist at the University of Chicago back in the '50s. It discourages innovation and individual enterprise, and would be a bad thing for the economy.

Blackrod · Post by **Blackrod** » Mon Dec 19, 2016 9:10 pm

Would not work in the UK. Aside from financing it and inflation concerns there is enough disincentive to work as it is. The more I think about this the more I don't like it. Back to the Liverpool match.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Mon Dec 19, 2016 9:23 pm

It can work in the UK and is inevitable. When even the barman's jobs can become automated i think it's fair to say that it won't be long before a UBI in the UK is absolutely essential because automation will put so many out of work that the benefits system will become unaffordable without massive tax increases which lobbyists for those doing the automating with fight tooth and nail against.

And it's not a disincentive to work any more than the current benefits system is. What makes you think that people are going to suddenly be satisfied with (about) £100/week income? How do you think they'll live on that? And the inflation argument is about as credible as it was when it was used to argue against a minimum wage.

ontario claret · Post by **ontario claret** » Mon Dec 19, 2016 9:25 pm

I think it's inevitable, but only for you, personally, Turtle.

ontario claret · Post by **ontario claret** » Mon Dec 19, 2016 9:27 pm

Anything that discourages enterprise is inflationary.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Mon Dec 19, 2016 9:30 pm

£100/week UBI wouldn't stop me working. It'd be nice to have some kind of income that isn't taxed to use to pay for some expences - you know, like businesses do. I suppose only being taxed on my profits would be too much to ask.

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Mon Dec 19, 2016 9:32 pm

A barman's job won't be far from being automated.
Self serve taps where you pay by swipe of a card are already in the market and won't be too long before they become the primary method of getting your drink.

ontario claret · Post by **ontario claret** » Mon Dec 19, 2016 9:50 pm

You're looking at it as a self-employed person, which the majority aren't, Turtle.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Mon Dec 19, 2016 9:55 pm

ontario claret wrote:You're looking at it as a self-employed person, which the majority aren't, Turtle.

No i'm not. I'm looking at it as someone earning an employee's wage but having to pay expences after being taxed. Whereas companies and businesses get to pay expences before being taxed.

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Mon Dec 19, 2016 10:04 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:No i'm not. I'm looking at it as someone earning an employee's wage but having to pay expences after being taxed. Whereas companies and businesses get to pay expences before being taxed.

Taxes are applied to income whether for individuals as employees or business entities. There are different rules for determining income for employees (schedule E) and for profits from trade. Businesses - whether owned by a single individual, or a number in a partnership, or by a large number as shareholders - are taxed on "taxable profits" - these are calculated after allowance for business related expenses, with some exceptions, i.e. some business expenses are disallowed in calculating taxable profits.

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Mon Dec 19, 2016 10:09 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:It can work in the UK and is inevitable. When even the barman's jobs can become automated i think it's fair to say that it won't be long before a UBI in the UK is absolutely essential because automation will put so many out of work that the benefits system will become unaffordable without massive tax increases which lobbyists for those doing the automating with fight tooth and nail against.

And it's not a disincentive to work any more than the current benefits system is. What makes you think that people are going to suddenly be satisfied with (about) £100/week income? How do you think they'll live on that? And the inflation argument is about as credible as it was when it was used to argue against a minimum wage.

Hi IT, where does the money come from to pay everyone £100/week?

To quote NY Times: "If every American were to receive just $10,000 a year, the tab would be roughly $3 trillion a year, roughly eight times what the United States now spends on social service programs. The government might just as well commit to handing out unicorns."

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Mon Dec 19, 2016 10:09 pm

I have expences that are required in order to allow me to make money too. I have to have somewhere to live for a start so that i can provide my labour. I have to have electricity to be able to wake up in time for my job. I have to have to feed myself so that i have the energy to give my effort to my employer. These are just as much required expenses as things like advertising and administration are for businesses. Yet i see no tax benefits of this. In fact, most of what i buy to be able to provide labour has a sales tax of some kind.

I'm just saying it'd be nice to have some untaxed income to pay for some of these expenses in the same way that a business' can use untaxed revenue to pay for paper clips.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Mon Dec 19, 2016 10:14 pm

Paul Waine wrote:Hi IT, where does the money come from to pay everyone £100/week?

To quote NY Times: "If every American were to receive just $10,000 a year, the tab would be roughly $3 trillion a year, roughly eight times what the United States now spends on social service programs. The government might just as well commit to handing out unicorns."

I'd like to see that article because it looks like it's assuming a $10k/year UBI for everyone in the US, including children, which is pretty obviously a daft idea. 319,000,000 x 10,000 = 3,190,000,000,000

I reccommend this comment on Reddit which offers an explanation on how a UBI can be paid for, while also addressing some other concerns.
https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/com ... n/daovr6q/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Mon Dec 19, 2016 10:21 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:I'd like to see that article because it looks like it's assuming a $10k/year UBI for everyone in the US, including children, which is pretty obviously a daft idea. 319,000,000 x 10,000 = 3,190,000,000,000

I reccommend this comment on Reddit which offers an explanation on how a UBI can be paid for, while also addressing some other concerns.
https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/com ... n/daovr6q/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

NY Times article should open from link above.

I'll take a look at reddit.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Mon Dec 19, 2016 10:28 pm

Paul Waine wrote:NY Times article should open from link above.

I'll take a look at reddit.

I see it now, thanks. I thought you were referring to a specific article about UBI in America, but it was just a throwaway comment without any kind of thinking from the author. I don't think anyone's advocating $10k/year for every single American.

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Mon Dec 19, 2016 10:39 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:I see it now, thanks. I thought you were referring to a specific article about UBI in America, but it was just a throwaway comment without any kind of thinking from the author. I don't think anyone's advocating $10k/year for every single American.

I agree. Just a journalist, Peter Goodman, filing his report. $10,000 is not a lot of money in USA. Maybe he assumes that $10k per person provides the parents something to support their children.

I've read the reddit post. So, what do we know about the person who's filed that post? Aren't there inconsistencies in the post? For example, he says that if no one wants to do the work robots can do it. Who provides the funds to invest in the robots?

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Mon Dec 19, 2016 10:43 pm

Paul Waine wrote:I agree. Just a journalist, Peter Goodman, filing his report. $10,000 is not a lot of money in USA. Maybe he assumes that $10k per person provides the parents something to support their children.

I've read the reddit post. So, what do we know about the person who's filed that post? Aren't there inconsistencies in the post? For example, he says that if no one wants to do the work robots can do it. Who provides the funds to invest in the robots?

It would certainly provide that, but it'll seen become unaffordable when even the people of one of the dumbest developed countries realise they can have 10 kids and get 10 extra UBIs.

BennyD · Post by **BennyD** » Mon Dec 19, 2016 11:05 pm

And this is why politicians are regarded as being w*nkers, what a dumb idea. £60 a day for doing nothing, The dolites would have a field day and the bookies' profits would go through the roof.

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Mon Dec 19, 2016 11:05 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:It would certainly provide that, but it'll seen become unaffordable when even the people of one of the dumbest developed countries realise they can have 10 kids and get 10 extra UBIs.

You have identified that human behaviours can be altered by monetary payments.

Can this concern be dealt with by limiting "family unit" to, lets say, maximum 3 children? Or will this lead to a lot of single parent families? Or fathers with multiple "family units" - each mother bringing in a "3 children income?"

And, if everyone acted with integrity and selflessly, how should the system approach multiple births? two sets of twins would be "disadvantaged."

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Mon Dec 19, 2016 11:19 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:I have expences that are required in order to allow me to make money too. I have to have somewhere to live for a start so that i can provide my labour. I have to have electricity to be able to wake up in time for my job. I have to have to feed myself so that i have the energy to give my effort to my employer. These are just as much required expenses as things like advertising and administration are for businesses. Yet i see no tax benefits of this. In fact, most of what i buy to be able to provide labour has a sales tax of some kind.

I'm just saying it'd be nice to have some untaxed income to pay for some of these expenses in the same way that a business' can use untaxed revenue to pay for paper clips.

Those expenses aren't allowed for self-employed people either. Expenses have to be wholly and exclusively for the purposes of a business to be allowable for the self-employed, just as they have to be wholly and exclusively for business purposes for the employee. There is a bit of a difference - an employee has to prove they were necessarily incurred, a self-employed person doesn't.

But self-employed people do not get the cost of a house purchase allowed for tax. They don't get home electricity allowed for tax unless they work from home; employees also get an allowance for home electricity, if they work from home. Self-employed people don't get food allowed as an expense unless their job forces them to be away from home to eat; it's the same for employees. (Either the employer pays it tax-free, or the employee can offset it against taxable income.)

If you require paper clips to do your job, and your employer doesn't provide them, then you can deduct the cost from pre-tax income.

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Mon Dec 19, 2016 11:20 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:I have expences that are required in order to allow me to make money too. I have to have somewhere to live for a start so that i can provide my labour. I have to have electricity to be able to wake up in time for my job. I have to have to feed myself so that i have the energy to give my effort to my employer. These are just as much required expenses as things like advertising and administration are for businesses. Yet i see no tax benefits of this. In fact, most of what i buy to be able to provide labour has a sales tax of some kind.

I'm just saying it'd be nice to have some untaxed income to pay for some of these expenses in the same way that a business' can use untaxed revenue to pay for paper clips.

If you earn less than £100,000 you receive a tax free personal allowance. It's gone up quite quickly over the last few years as politicians have outbid each other. Somewhere above £11,000 before you pay any income tax. (But, National Insurance still operates under different rules). There are also a number of benefits paid to people with low (including no) incomes and low personal savings. It's arguable these allowances and welfare payments cover the "employment expenses" you mention.

Business can only use sales revenue to "pay for paper clips" if the "paper clips" are a necessary business expense. If they have insufficient sales revenue to cover their business expenses they will go bust. Only a limited number of businesses receive "state support" to keep them operating if expenses exceed sales revenue. Businesses are subject to some taxes whether or not they have sufficient sales revenues, for example, employers' national insurance, business rates.

Taxation is, unfortunately, just a "set of arbitrary rules" designed by politicians, often with confused, confusing and contradictory objectives. A good starting point for taxation would be politicians who understood the tax laws they were creating.

Of course, we can add to this as it also being desirable that the electorate understood the tax rules the politicians are creating.

Flatline · Post by **Flatline** » Mon Dec 19, 2016 11:41 pm

Unbelievably stupid Idea,that would only cause chaos.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Tue Dec 20, 2016 12:26 am

TomBenderson wrote:You're a genius. There should be, as you so cleverly put it, "some untaxed income". Perhaps they could call it the "Income Tax Personal Allowance" and set it at, say, £11,000 or so. Maybe, over time, it would become such a fundamental part of our tax code that all but the dimmest in society would know of it. It's a pipedream, I know.

Nearly 70% of which i can get from the government without working.

gtclaret · Post by **gtclaret** » Tue Dec 20, 2016 2:00 pm

Paul Waine wrote:Bobbins.

If we are all receiving basic income (for doing nothing) where does the money come from?

Flat rate taxation is a great idea. Simplify the tax system. Get rid of all the "allowances," "tax avoidance" and "tax evasion" - and get many of the tax accountants doing something useful with their brains. I'm certain the high earners will pay more tax if there's a flat rate. There will be no feeling of resentment that their "success" in gaining a high income is penalised by higher rate of tax. They won't need to search for ways to avoid/evade tax.

Overall the government would collect greater tax revenue - at lower cost. There will be more taxes to support public needs. There may also be more generous tax free allowances for low earners.

Absolutely spot on

Quickenthetempo · Post by **Quickenthetempo** » Tue Dec 20, 2016 3:03 pm

If all other benefits are scrapped and every adult receives the same it would have to about £150-200 a week to off set the losses of child tax credits, family allowance, free nursery places etc..

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Tue Dec 20, 2016 11:20 pm

Quickenthetempo wrote:If all other benefits are scrapped and every adult receives the same it would have to about £150-200 a week to off set the losses of child tax credits, family allowance, free nursery places etc..

I'm pretty sure the proponents of Universal Basic Income are suggesting that UBI would remove the need for "means tested" benefits - and replace them by the "same for everyone."

The challenge remains, if a meaningful UBI is paid, where does all the money come from?

For "easy arithmetic" lets assume there are 50 million adults in the UK and we pay all the adults just less than £100 per week, i.e. £5,000 per annum will require £250 billion (or roughly twice what we pay for the NHS at the present time).

So, let's say that the weekly amount needs to be £150 per week, we then require £375 billion. (£150/w roughly the same as the new state pension).

Current UK expenditure:
Pensions, including old age and sickness and disability £157 billion;
Health care, £139 billion;
Welfare, £58 billion.

Let's assume that UBI £150/w replaces pensions - which also means "no top up" for pensioners with no other income/assets.
Health (NHS) remains - because people will still have health needs.
Welfare - let's assume this also remains.

So, for UBI to be paid at £150/w will require government to find an additional £220 billion (£375 bn less £157 bn). Or, a little more than a third more of current UK gov't expenditure. UK GDP is £1,942 billion.

Current income tax collection is £232 bn, plus National Insurance £125 bn. Sales/VAT £248 bn.

UK Govt expenditure figures from HM Treasury Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses (PESA) - published July-2016.

If it be your will · Post by **If it be your will** » Wed Dec 21, 2016 12:59 am

ontario claret · Post by **ontario claret** » Wed Dec 21, 2016 8:11 pm

Amazed at the suggestion that politicians put forward ideas that come out of thin air from their own minds. Nowadays, every party employs a private "think tank" that comes up with ideas that are then vetted through discussion groups, private polling, and internal committees. Then, and only then, are they put forward to the public and floated for general discussion. Politics today is very sophisticated game.

mohamed69 · Post by **mohamed69** » Wed Dec 21, 2016 9:25 pm

Great for the lazy and unambitious. Stifles all ambition, entrepreneurship and creativity.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Thu Dec 22, 2016 1:41 pm

mohamed69 wrote:Great for the lazy and unambitious. Stifles all ambition, entrepreneurship and creativity.

What makes you say that?

3putt · Post by **3putt** » Thu Dec 22, 2016 3:49 pm

Crazy unworkable idea.

Here we are struggling to fund the basic state pension in the UK. Anybody under the age of 40 will be lucky to see one.

Hardly think we could start gifting a sizable income to all those of any age that didn't fancy working.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Thu Dec 22, 2016 4:24 pm

3putt wrote:Crazy unworkable idea.

I wonder how many thought welfare was a crazy unworkable idea without really thinking about it.

3putt · Post by **3putt** » Thu Dec 22, 2016 4:48 pm

Welfare had a structured economic policy funded through taxation. Even that doesn't work very well anymore.

The idea is flawed economically and would not do a great deal for well balanced society in my opinion.

Spiral · Post by **Spiral** » Thu Dec 22, 2016 5:12 pm

Define well balanced? If there comes a point when even the services industry is heavily automated where do we go? Feudalism? Do we all dig up the roads and concrete and become subsistence farmers when we reach the point where nobody can get a job? An economy is essentially just a circulation of money. If the demand for physical human labour is greatly reduced and people aren't able to earn, therefore spend money, by what other means would money circulate?

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Thu Dec 22, 2016 5:15 pm

When we get to that stage, then yeah, its probably going to happen, but we are not there yet.

Anyway, judging by President elects latest **** scary tweet we are destined not to reach that stage....

Spiral · Post by **Spiral** » Thu Dec 22, 2016 5:20 pm

I agree we aren't at that stage. Nobody is suggesting we introduce UBI tomorrow but it's interesting that even those who initially dismiss the notion out of hand seem to come to the conclusion that it's somewhat inevitable when the idea is explored beyond the initial gut instinct. I imagine the NHS was met with the same initial reaction.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Thu Dec 22, 2016 5:22 pm

I see us as very similar to the "Culture" of Iain M Banks in the future.

A long time in the future though

3putt · Post by **3putt** » Thu Dec 22, 2016 5:25 pm

Well balanced in terms of human psyche and mental well being. Most able bodied/minded people need to be occupied and have something get up in the morning for.

Pstotto · Post by **Pstotto** » Thu Dec 22, 2016 5:29 pm

I agree on this in principle, it would take one hell of a big bag of stress off the populace, BUT ONLY FOR THOSE BORN IN THE UK TO BRITISH PARENTS. No more DSS beating folk up and driving them to suicide, just the whole benefit system taken out would save billions and NO MORE LABOUR PARTY. Hurray, no more laborious party politics. In tandem with this, I think there should be a wage cap, or an average wage, whatever you do or don't whether you're a footballer, a writer, a dentist or a road sweeper.

Remember immigration means more hospitals more police more road more houses more squeeze, so no immigration and all the rest and go back to where they came from or self fund their lifestyles in the UK.

Spiral · Post by **Spiral** » Thu Dec 22, 2016 5:33 pm

Very true, 3putt, but it doesn't reconcile too well with automation and the inevitable redundancy of human labour.

Regarding 'the future' in general, and without wanting to delve too much into futurology, Kurzweil's 'Law of Accelerating Returns' is quite interesting and perhaps kinda'sorta' related to this thread.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerat ... ng_Returns" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

edit for link

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Thu Dec 22, 2016 5:33 pm

Spiral wrote:Define well balanced? If there comes a point when even the services industry is heavily automated where do we go? Feudalism? Do we all dig up the roads and concrete and become subsistence farmers when we reach the point where nobody can get a job? An economy is essentially just a circulation of money. If the demand for physical human labour is greatly reduced and people aren't able to earn, therefore spend money, by what other means would money circulate?

Hi Spiral,

New jobs will always be created as the world progresses and develops. Think how many staff Amazon employed 25 years ago (it didn't exist), Google, Mobile phone shops, Apple stores. Think how many workers will be required to maintain all the driverless cars and lorries in the future. Think how many care staff will be needed for all the people living into the 90s and beyond.

Money is just the means of exchanging value. I can either do my own gardening, or I can pay someone to do it for me. I'll choose the latter if (a) someone will pay me to do something I'm good at and (b) I can find someone who is "better" at gardening than I am. "Better" might be as simple as she/he wants to do gardening and has invested in the necessary equipment.

UBI doesn't fix the problem of "exchange." Where are we all going to get the money from to distribute as UBI if no one wants to create something that they can exchange with other people?

Spiral · Post by **Spiral** » Thu Dec 22, 2016 5:36 pm

Theoretically, taxation on those who benefit from owning...eek...the means of production (communist!!!!). Wealth redistribution systems already exists, by the way, just in a form that will become more and more ineffective in the future.

Hipper · Post by **Hipper** » Thu Dec 22, 2016 5:59 pm

I like the idea in principle but can't see how it would work in practice without radical changes in the way we live and work.

I see at least two problems for which I can't see a solution.

1. As a general principle we 'earn' money. We do something of value for others to earn it. If you just give someone money for nothing in return you break that principle. Is this the intention or is there some duty in return for getting a basic income?

2. How do you set this up as an individual country. What would stop others coming here and claiming it. This was the fear that the Swiss had when they rejected the idea.

Pstotto · Post by **Pstotto** » Thu Dec 22, 2016 6:57 pm

Hipper

1. There will still be things to do.
2. Just say no to those types and send them back to where they cam from. How are they going to claim when they can't? End of. They shouldn't have scrapped the last airfracft carrier, just load it up with folk who don't belong and send'em back.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Thu Dec 22, 2016 7:07 pm

3putt wrote:Welfare had a structured economic policy funded through taxation. Even that doesn't work very well anymore.

The idea is flawed economically and would not do a great deal for well balanced society in my opinion.

Have you ever wondered why it doesn't work as well as it used to?

3putt · Post by **3putt** » Thu Dec 22, 2016 10:16 pm

I know why it doesn't work as well used to do.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Fri Dec 23, 2016 4:07 am

3putt wrote:I know why it doesn't work as well used to do.

Good. So we agree that it's largely the decrease in tax revenues. So imagine what will happen when more and more and mroe jobs get automated, thus removing tax payers from the workforce, while all the time fewer and fewer jobs exist.

mdd2 · Post by **mdd2** » Fri Dec 23, 2016 8:05 am

The tax take across the board is higher in absolute terms than ever before. More peole working than ever before around 250,000 people coming here to work yearly and allegedly boosting GDP but in reality the workforce is not increasing its productivity. So although GDP is rising the population is increasing by at least 500,000/yr and probably more and thus hardly much increase in productivity.
It is the spend side that is a problem 1) more pensioners 2) more social payouts than in the past eg child credit for all children not just those after the first born.
It is automation that boosts productivity it is just we tend not to produce much that folk want.

3putt · Post by **3putt** » Fri Dec 23, 2016 8:30 am

Imploding Turtle wrote:Good. So we agree that it's largely the decrease in tax revenues. So imagine what will happen when more and more and mroe jobs get automated, thus removing tax payers from the workforce, while all the time fewer and fewer jobs exist.

Yes, along with vastly increased demands on the NHS, huge numbers of those claiming benefits that couldn't have been anticipated and increased life expectancy meaning the state pension is unsustainable.

I don't know what the future holds in terms of the job market. How many people are employed in the computer/IT industry which didn't exist (hardly) 30 years ago?

I just can't imagine a functioning society where people could receive a good level of income for choosing not to work.

lucs86 · Post by **lucs86** » Fri Dec 23, 2016 10:03 am

3putt wrote:Yes, along with vastly increased demands on the NHS, huge numbers of those claiming benefits that couldn't have been anticipated and increased life expectancy meaning the state pension is unsustainable.

I don't know what the future holds in terms of the job market. How many people are employed in the computer/IT industry which didn't exist (hardly) 30 years ago?

I just can't imagine a functioning society where people could receive a good level of income for choosing not to work.

I don't think a 'good' level of income is what it's about, definitely not to begin with, it would be 'basic', enough for the essentials. If you wanted to go on holiday or live in a big house or own a good (self driving) car you'd need to working to bring in enough to do it.

There are going to be fewer jobs, I can't see how further automation will be held back. With the right machines how many people do you really need working in a McDonalds, in a warehouse, in a factory? Unless there's a massive Luddite uprising these automated workplaces will be the ones that win, we'll need things being made as efficiently as possible if anyone's going to be able to afford them.