Guaranteed Basic Income for All

Hipper · Post by **Hipper** » Sat Jun 04, 2016 4:35 pm

It's an idea!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36443512" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

hampsteadclaret · Post by **hampsteadclaret** » Sat Jun 04, 2016 4:53 pm

It looks like a pretty good idea.

More research, trialling, refining, explaining now required.

fidelcastro · Post by **fidelcastro** » Sat Jun 04, 2016 4:54 pm

I like it in principle.

claptrappers_union · Post by **claptrappers_union** » Sat Jun 04, 2016 5:03 pm

But everyone was guaranteed an income, I would suspect essentials like food, living costs and transport will inflate, leaving everything more expensive?

taio · Post by **taio** » Sat Jun 04, 2016 5:09 pm

Know little about it, but on the face of it and at £1,755 pcm it could presumably have disastrous consequences.

SonofPog · Post by **SonofPog** » Sat Jun 04, 2016 5:30 pm

Been around as a theory for a long time.

There's a lot of benefits to be gained...
Would help the aging population as women or men could afford to take time off to raise children
Simplifies the welfare system - which would pay for a some of it.
Would allow Arts, Culture to flourish as people would have time to do what they really wanted.

Business don't like it though cause how much would you have to pay someone to say.... Clean a toilet.... if that person was already earning a comfortable living. Capatislism might be a lesser form of slavery (you can in theory choose what you do) but maybe that's nessecary as sometimes **** just needs to be done.

taio · Post by **taio** » Sat Jun 04, 2016 5:53 pm

It's probably only remained a theory for a long time for a reason.

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Sat Jun 04, 2016 5:53 pm

Is that before tax or after?

If that's after tax , then I wouldn't need to work in theory if they introduced it over here at that sort of level.

As someone else has said , it would probably put other costs up , resulting in cost of goods increasing etc.

taio · Post by **taio** » Sat Jun 04, 2016 6:02 pm

May be an employment guarantee scheme would be more realistic.

hampsteadclaret · Post by **hampsteadclaret** » Sat Jun 04, 2016 6:12 pm

One obvious point that jumps out at you, as hinted at above...is that this 'free money' to millions of people will add a great deal to total [aggregate] demand, but nothing at all will be added to total supply..this is just a recipe for high inflation. This will probably make us uncompetitive when trading with the rest of the world.

The inflation problem is no small problem, and the experts had better have an answer.

FactualFrank · Post by **FactualFrank** » Sat Jun 04, 2016 6:17 pm

So if you owned a shop you could close down and spend more time with your family, meaning less places for people to shop and therefore too much demand vs supply, therefore increased costs. The money you'd earn for doing nowt would become peanuts as you'd be spending so much more on everyday life, you'd need to open the shop again!

mdd2 · Post by **mdd2** » Sat Jun 04, 2016 6:29 pm

The inflation problem is no small problem, and the experts had better have an answer.[/quote]

I don't think the Swiss are noted for inflation. I went there in 1958 £1 bought 20 Swiss francs and now it is less than 2 I think

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Sat Jun 04, 2016 6:29 pm

Silly idea that will engender sloth.

Reacquaint yourself with the seven deadly sins everybody. They were chosen for a reason.

Abolition of VAT and a flat rate income tax would be a much better idea.

Right! I'm off out to get ******. See ya later.

levraiclaret · Post by **levraiclaret** » Sat Jun 04, 2016 8:01 pm

Who pays?

Flat rate income tax is a crap idea expoused by the very rich/high earners.

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Sat Jun 04, 2016 8:18 pm

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.

minnieclaret · Post by **minnieclaret** » Sat Jun 04, 2016 8:33 pm

If that is for no work, what then becomes minimum wage and what would more valued employees expect?

Hipper · Post by **Hipper** » Sat Jun 04, 2016 8:36 pm

The big problem identified in the article is that non Swiss people will see this and flock to the country. They have an agreement with the EU for open borders with EU members, just as we do. Most of the discussion in the article focused on the needs of people and not how it would be financed.

I'm sure it won't end the welfare state either as some people currently get more then this for children or disabilities etc.. and of course £1,755 (or whatever the figure will be) has a different value in different parts of the country.

It seems to be one of those nice ideas that doesn't reflect the nature of people.

It's not right to get something for nothing so if you do get a guaranteed basic income from the state then you should have some duties attached to that. I still think the better principle is that we are relatively free to do as we please, but with some support if and when we really need it.

bluelabrador16 · Post by **bluelabrador16** » Sat Jun 04, 2016 8:46 pm

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

The same place which bailed out the "City of London" to the tune of £375 Billion.

HatfieldClaret · Post by **HatfieldClaret** » Sat Jun 04, 2016 8:52 pm

A tad 'pie in the sky'....

In Cuba everyone earns the same wage, doctors and brickies all earn the same. Even Fidel and Raul; and all their servants.

If the basic wage was X the demand for higher wages from those working would by Y times higher. Inflation would be incredible...

AndrewJB · Post by **AndrewJB** » Sat Jun 04, 2016 10:21 pm

I've liked this idea for a very long time, but it's only in the last six or or so years I've discovered it was actually trialed (and very close to where I used to live in Canada - such as it has been kept quiet). The original appeal for me was the simplicity, and efficiency - though you'll see by reading the link that a great many other benefits were found (reductions in hospital visits, and work related stress). Not only this but the disincentive to work - pushed by those who opposed it - didn't materialise.

The Swiss are coming from the standpoint of jobs being increasingly automated, but we should see in that the need for further reform. Should the owner of a trucking firm be able to reap all the financial benefits of automation - driverless vehicles - while leaving their once employees to be looked after by the taxpayer? Surely the advance of technology should be for all of us - not just those with the money to afford it?

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

If it be your will · Post by **If it be your will** » Sun Jun 05, 2016 12:20 am

If it be your will · Post by **If it be your will** » Sun Jun 05, 2016 12:43 am

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Sun Jun 05, 2016 12:57 am

Well, having looked at all the "facts" and worked it all out on paper I've come to a conclusion:

This works perfectly.

And because it works perfectly in a theoretical world on paper we should all start funding it with our own money immediately.

I can't wait to start funding millionaires as much as we already fund work-shy wasters. I look forward to the increased taxes immensely...

If it be your will · Post by **If it be your will** » Sun Jun 05, 2016 1:03 am

CombatClaret · Post by **CombatClaret** » Sun Jun 05, 2016 1:04 am

There is a difference between what a person needs to simply survive in some measure of dignity and getting everything they ever wanted for free. It's assumed BI should go toward shelter, food and clothing. If you want a new TV, sky box etc (luxury consumer goods) then of course you work for it.

Slightly off topic but it was interesting to see Italy’s highest court ruled that the theft of a sausage and piece of cheese by a homeless man did not constitute a crime because he was in desperate need of nourishment stating "The right to survival prevails over property".

If it be your will · Post by **If it be your will** » Sun Jun 05, 2016 1:10 am

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Sun Jun 05, 2016 1:17 am

If it be your will wrote:We are not far short of affording a BI with our current welfare spend (see my post above). On your other point, I generally consider flat taxes to be abhorrent, but I would find them a lot more tolerable against a backdrop of a generous BI. It's a sacrifice I'd be willing to make (albeit through gritted teeth) if it meant millions like you and Rowls would support a BI. Deal?

Flat Taxes and Basic Income seem like one and the same idea when they're presented side by side - they rely on levelling fundamental economic principles.

However they are NOT the same because the principles on which they are based are completely different - You wouldn't try to flatten a pancake and an icicle and expect the same result just because they're both edible.

Flat Taxes are perfectly achievable - it just might be a very expensive thing to achieve. A Basic Income is entirely different - it is only theoretically possible if a small minority of wealthy elites consistently and reliably pay for the upkeep of the less wealthy. It would rely on everybody earning over the mean average paying for the upkeep of those below the mean average.

You state that we are "not far short of affording a BI with our current welfare spend" but the richest in society are already paying a larger percentage than ever before.

Our economy depends entirely on the majority of wokers having to go out to earn a basic wage. Undermine their basic wage and you undermine the whole economy.

Since Marxism was completely discredited, few ideas could be as damaging as this.

This is the Perpetual Motion Machine of economics.

Spiral · Post by **Spiral** » Sun Jun 05, 2016 1:25 am

Marxism was a prediction of socio-economic evolution, you madman. You're so ideologically entrenched your arse is being cooked by the Earth's mantle.

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Sun Jun 05, 2016 1:33 am

Spiral wrote:Marxism was a prediction of socio-economic evolution, you madman. You're so ideologically entrenched your arse is being cooked by the Earth's mantle.

Doesn't stop the original theory being equated into rotten economics now, in the past or in the future - theoretically or actually.

If you imagine that there isn't a Marxist school of economics you probably imagine that South Africa is doing just fine by implementing it.

If it be your will · Post by **If it be your will** » Sun Jun 05, 2016 1:44 am

Spiral · Post by **Spiral** » Sun Jun 05, 2016 1:51 am

Rowls wrote:Doesn't stop the original theory being equated into rotten economics now, in the past or in the future - theoretically or actually.

If you imagine that there isn't a Marxist school of economics you probably imagine that South Africa is doing just fine by implementing it.

While we're on the subject of demagoguery, *cough cough* Ayn Rand *cough cough*.

Vino blanco · Post by **Vino blanco** » Sun Jun 05, 2016 2:42 am

Far too many long posts, all talking absolutely nonsensical claptrap. Keep on talking and enjoy your pontificating, self-know all thoughts. Nothing will change, you won't beat the system!

Spiral · Post by **Spiral** » Sun Jun 05, 2016 3:06 am

Vino blanco wrote:Far too many long posts, all talking absolutely nonsensical claptrap. Keep on talking and enjoy your pontificating, self-know all thoughts. Nothing will change, you won't beat the system!

You've been programmed to have an innate distrust of socialist constructs and so naturally have an objection to UBI, but you're too dumb to articulate exactly what is wrong with it and why you disagree with it, so, practically on reflex alone, you've made a post so lacking in insight and independent thought that it's actually difficult to distinguish your post as either legitimate or a satire on everything I've just described your post as being.

Vino blanco · Post by **Vino blanco** » Sun Jun 05, 2016 3:28 am

I think you have just confirmed what I said, 'socialist constructs', UBI, 'lacking in independent thought'. Thank you for confirming my feelings. Yes, there is satire involved.

Hipper · Post by **Hipper** » Sun Jun 05, 2016 9:13 am

if it be your will - interesting contribution.

Unless the basic income that you propose, £8,000, is supplemented in some way, most people will not be able to live to their current standards. Obviously they can supplement the BI with income from work, or investments. But for those who don't or can't work you will still be in the same position as now - they will need support to survive - hence there will still be a welfare state.

Surely only if you provide a liveable BI can you ditch most of the welfare costs. As I mentioned before, I don't think you can get rid of all of it because some people - with lots of children, or disabilities - will always need help.

Simplifying the tax system will not be easy. I would think the tax complications are the result of people trying to avoid tax (benefits in kind instead of cash income for example), and government incentives (encouraging giving to charity for example). Both seem unavoidable.

'From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs' is the Marxist creed and I like the general principle but most people are too selfish to really want this. It might work in a family or small tribal setting but in our impersonal governmental world I can't see it happening.

hampsteadclaret · Post by **hampsteadclaret** » Sun Jun 05, 2016 9:41 am

This important referendum taking place today, just mentioned on BBC Radio 5 live; will be interesting to see the result.

CaptJohn · Post by **CaptJohn** » Sun Jun 05, 2016 9:54 am

My initial thoughts were "they must be barking mad" but having read through some of the articles on-line it may be feasible. My only concern would be inflation and the fact that no one would want to do any of the menial tasks anymore as they wouldn't need to.

AndrewJB · Post by **AndrewJB** » Sun Jun 05, 2016 10:19 am

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/12/23 ... 35682.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As the above article shows, poverty was completely eliminated during the experiment, and it was shut down and shelved by a pair of Conservative governments. I'd say that tells you much of what you need to know.

As for flat tax - what is the point? At one end of the spectrum you will always be taking too much from an earner, and at the other you'll always be taking too little. Why are we so set as a society to allow public needs to go underfunded in order to allow a small group of people to have wealth far in excess of what it takes even to be considered rich?

AndrewJB · Post by **AndrewJB** » Sun Jun 05, 2016 10:24 am

Capt John - the "menial" tasks would pay more. Enough to attract people into them under market conditions.

If it be your will · Post by **If it be your will** » Sun Jun 05, 2016 11:53 am

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Sun Jun 05, 2016 12:45 pm

Looking like its been overwhelmingly rejected.

Its a good idea, but we need a lot more automation I think before we can really consider it.

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Sun Jun 05, 2016 1:11 pm

Spiral wrote:While we're on the subject of demagoguery, *cough cough* Ayn Rand *cough cough*.

Sorry for being so late replying. I've been worshipping at my local Temple to Ayn Rand....

Firthy · Post by **Firthy** » Sun Jun 05, 2016 1:25 pm

Might happen when automatons rule the world

PenrithClaret · Post by **PenrithClaret** » Sun Jun 05, 2016 2:14 pm

Regarding Basic Income. It really is a fantastic idea and I have heard more enlightened discourse on it as discussed here by opponents. However we have to see what happens and if Switzerland (who are one of the most secure and conservative of economic countries) are prepared to be the guinea pig then what do we really have to lose...? I for one will be an intrigued watcher. This is an interesting watch, not the best presentation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvgdtF3 ... ture=share" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

AndrewJB · Post by **AndrewJB** » Sun Jun 05, 2016 3:08 pm

@TomBenderson - the Conservative governments that took power in '78 and '79 (the federal one for only eight months), ended the experiment not out of lack of money, but lack of imagination. Just as the Tories here were against the establishment of the NHS back in '47 - they couldn't get their heads around the idea that helping the poor worked for everyone.

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Sun Jun 05, 2016 3:13 pm

AndrewJB wrote:@TomBenderson - the Conservative governments that took power in '78 and '79 (the federal one for only eight months), ended the experiment not out of lack of money, but lack of imagination. Just as the Tories here were against the establishment of the NHS back in '47 - they couldn't get their heads around the idea that helping the poor worked for everyone.

LOL

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Sun Jun 05, 2016 7:34 pm

If it be your will wrote:We are not far short of affording a BI with our current welfare spend (see my post above). On your other point, I generally consider flat taxes to be abhorrent, but I would find them a lot more tolerable against a backdrop of a generous BI. It's a sacrifice I'd be willing to make (albeit through gritted teeth) if it meant millions like you and Rowls would support a BI. Deal?

That's the thing, carefully constructed, a BI has the potential to suit nearly every political persuasion. I think we can (nearly) all agree the current welfare situation has become a hopelessly flawed disaster zone.

Hi If it be your will,

I withdraw my comment of "bobbins."

I'm an open minded individual. I believe I share social concerns for my fellow humans. I believe the best solutions are the practicable ones.

How can we make BI work? Can we build a society that is governed by "to each according to their needs"?

JohnMcGreal · Post by **JohnMcGreal** » Sun Jun 05, 2016 8:50 pm

Very interesting concept. Let's see how the pilot goes in Utrecht in January, and also Switzerland if they decide to go for it. I think Finland are trialing something similar as well.

When you think about it, income based on work performed is going to be a very old fashioned notion in the near future. More and more jobs which have previously been done by people are becoming more and more automated (driverless lorries which are currently being explored, delivery drones etc), so there is bound to be less work available in the future. Technological advances will make a lot of work obsolete.

Universal income should in theory mean that nobody is poor, and everyone can afford to live and do what they want. People will be free to dedicate their time to whatever they want, which they couldn't have done with a full time occupation.

How it would be paid for, I have no idea. Presumably the offshore accounts will need to be raided and the richest people and companies suddenly start paying their taxes? Ambitious.

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Sun Jun 05, 2016 9:00 pm

JohnMcGreal wrote:Universal income should in theory mean that nobody is poor, and everyone can afford to live and do what they want. People will be free to dedicate their time to whatever they want, which they couldn't have done with a full time occupation.

And toast will never burn and the sun will always shine and there will always be snow at Christmas time.

yTib · Post by **yTib** » Sun Jun 05, 2016 9:08 pm

Rowls wrote:
Reacquaint yourself with the seven deadly sins everybody. They were chosen for a reason.

what reason and by whom?