O/T Universal Basic Income

[fidelcastro]

What on earth does that mean??

You really can't be that stupid.

[bobinho]

What on earth does that mean??

He’s suggesting that the rise of national socialism in 1930’s Germany trumps your statement.

Now I’m not saying one wins over the other, but you can certainly see his point, and if you can’t, then really you should be tapping out, right about…….NOW.

[bobinho]

If you thought that was funny Boss, read the post directly above it….

[GodIsADeeJay81]

When you say worst decision you do realise that Police Academy 2 was commissioned then 3 and 4 ?

1-4 we're fine, it's after those the franchise went iffy

[Jakubclaret]

Paying less tax becomes more and more attractive. The amount of tax payer money we waste in this country is mind boggling. Free handouts to see how it affects mental health. What a joke.

That's exactly where the problems are, not utilising resources effectively, people don't need to work any harder people need to work smarter.

[Taffy on the wing]

It was much before 1917 that Communism gained traction.

Yes, I'm convinced it's the worst idea to gain traction since then.

If I have a bad idea, like the time I thought I'd look good in combat trousers, the only person to suffer is me. But if a country has a bad idea, like when Venezuela elected Hugo Chavez, then there's a lot more at stake.

Venezuela used to be one of the most prosperous countries in South America. Now it's a basket case and its people have suffered starvation, famine, conflict, anarchy, crime etc and are desperate to flee the country.

So when I see apparently sensible countries like ourselves even considering an idea like this then, yes, it's the worst idea since Communism. It has the potential to wreck any country that goes whole-heartedly into it.

Are you confusing Chavez with Maduro?.........he's been president for the last 10 yrs
Chavez used to share the oil wealth with the poor masses....he was very much a national hero, except for the rich of course.

Maduro is more your "run of the mill" dictator.

[dougcollins]

Absolute joke and almost unbelievable they are even thinking about this when inflation is already at its highest in 40 years.

That's the spirit.

[clarethomer]

It's a fascinating concept for sure.

I'm not disappointed by some of the "Dunning Kruger effect" of some individuals on this thread.

[Paul Waine]

Autonomy, a progressive think tank, (their description) are the guys who are proposing to run this UBI trial. It's not a government proposal. Autonomy are looking for a philanthropist (or two) to put up the money.

[Rowls]

Whats the worse thing since communism in 1917?

You said - Hugo Chavez

No I didn't.

[tarkys_ears]

Autonomy, a progressive think tank, (their description) are the guys who are proposing to run this UBI trial. It's not a government proposal. Autonomy are looking for a philanthropist (or two) to put up the money.

People really need to know this bit of it

[Rowls]

Autonomy, a progressive think tank, (their description) are the guys who are proposing to run this UBI trial. It's not a government proposal. Autonomy are looking for a philanthropist (or two) to put up the money.

Ahhhh. I think we may have hit upon the snag on this idea.

[tarkys_ears]

Yeah just one little snag...

these so called philantropists that love to give my tax money away won't be quite quick to do so out of their own pockets...

[Rowls]

He’s suggesting that the rise of national socialism in 1930’s Germany trumps your statement.

Now I’m not saying one wins over the other, but you can certainly see his point, and if you can’t, then really you should be tapping out, right about…….NOW.

Fascism wasn't a big idea in the way that Communism was. It only ever took hold in places in order to defeat or prevent Communism.

[helmclaret]

I’m so glad I don’t live in Rowls world

[fidelcastro]

Fascism wasn't a big idea in the way that Communism was. It only ever took hold in places in order to defeat or prevent Communism.

Yes. Mussolini, Franco and Hitler all had good intentions really.

[clarets12]

That's the spirit.

2 of the best posters on here and I don't think you needed to post that.

[ecc]

The first country daft enough to implement this on a large scale basis will quickly go the way of Venezuela. It's an even worse idea than Communism. The fact that this is be trialled under a Conservative government shows that we don't have a Conservative government.

"The fact that this is be trialled under a Conservative government shows that we don't have a Conservative government."

Frightening.

[Greenmile]

.
...It's the worst idea to gain traction since Communism.

I think you might want to provide some clarity on what you’ve been trying to say here, because it seems (not just to me, but to quite a lot of people, from the subsequent comments) that you’re suggesting that ensuring people are provided with a minimum basic income (say, in the event that their jobs are overtaken by AI) is worse idea than the actual f**cking Holocaust (an idea that got a little bit of traction post 1917 - you might remember it from your history lessons at school)

I know our political views rarely align on most things, but i always thought that “the Holocaust was a worse idea than a progressive social welfare policy” might have been something we could agree on.

(This is where you accuse me of going “so what you’re saying is...” but, like it or not, that is exactly what you’re saying in the above quote, which you may want to consider retracting or at least clarifying)

[Bosscat]

So this is why I'm paying a 45% tax rate. I'm not here to subsidise lazy, uneducated people. Get a job ffs.

[Taffy on the wing]

Yeah just one little snag...

these so called philantropists that love to give my tax money away won't be quite quick to do so out of their own pockets...

They could ask Richard Branson........it would probably go something like this...
https://ejoy-english.com/go/video/the-m ... anker/6370

[Taffy on the wing]

I’m so glad I don’t live in Rowls world

Late 19th Century.

[fatboy47]

It was much before 1917 that Communism gained traction.

Indeed.

Could have been 2000 years ago with a weird bloke in sandals, going round with some loaves and fishes.

[Lowbankclaret]

I think its very significant that its being trialed, especially under a Tory Govt

Everything I've read about it suggests its a good idea, but I'd want to wait to see how it works out in practice

I don’t get it, if we pay everyone a wage not to work, who grows the food. Who makes parts for cars and planes. If I was young and could get my wage for doing nothing I would take it. But surely that would lead to actual workers being dissatisfied with their lot and just join the ranks of not working. No bus drivers, to taxi drivers. How would this end??

[fidelcastro]

I don’t get it, if we pay everyone a wage not to work, who grows the food. Who makes parts for cars and planes. If I was young and could get my wage for doing nothing I would take it. But surely that would lead to actual workers being dissatisfied with their lot and just join the ranks of not working. No bus drivers, to taxi drivers. How would this end??

Many of the jobs you mention and ones comparable on the pay scale wouldn't be affected by this, as the employee would have to be willing to leave that job and take a pay cut in order to qualify.

This idea, and that's all it is for now, seems to protect the exploited low paid and the frankly unemployable.

[Spiral]

Literally just crash the fking housing market and legislate to make being a landlord so absolutely awful that nobody wants to do it, and we won't need UBI. It's misidentifying the problem to say people don't have enough money. That's a symptom, not a cause. It's not that — it's that we have a sort of serf class in thrall to a landlord class, and this has knock on effects on the housing market which affect mortgage owners too, so basically everyone is caught up in this shite because we have a situation where people (landlords — individual and large companies) can have other people (tenants) pay for their homes or housing portfolios for them. Just stump up the capital to get a mortgage, bleed your tenants for a few decades, now you have a big housing portfolio that the tenants paid for, not you, and you get a few nice holidays a year out of it. Absolute farce of a system. If you want to apply capitalist principles to frivolous shite people don't truly need, I dunno, coffee, or motorcycles or whatever, go for it, good luck to you, but to do it with housing puts people in a stranglehold. The problems are structural more than they are market economic, so no matter how much the lowest paid earn, their faces will still be ground by a class of people with too much power and political sway. Landlords are already given free money for sitting around on their fat arses doing absolutely nothing, creating absolutely nothing, contributing absolutely nothing to society, just being a drain on other people's existence, whenever a welfare claimant's benefit money (including in-work benefits paid to people who absolutely graft their balls off) goes straight in the landlord's pocket. I bet landlords love it when benefits increase. It's just more money syphoned directly into their bank accounts. We have a situation where literal economic parasites are having the time of their life and there's never any pushback because they have too much power, and unless the underlying structure ends, more money going into people's bank accounts won't change anything. No wage or welfare tinkering solves this problem until this parasitic class all but disappears out of existence.

[clarethomer]

Many of the jobs you mention and ones comparable on the pay scale wouldn't be affected by this, as the employee would have to be willing to leave that job and take a pay cut in order to qualify.

This idea, and that's all it is for now, seems to protect the exploited low paid and the frankly unemployable.

where have you got the idea that the income would require you to leave a job to get it? Have I missed something?

[elwaclaret]

I don’t get it, if we pay everyone a wage not to work, who grows the food. Who makes parts for cars and planes. If I was young and could get my wage for doing nothing I would take it. But surely that would lead to actual workers being dissatisfied with their lot and just join the ranks of not working. No bus drivers, to taxi drivers. How would this end??

It is not “paying people not to work”, it is attempting to take away the destitution that causes so many mental health problems. People are quick to believe everyone on benefit is on the fiddle… those that are not are people who have no security in their lives are often worrying themselves to death, every waking hour about it. Therefore, they are in no mental state to offer anything to society… they are sucking up resources not contributing.

It is a changing world, we need some serious outside the box thinking to find solutions to problems that are coming down the road. The capitalist system itself is straining as people start to realise humans are effectively going to be made obsolete as a workforce.

[Lowbankclaret]

It is not “paying people not to work”, it is attempting to take away the destitution that causes so many mental health problems. People are quick to believe everyone on benefit is on the fiddle… those that are not are people who have no security in their lives are often worrying themselves to death, every waking hour about it. Therefore, they are in no mental state to offer anything to society… they are sucking up resources not contributing.

It is a changing world, we need some serious outside the box thinking to find solutions to problems that are coming down the road. The capitalist system itself is straining as people start to realise humans are effectively going to be made obsolete as a workforce.

Interestingly, my partners daughter who I paid to go to Nelson and Colne college and was they said a promising chef, has never done a weeks work in her life. Now 26, she has never worked and never intends to. Nor does her partner.

When that’s the accepted norm, who ever goes to work.

[clarethomer]

It is not “paying people not to work”, it is attempting to take away the destitution that causes so many mental health problems. People are quick to believe everyone on benefit is on the fiddle… those that are not are people who have no security in their lives are often worrying themselves to death, every waking hour about it. Therefore, they are in no mental state to offer anything to society… they are sucking up resources not contributing.

It is a changing world, we need some serious outside the box thinking to find solutions to problems that are coming down the road. The capitalist system itself is straining as people start to realise humans are effectively going to be made obsolete as a workforce.

That was one of the benefits that I saw with this is that you can remove that population who are worried about earning too much because it affects their benefits. If you can earn £1600 a month regardless of what else you do, then I think it would remove that mentality and fear/worry of not having the security blanket of benefits.

[Lowbankclaret]

Many of the jobs you mention and ones comparable on the pay scale wouldn't be affected by this, as the employee would have to be willing to leave that job and take a pay cut in order to qualify.

This idea, and that's all it is for now, seems to protect the exploited low paid and the frankly unemployable.

I will repeat, my partners daughter who I paid to go through Nelson and Colne college. The tutors got her a place at a top restaurant in Harrogate, living in and a good salary.

She decide to live on benefits and 8 years later still does. No intention of working and nor does her partner.

Why would anyone bother when you can live without working.

[fidelcastro]

where have you got the idea that the income would require you to leave a job to get it? Have I missed something?

I was responding to the suggestion that made a reference to employees in certain occupations being disincentivised to work.

If the £1600 per month figure is correct, then are those earning more than that really going to Jack it all in, in order to be paid less to stay at home? I seriously doubt it.

As I say. It would, in theory, provide a safety net for the permanently low paid and those who employers would never employ anyway.

[CoolClaret]

I will repeat, my partners daughter who I paid to go through Nelson and Colne college. The tutors got her a place at a top restaurant in Harrogate, living in and a good salary.

She decide to live on benefits and 8 years later still does. No intention of working and nor does her partner.

Why would anyone bother when you can live without working.

Not sure if you know this but personal anecdotes really don’t mean anything.

On to benefits/UBI - its hardly enough to finance a life of luxury, like at all is it.

If anything, it will help people if they really want take some pressure off their backs so they can go to school and re learn/level up so they can be employed on something more than minimum wage

[martin_p]

I will repeat, my partners daughter who I paid to go through Nelson and Colne college. The tutors got her a place at a top restaurant in Harrogate, living in and a good salary.

She decide to live on benefits and 8 years later still does. No intention of working and nor does her partner.

Why would anyone bother when you can live without working.

Can’t have much quality of life on benefits.

[fanzone]

Elon Musk called this a while ago that the world will be paid a universal set of money as more and more jobs become automated there will be far to many people unemployed than jobs available.

If i read it correctly that we all get £1600 plus any money we earn I'm bang up for that while it lasts.

My opinion is it will only last until the digital currency comes in then its all out government control on a worldwide scale unfortunately.

[elwaclaret]

Interestingly, my partners daughter who I paid to go to Nelson and Colne college and was they said a promising chef, has never done a weeks work in her life. Now 26, she has never worked and never intends to. Nor does her partner.

When that’s the accepted norm, who ever goes to work.

I’d be asking what they are claiming/ where are they getting their money if I were you. As someone who needed benefit after my breakdown for a few years, I can assure you even then there was very little for anything but basics… and it’s certainly not improved by all accounts.

It’s the type of argument always dragged up, but it’s like saying hang all one hundred, one’s a witch.
Looking down on those below them is something the ‘lower orders’ have been encouraged to do since the Glorious Revolution…while your judging those below you socially, you are not questioning how those socially above you are calling the shots.

[Lowbankclaret]

Can’t have much quality of life on benefits.

Good enough they don’t want to work.

[clarethomer]

I was responding to the suggestion that made a reference to employees in certain occupations being disincentivised to work.

If the £1600 per month figure is correct, then are those earning more than that really going to Jack it all in, in order to be paid less to stay at home? I seriously doubt it.

As I say. It would, in theory, provide a safety net for the permanently low paid and those who employers would never employ anyway.

But the universal in universal basic income means you get it whether you work or not. Someone could earn £5k a month and get the £1600 on top is how I understand it.

Therefore, you wouldn't expect someone to jack their job in to get it.

[Lowbankclaret]

I’d be asking what they are claiming/ where are they getting their money if I were you. As someone who needed benefit after my breakdown for a few years, I can assure you even then there was very little for anything but basics… and it’s certainly not improved by all accounts.

It’s the type of argument always dragged up, but it’s like saying hang all one hundred, one’s a witch.
Looking down on those below them is something the ‘lower orders’ have been encouraged to do since the Glorious Revolution…while your judging those below you socially, you are not questioning how those socially above you are calling the shots.

I am not looking down on anyone.
She had the choice to be a good chef, earning good money.

She decide to live on benefits and has done so for 7 years. Happy with her lot.

[Volvoclaret]

I'm assuming that this £1600/month will also be paid to those on state pension?

[agreenwood]

Can we please stick to the original topic. No need to start talking about Brexit again.

I rarely post on political threads, but this is one of the posts of the year so far. ******* burn.

[agreenwood]

I think Lowbankclaret really, really wants you all to know that he paid for his partners daughter to go to college.

I suspect he resents that, but I’m only guessing and could be wrong.

[Rowls]

Indeed.

Could have been 2000 years ago with a weird bloke in sandals, going round with some loaves and fishes.

No, it was a bloke with a white beard sat in a library in Manchester (and other places).

[clarets12]

I rarely post on political threads, but this is one of the posts of the year so far. ******* burn.

Much worse from people on here.

[clarets12]

What is the problem.

[Rowls]

Can’t have much quality of life on benefits.

That's what honest, decent people think.

You've got it wrong entirely, for all the right reasons.

It's easy to sponge off the state in this country.

[martin_p]

That's what honest, decent people think.

You've got it wrong entirely, for all the right reasons.

It's easy to sponge off the state in this country.

It isn’t you know. I suspect more than an education is being paid for here.

[Lancasterclaret]

You one of these people living it up on benefits Rowls?

[CoolClaret]

Rowls can you please answer me this

Which is a country that has ‘got it right’ for you?

- I’m trying to plot your purported fiscal policies/beliefs along with whatever other crap you churn out into an actual, functioning country

[clarets12]

You one of these people living it up on benefits Rowls?