UKC

It's time the UK adopted this as a viable strategy, rather than commiting economic suicide via Brexit.

In reply to The Ice Doctor:


If you made it truly universal I would imagine this country would be standing room only within 2 months and you'd be able to walk directly here from Libya on a carpet of lilos , inflatables and old bits of pallet.

In reply to Stichtplate:

For the dislikers-
Pick up a dictionary and look up the words 'universal' and 'viable'. Then put your bong down and go to bed.

In reply to Stichtplate:
Universal Basic Income isn't just viable it is also inevitable. We already have a large proportion of the population where the majority of their income does not come from pay from work - they are living off rent, pensions, investment income, property price appreciation or benefits. As people live longer and technology becomes more capable the proportion of the population whose primary source of money is not work is only going to increase. We need a system where you don't need to own property to get a fair share of the value generated by technology.

That doesn't mean to say we can switch to Universal Basic Income tomorrow, just that it is almost certainly where we are heading in the medium to long term.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
Really Tom,you list income coming from rent, pensions, investments and property appreciation. All private income. Government debt stands at 1.7 trillion, that's £27,000 for every man woman and child. Those in this country paying more into the system than taking out are in the minority. Ice doctor says that it's time the uk adopted this strategy now.
I agree , universal basic income is on its way , but only when automation is also universal, decades from now.

In reply to Stichtplate:


So you'd wait until 80+% of the population is totally useless before you started doing UBI? What would they do for food and housing? If you say social benefits - well then that's basically a poorly implemented UBI. If you say nothing, well then...

In reply to SenzuBean:

We're running at a deficit now, we can't pay doctors, nurses , teachers etc properly. Social housing and many public services are in crisis and the armed forces have been run into the ground.
Huge cost of housing in this country means mortgages are massive and unsecured debts are at record highs, 90% of new cars are being bought on some form of HP and a recent study says 70% of student loans will never be paid off. To cap all this we're about to experience what could well be an economic apocalypse in the form of Brexit.

Yeah, your right, perfect time to become the first country in the world to introduce universal basic income. Any ideas on how to pay for it?

In reply to Stichtplate:


The best way would to be run the country properly, not selling off productive assets for nothing, fairer taxation (mostly eliminating tax loopholes, and work supranationally to reduce tax avoidance)...

The realist answer would be to trial it in certain communities, and introduce it gradually. At the end of the day, UBI is not about getting free money, it's about being fed and being housed (i.e. being guaranteed the right to be alive) - and we have enough of those. The issue is how to reconcile this basic but accurate view with the game of monopoly that everyone thinks is the territory.

In reply to SenzuBean:

....there's already quite a lot of time and effort going into that. Seems to be quite tricky.


....I think we more or less have that covered in the Uk already.

A fairer solution for all as automation starts to kick in, might be to gradually reduce the length of the working week, sharing the dwindling number of jobs between people ,until we can realistically introduce UBI without taxpayers feeling they're being taken advantage of , prompting them to take their skills to a more equitable country.

In reply to The Ice Doctor:

We can't seem to afford a UBI for the older folk (aka State Pension) so how on earth would the nation be able to roll that out on a viable basis to all?

Also without the burden of working longer....harder....or even at all, to get our income, what would people do with all the free time?

I'd be no trouble, just walk climb surf more, but I have a feeling that some might think of far less socially acceptable ways of filling their time.

In reply to The Ice Doctor:


I never understood what a UNI was better than filling in the gaps with targetted welfare, can you explain this to me?


Why is it one or the other as you imply?

In reply to wintertree:

The welfare of the early 80s had a lot in common with UNI. There was little requirement to look for work in order to receive a very low, but liveable stipend. Unemployment was quite high too, meaning that a lot of people would have to be living on benefits regardless of how much everyone looked for work; there simply weren't enough jobs for everyone at the time. I was quite happy on benefits for a while after graduating - not only did it mean I could climb more, but it also meant there was one more job available for someone who really wanted to work. I mentioned this on here a few years ago and seem to remember the idea wasn't well received at all, more on principle I think rather than looking at the practical outcome. Seems to me that's the sort of choice many people are going to be faced with before very long.

In reply to Stichtplate:


A lot of the difference between 'private' investment income and state benefit is an illusion. Private pensions based on income from 'risk free' bonds issued by the state aren't completely private income, money from house prices rising isn't completely private income if the house price rises are caused by government policies and infrastructure investments. Money from stock market investments isn't really private income if the stock market rises are caused by central bank interventions pumping trillions into the financial system.

Government debt itself is somewhat of an illusion when a substantial amount of that 1.7 trillion figure is actually held by the central bank, bought back from the market under QE. Nobody really thinks the central bank is going to do anything other than roll that debt over as it comes due and the interest paid on the bonds it holds goes straight back to government. If you cancelled out the debt government owes to its own central bank the headline national debt figure would be a lot lower.

In reply to Stichtplate:

And for the reactionary kneejerkers clinging white knuckled to their Daily Mail "Dirty foreigner invasion!" propaganda maybe have a little look at the UBI experiment running in Finland and the broad cross party support it has gathered for good reasons.

There is absolutely no technical reason why a universal basic income is not a viable choice we could make if we wanted, we have lots of other universal benefits we fund through general taxation that lubricate the wheels of our economy without bringing the sky down on top of us.
jk

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


Is that really true?

E.g. "The accepted and widely used figure for debt is actually the net debt of the UK; in other words, the total debt minus the government's liquid assets."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-39897498

In reply to jkarran:


The Finland UBI seems to be set at the level of "benefits" rather than at the level of a "wage" (it's about a third the level of a typical "minimum wage", though Finland doesn't have an official minimum wage).

Thus, effectively, Finland's experiment effectively amounts to not reducing people's benefits if they do part-time work, eliminating the "poverty trap" and any disincentive to work. That's arguably a good thing.

I can see good arguments for UBI at about that level. That's rather different, though, from introducing it at a level that would give a "comfortable" standard of living.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


Starting at a decent subsistence level seems sensible for a number of reasons but in time as automation takes ever more jobs a proper living for all from the wealth those machines generate will become essential (less palatable alternatives of course also exist!).
jk

In reply to The Ice Doctor:

I would like to know how a universal basic income works.
I get the idea that everyone gets a basic amount of money regardless of personal wealth but lots of people need extra for care or medical bill's etc.

So then we need an assessment body to diferenciate those who need extra and those who don't so we are back to where we are now.
Or do we give everyone the same amount high enough to cover some people's special needs but then the people without extra needs will be more cash rich.

Also who is going to pay for this? Take too much from working people and they will jack the job in and live off the payment leaving less people to pay for more people, then factor in the armies of civil servants that currently work in the benefits offices being out of work too leading to even more of a disparity between those who work and those who don't.

Rather than just throwing money at people I would look to food and clothing deliveries.
Every week or whatever healthy nutritious food is delivered to unemployed people.
It will create lots of jobs in logistics and transport and ease the NHS burden from poor food choices.

In reply to Dax H:




Surely the state just provides the social care and medical care. In a world where the argument on UBI had been won, it's hard to imagine serious opposition to socialised care.

In reply to Stichtplate:


Yes. Growth, which in turn increases tax yields. Look what happened to Greece - huge austerity and GDP contracted 25%. Austerity kills an economy. Economies need to be driven by growth - which comes from money circulation from the branch to the root.

In reply to jkarran:


Talk about knee jerk reaction! ...'I don't like what you say so I'll call you a racist' . The Finish experiment is an amount far below what most would consider a reasonable UBI and it is far from universal. So perhaps have a little think about how relevant it is .


Other than as a country we're in debt , in deficit, unable to fund our current social needs and of course the fact that we don't live in La La land.

In reply to jkarran:

From all I have read on the Finland scheme they have basically said they cannot afford to implement the scheme for the whole country........

In reply to jkarran:


I'm not convinced that automation leads to fewer jobs, it takes over *some* sorts of jobs, but plenty of others then develop. Just think about all the job titles and roles people do today, and realise that most of them would not have existed 100 years ago.

But suppose we put the basic income at about the average wage (say £27,000). What then is the incentive for anyone to work? Wouldn't we all become full-time climbers, or painters or poets or people writing their first novel, et cetera?

If you put the basic income at a benefits/subsistence level then there is incentive to work, since it would markedly improve your standard of living. But, once it gets to typical-working-wage levels then why bother working?

In reply to Shani:



Totally agree, but we aren't talking about austerity we're talking about UBI . Which seems to have mutated on this thread, from its commonly assumed meaning, a decent wage (which as a universal provision is completely unaffordable at present), to meaning a subsistence level income ,which as a replacement for jobs lost through automation is totally unreasonable unless you fancy the idea of living in Soylent Green.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


That gets my vote. Bung me 27k and I will be happy to stop working a 60 hour week minimum plus 24/7 callout cover for not a lot more than that.
Of course it would put my 11 employees out of work but they won't care because they will get 27k each anyway.

In reply to Stichtplate:

Is that its commonly accepted meaning? I'd always assumed that it meant subsistence or slightly above - and hence that the motivation to work was generally that you had to if you wanted to have nice things. Moreover, tendency for people to sack off work and live on economy baked beans on basic income would be countered by a tendency for people to take less pay for the same work because they're getting it topped up by the basic income anyway.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Technically what you write is perfectly correct, but there remains a huge moral, ethical and emotional gulf between money earned through intelligence, skill and graft and just being given a wage because you lucked out in the circumstances of your birth.

.... have you ever met a trustifarian?

In reply to Ramblin dave:


I'd assumed from the OP's other recent missives that he was proposing something to replace disappearing jobs? Might be nice if he'd clarify rather than performing his normal trick of posting then buggering off.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

You are suggesting that incentives end at £27,000.

This is like saying nobody who earns more than £27,000 has further personal ambition or a desire for greater recognition.
This is like saying nobody who earns more than £27,000 wants a job that pays more because that extra money doesn't "markedly improve your standard of living".
This is like saying nobody who earns more than £27,000 has an incentive to do overtime and earn more because that extra money doesn't "markedly improve your standard of living".
This is like saying a 100% tax above £27,000 wouldn't really bother anybody because that money you'd no longer get doesn't "markedly improve your standard of living".

Are you a Marxist suggesting we should all earn £27,000 and we'd be happy because extra money doesn't "markedly improve your standard of living" ?

I don't think human behavior has a fundamental change at £27,000 or any particular level of income.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


Just think about all the superfluous shit we as a society now buy in order to sustain those jobs.

In reply to elsewhere:


Not end, just lessen.

Yes, there would be some incentive to work, get more money and thus buy more, but that incentive is hugely less if you're getting £27,000 already than if you're only getting a subsistence £4000.

In reply to Coel Hellier:
What I don't get is, if the minimum income anyone could receive is £27k (or any figure you like really) then surly whatever that level of income is will represent the new poverty line. Those who earn the least will get the lowest level stuff in society, the worst houses in the worst areas, the bottom end of everything which is available.

Wealth is all relative, those with the least will be at the bottom and those with more can have better, it's simply a way of deciding who gets what.

In reply to Coel Hellier:
You asked " why bother working?" and I said why.


Did you find yourself particularly demotivated when you first earned £27,000?

In reply to elsewhere:


Since I got to that level "desire to earn more" has played no part in any of my career decisions. Indeed I've deliberately shied away from some career options that would involve more money, since they weren't what I wanted to spend my time doing.

In reply to neilh:


...without significant changes to the tax system which whatever you may believe is not a sacred cow, it can be altered if and when we choose to, it has been dramatically different in the recent past and it can be again in the future. We'll be forced to change it soon enough as our technology changes our society.
jk

In reply to Stichtplate:

You said "If you made it truly universal I would imagine this country would be standing room only within 2 months and you'd be able to walk directly here from Libya on a carpet of lilos , inflatables and old bits of pallet." I'll leave it for others to decide whether they agree with me that you may be scaremongering just a little. I didn't accuse you of racism and I went fairly easy on the Daily Mail IMO.


It's an experiment, it's an imperfect one but it's the best we have for now so I'd say it's very relevant but that we should be cautious of extrapolating out too far from its findings. It won't be the last experiment of its kind.


We choose to run a deficit, we could pay what we actually need to for the services we need and use, in time we will have to, perhaps not soon enough for them to survive in the form we value. Personally I don't consider a society that funds its public services properly La La land, it just isn't Tory Britain but society has changed dramatically many times before, we will again.
jk

In reply to Coel Hellier:


Yes, it is really true. If it wasn't then the reported UK national debt would have fallen as a result of a trillion quid worth of QE whereas actually the reported number has been rising.

In reply to jkarran:

I think your intent is clear when you lump me in with Mail readers who apparently regard all foreigners as 'filthy'.



As you well know this wasn't the argument.Personally I would like increased taxation to properly fund social services. The La La Land reference was to your belief that we should be the first country in the world to implement UBI at a time of great political uncertainty and a point at which the nations public and private finances are notably weak.

Note I managed not to sink to implied insult. Well below your normal reasoned argument James.

In reply to jkarran:

Well if they have figured out they cannot afford it and considering the Finnish economy is shall we say at the upper end of taxes and with a relatively low level of debt, then I reckon ubi is a dead end so to speak.

In reply to Stichtplate:


There's certainly a huge emotional gulf between how folk feel about money they get as a result of house price inflation or a public sector pension that pays out out of all proportion to what was paid in and how they feel about welfare payments to other people. But they are both essentially results of actions of the state rather than 'intelligence, skill and graft' it's just that in one case it is less obvious.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


Well , you've certainly proved that you can jumble about the words in someone's post and extract any meaning you want out of them.

In reply to
Doesn't that rather indicate that the current model doesn't work? How about this - http://www.bbc.com/news/business-40518579 - declining incomes mean a few things, although an increase in inflation is good as you can , with compounds interest render your borrowings effectively smaller (if Mr Pitt had borrowed a hundred to buy a new battleship that would look a grand bargain).

Anyway two things - as people get poorer they require more government support, so your welfare Bill goes up. As that goes up their positive contribution goes down - skint people dont buy much in the way of services and luxury goods. And thats how Britain works, sells - so you will need to make more people poor to remove the hangover that losing your rich causes.

Dax - thats why you can't pay in food and clothes - I've been very poor for a while, while needing to pay the mortgage - my expenditure on unnecesary services went to zero. Doing that in Britain will kill the service based economy.


And so i think UBI is a good idea to think on. Especially as automation will lay waste to large parts of the UK middle class., pushing them to minimum wage, zero hour jobs. If 90% of office Jobs disappeared, what would people do?

In reply to jkarran:


Political support for the Finnish experiment is actually far more complex and mixed than this suggests, in part because of the rather different way that you qualify and get unemployment benefit in the current Finnish system. I paid my unemployment insurance to my union in Finland, and then when I was unemployed for a period of time I had a hugely increased monthly income over the state basic unemployment support. This puts unions in a very different position to in the UK because they are actually rather large financial management organisations on top of all the 'normal' union stuff. It's meant that many of the unions haven't been keen on the UBI system as it leaves it unclear what would happen to their insurance function.

In reply to Coel Hellier:




I've always thought one of the interesting things about UBI would be that it would have to fundamentally change our idea of what a person's time and effort is worth.

At the moment, wages are largely related to how difficult it is to obtain the qualifications and experience necessary in order to do that job, rather than how much time and effort is required to do the job.

As a result, the lowest paid work, with the lowest entry requirements, is generally also the least fun and rewarding to do. Sure, you might get a lot more stress with a lot of higher paid jobs, but how many people would rather clean toilets all day or collect refuse, than have an interesting job that includes a lot of stress?

With UBI working would be optional so the less a job paid, the less incentive there would be to work. To use your example of £27k a year, if you're already earning £50k you probably wouldn't dream of stopping, likewise for £27k... why not keep working and double your income? A lot of us on here might see it slightly differently (I know I would be full time climbing) but we're an odd bunch and most people would carry on.

But if a job is only paying £12k a year, you're going to be giving up most of your time for very little additional reward. Who in their right mind would do that?

As a result, if we wanted people to do the shitty jobs that nobody else wants (but that our society relies on), we'd have to reward them well for doing them.

In reply to Ciro:




For the lowest paid shitty jobs to move up the scale all jobs would need to move up the scale otherwise why would people study for years to obtain the qualifications if they can get good money for basic jobs.

Once all the pay scales have jumped x k each that will just put the cost of all products and services up.

The more things cost the less your wage rise is worth.

In reply to Dax H:


So they didn't have to do a shitty job. Why would you *not* study for something more interesting if you're capable of doing so, especially when your needs are adequately covered while you study through UBI?

In reply to TobyA:

Cheers, I was aware of that and I figured anyone else curious enough to go look would find it too, all I meant by "cross party support" was that it has found proponents from both ends of the political spectrum, not to imply it's universally popular.
Jk

In reply to jkarran:

Did you read the Economist report on it? There was an interesting comment from the head of KELA (Kansaneläkelaitos - the national social security system) saying the politicians blow hot and cold on the idea all the time and are like little kids playing with toys that they get bored with every so often!

In reply to Ciro:


Talking as someone who works in a very interesting but high stress environment the only thing stopping me jacking it in is the money.
The money isn't that great either because I re invest the bulk of the profits but its far better than I would get doing a dead end job.

In reply to TobyA:

Certainly sounds familiar, must have been the same piece.

In reply to Lord_ash2000:


I think this is exactly right, take tax credits as an example. Guess what happens when everyone's wages get bumped up by the government (OK not everyone but a significant number), prices go up because people have more money to spend. That's one of the reasons the way tax credits were removed was bad, not because they were a good idea as implemented but because they'd already affected the economy and removing them without adjusting prices no doubt made things desperate for many people.

So with this idea of a universal income, is the idea that government also controls inflation and implements price caps? I'm assuming not but surely it would be necessary. If someone can point me to a good article on this topic I'd be interested to read it, it sounds utterly bonkers to me.

Is the idea that this era of automated everything will coincide with major industries being nationalised so that there's public money to pay for it? There's something that feels strangely dystopian about all this.

In reply to Dax H:



You'd rather be cleaning toilets? If that's the case, the hypothetical UBI world should suit you, as you'll be able to quit your job and do that instead without ending up wondering how your going to make enough to live comfortably. Or even go back to uni and study something equally interesting but less stressful.

In reply to Ciro:

This is an interesting perspective.

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/01/why-we-should-all-have-a-basic-incom...

In reply to Matt Vigg:


Wealth continues to defy gravity and stream up to the top, rather than trickle down to the bottom. That's not really sustainable as is, never mind when automation kicks in properly, so the current model will have to change one way or the other.

In reply to The New NickB:

Cheers, interesting indeed. Although suspiciously lacking in considerations of downsides and how to mitigate them... particularly in that it ignores the effects on the UBI country's labour market of being connected to all the other labour markets of the world.

In reply to Stichtplate:


That'll be why homelessness has risen and more people are using foodbanks?

In reply to elsewhere:


Are you suggesting the Tesco checkout person who is currently earning £14,000 pa, if given £27,000 pa under this lunatic scheme, will suddenly become motivated to work more to "improve" themselves?

In reply to Ciro:

Fine I don't disagree, I'm asking how it's gonna work?

In reply to Ciro:


Ohh yes that would be awful having to clean toilets, how shocking.
Predominantly I work in the sewage industry and regularly have to paddle in a few inches of human waste, there is nothing like peeling used ladies sanitary products from a machine before you service it or having to scrape off copious amounts of fresh rat shit.

Throw good money at people for doing bugger all and people will do bugger all.
A few will use it to better themselves as long as inflation is controlled so that the level of cash allows them to but lots will do nothing.

In reply to Dax H:



With ever increasing job automation there will soon(ish) be a need for many people to be doing bugger all (workwise) as there won't be nearly enough jobs for most people. One option is an ever increasing number of people on benefits. Another is some kind of UBI, which would remove the pretence that everyone needs to be looking for work, when in reality there may be many people content to receive minimum/living wage without working, leaving better pay for those with more reasons for choosing to work.

Hypothesising the level of UBI support at 27k is absurd.

In reply to The New NickB:

I've read that article and as far as I can see it amounts to a large set of tax rises on the richest, everyone gets 12k but the wealthiest pay more than 12k to get it, and the very wealthiest pay significantly more. In other words tax rates go up for the more wealthy, that's pretty clear in terms of how this might work, I'm not against it necessarily but it's not exactly a new idea. So the automation stuff is just a side issue, it's why we might need a UBI not how we'll implement one.

What it says about the effect on people's motivation is interesting, i.e. having the UBI always there means it isn't conditional and it's not removed if you get work so people don't feel disincentivised to get work. It doesn't mention the effect on people living in neighbouring countries that don't have UBI or the effect on the wealthy that now have to pay a lot more tax, surely unless the whole world has UBI then these are important aspects? Also, what about the people working at the cusp of wages where UBI doesn't benefit them or require them to pay more tax, won't they see their friends and colleagues who were previously earning less now earning the same or similar without having had to work harder or longer?

The article also doesn't mention how all this might affect prices, perhaps they'll go down at the high end and up at the cheaper end, what might that mean longer term with the level of UBI?

In reply to john arran:


Or people only work 2, 3 or 4 days a week? Our life styles will need to take a hit, but in the coming decades that is likely to be inevitable any, the idea of of spending thousands to fly around the world, just to see something, then come home will seem laughable in the future.


Even £1000 a year. £20 a week, would cost £40bn for 40million people. The people who think they would be given enough money to live off whilst studying are dreaming. Besides if you got £27k many people wouldn't bother studying. Most of us here would be on the rock, the polish after a few decades of universal income would be dreadful.

In reply to summo:

Your £40bn for £1000 a year per person forgets that we pay out £200bn a year already and also doesn't take in to account the tax changes that would have to go with it.

I think what is interesting is the incentivisation or lack of it related to UBI. I have no doubt that it can be made affordable at a level similar to the state pension. The questions about effectiveness are not those of affordability. The free market perspective of the article I linked above is particularly interesting.

In reply to Big Ger:


Not sure where you got those numbers from but at most it'd be living wage, probably less so nowhere near 27k in today's money. Anyway, back to those checkout staff: some will seek better jobs or education, some will spend more time enriching the lives of their kids, caring for their elderly relatives, volunteering in their communities, some will start the businesses that inspire them, some will no doubt enjoy their basic income in front of their TV. What's wrong with that?

We already have many universal benefits: Health services, Education, Judiciary, Police, Military & security, Road networks to name but the few most obvious. I really can't see why adding a secure basic living for all to that is 'lunatic'.
jk

In reply to The New NickB:


What is the breakdown of that £200bn. I wasn't suggesting £20/week it was more for a sense of scale. Those £27k stories would cost a £trillion/yr ish.

Would not ubi just be like a glorified tax credit?


the state pension in it current format is barely affordable? So you think ubi will work just as well or badly?

In reply to The Ice Doctor:
According to the ONS, in 1971 24% of people aged 16 to 64 were economically inactive.
By 2017 this percentage was down to 21%.
Automation would appear to have had no effect on the numbers of people working somwhy the need for UBI?


https://www.ons.gov.uk/file?uri=/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/emp...

In reply to Dax H:



haha, OK probably a bad example in your case. Pick another one.



I think your assessment is back to front. A few will do nothing but most will continue to better themselves... it's human nature. I couldn't do long periods of unemployment if I didn't have climbing (or something other self-improvement goal) to concentrate on, it would just lead to boredom and depression.

The idea of perpetual idleness can sound appealing if you only have limited time to be idle, but in reality we're not well built for it.

In reply to jkarran:


They all enable other things or provide a clear benefit to society.

Giving people money regardless of what they do provides what benefit?

If people might study, they why not directly subsidise adult education etc..
If they might care for others or do community projects etc.. then the state funds the participants directly.

But to just dish out cash, is to me on a hiding to nothing. Maybe in 200 years with total automation, but we aren't even close to that point.

In reply to Stichtplate:


You chose language and imagery it conjured up: a tide of debris and grasping humanity from Africa to our shores. It's straight out of the Mail's "101 Hits for the Dogwhistle". Don't like coming across as a reactionary Mail reader? Stop writing like one.


La La like the other rather expensive but now much treasured universal benefit we implemented before most other societies back in 1948 when our war ravaged economy really was on its knees? That was driven in part by the need for a new social settlement in the wake of war, times had changed and our technological revolution is changing them again.

We wouldn't be going first anyway but even if we were what's the problem with being an early adopter, we've lead from the front in many social and technological innovations over the years, rarely has that been to our detriment as a nation or society. Perhaps it is impossible, perhaps the working classes ('middle' included) really are powerless against the holders and accumulators of wealth, perhaps there are serious social and economic downsides to one more tax funded universal benefit but the idea deserves and I'm sure will will get in the coming decades increasing attention so hopefully one way or the other we'll find out. At the moment it looks like an interesting, potentially quite affordable solution with many potential social and economic benefits to the problem growing inequality (real or perceived it matters not) which is set only to accelerate as technology makes broad swathes of the population redundant in their workplaces which unless our attitudes to work and its role funding our survival change fast will bring significant social problems alongside growing unemployment poverty and inequality. For generations we've sought to reduce the drudgery of survival, I see no need to buck that trend by clinging to the idea of work being essential for survival, many of us have little freedom to truly choose the path our lives take, we work to survive, one dull job or another. The idea that we could change that so we choose the work we do to improve our lives, our environment, the lives of others, to create something we take pride in is a tempting one.
jk

In reply to jkarran:


It was bandied about above;



I would think that 90% would do the latter, Jeremy Kyle would become a megastar.


Who will be manning, sorry, personing, the tills?

And it's all very well giving people the choice to do sod all, yet to have an income, but wouldn't it encourage larger families, and destroy any work ethic?

GT.

In reply to summo:


Nick's link https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/01/why-we-should-all-have-a-basic-incom... covers the potential benefits better than I could.


I've no problem with that but it's a different issue.


Sorry, I don't really understand your point.
jk

In reply to jkarran:

Just out interest, what would a fair weekly amount be if you started it today?

What kind of tax rate would fund it?

In reply to jkarran:

My point being it would be cheaper and more effective to only fund the people who decide to study, do community work etc.. rather than fund everyone.

In reply to Big Ger:


Despite evidence to the contrary from previous trials and existing partial implementations?


You haven't been to a British supermarket till in a while have you? This chap, has done for a while now: http://www.jeffbots.com/hal.jpg


Again, the evidence so far suggests not but perhaps a bigger trial will prove your dim view of your fellow people correct. It's a question that needs answering conclusively for sure.
jk

In reply to Matt Vigg:

Some interesting points, but I'm not sure about this:


Isn't the point that those people will receive UBI plus whatever wage they have before, so they will get the increase as their friends / colleagues? This is exactly one of the benefits of UBI - it prevents there being people on state support getting the same money as those who are working (which I think you allude to with one of your earlier points).

Apologies if I've misunderstood the point you were trying to make.

In reply to jkarran:

I would say a trial of this kind of thing needs to be 10 to 30 years. To see the knock on effect in education, skill loss, decline in health due to obesity and diabetes, mental health problems etc...

Edit. You've still not said how much you think it should be?

In reply to summo:


Honestly I've no idea, I'm an engineer not an economist but it certainly requires a significantly more redistributive tax system than we have now.
jk

In reply to andyfallsoff:

What if you decide not to work. State benefits plus ubi equals how much?

In reply to baron:





You're right that the number who are jobless / economically inactive is lower than could be expected, but we also have terrible productivity (one of the worst in the developed world) - lots and lots of people are doing crappy jobs that could be done more efficiently is one explanation for this.

I think one of the arguments for UBI is that it removes part of the over-supply of workers who need to earn enough to survive, so that workers become more valuable - employers then have to invest more to get them, and use them more efficiently.

In reply to jkarran:


So why not forget ubi and improve the tax system? Target the root of the problem etc..

In reply to Big Ger:


Of all the jobs that exist, checkout staff is one of the easiest to imagine being superceded by technology. We're pretty close already. Amazon have prototype stores where you walk in, pick up what you want, and walk straight out. Billing occurs automatically. https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/04/how-amazon-go-probab...

Almost every British supermarket have had multiple self-service tills operated by a single member of staff for years. It wouldn't take massive technological leaps to reduce human involvement even further.

Plus, more and more grocery shopping is ordered online. There's human involvement in picking and delivering the orders but more and more picking can be automated, self-driving cars and drones are probably the future of delivery and, even more simply, people are often willing to pick up their order from a convenient location.

Some of those options don't cut out the human element altogether but they certainly reduce the number of jobs and reduce the drudgery of those that remain.

In reply to andyfallsoff:

That's not how I understood that article, the poorest get the full 12k (the amount in their example), higher earners might pay 20k tax extra but also get the 12k. That suggests there are people in the middle that get 12k and pay 6k back in tax and others that fall right in the middle and get 12k and pay it all back.

In reply to summo:


I don't know - no-one has set the level of UBI for the UK, it would take a lot of detailed analysis. My understanding is that it would be less than average income (so maybe half the £27k mooted above).

Why would it be state benefits plus UBI, though?

In reply to andyfallsoff:


£10k would cost £400bn/yr, for 40m people. That will require some serious tax increases.


If it's low then folk will still need benefits, if it's high then why bother working?

In reply to Matt Vigg:

I'd agree with that - but their total income levels would be quite different as those paying 12k in tax would surely only be higher earners?

Clearly, there will have to be some people paying more in than taking out; but that's the case in any progressive tax system.

In reply to summo:


I think the OECD study that has looked at this concluded it would need some tax increases, but the marginal rates would still work out better than the issues we have at present where (because of the withdrawal of benefits or the quirks in the tax system) we have people paying 60% plus marginal rates.


It's supposed to be low but enough to live on - i.e. neither extreme you set out above. It doesn't need to be enough to fund a lavish lifestyle; if people want more money for things, they can work.

Also, it is slightly bizarre to think that everyone stops trying as soon as they get to a low basic level of income - that isn't my experience of human nature at all. How do you explain the fact that any job currently pays above, say, 40K?

In reply to summo:


That would be one option, but surely there is something to be said for (or at least a debate to be had about the feasibility of) a system which removes the issues around marginal rates where people come off state support and into paid work?

Agree that we should do one or the other, though

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:



How about using some of this labour that technology is going to release to do tasks such as fruit and veg picking rather than striving to automate the tasks and then wondering how to fund food and housing for the people that are stood idle because we have made them redundant?

In reply to jkarran:

I wasn't aware a concern about the further overpopulation of our already crowded island was particularly a left or right issue. Do I really have to start reading the Mail to find out?

Started to read the rest but gave up . To return the favour of your critique of my literary style ... overlong, windy and boring.

In reply to timjones:

Isn't this more or less what the luddites said around the time of the industrial revolution?

Not to say that we should immediately seek to innovate every human out of a job, but resisting change just to keep people busy isn't necessarily a good thing - arguably, that's one of the reasons why productivity is so rubbish in the UK, and hence wages low and lots of people struggle. .

In reply to Big Ger:
£1 extra income is £1 extra income regardless of how much you earn but how much that £1 matters varies.

£27,000 is Coel's number for a UBI. He's the one who suggested motivation stop at that level.

In reply to jkarran:


Have previous trials been carried out on sink estates in the UK?


Yes, but these machines don't fill the shelves, or work the tills for those who choose not to use self service. Your literal interpretation of "people on the tills" is rather telling.


It will amongst the working classes.

In reply to andyfallsoff:


Low enough to live on, which means the incentive to work or study declines?


Because tax in the UK is quite low even for high earners?

In reply to Luke90:


Oh for goodness sake. Try thinking a bit more widely, "people on the tills" was just a shorthand example of the sort of low level, low skilled, person who would most be affected by this.

In reply to andyfallsoff:



At the time of the luddites labour was a lot less plentiful and the tasks that they were automating were a great deal more strenuous than the few remaining manual jobs that we still have.

We are at a far more advanced stage in the process of mechanisation and automation now and hopefully our thinking ability has matured and allowed us to consider the implications a bit more.

Can a species survive if it continues to increase the population by demanding better healthcare, free IVF etc as a "right" whilst devaluing it's own existance by refusing the to undertake the basic tasks required to provide food, water and shelter for itself?

I doubt that anyone knows the answers but I also suspect that we are also far too unwilling to even acknowledge the tough questions.

In reply to summo:


I think the point is that it isn't, think about the issue with OAP and the winter fuel allowance or parents and family allowance.

In reply to The New NickB:


But the scale is vastly different. It's not a little top up, people are suggesting a sum that is sufficient to live on in its own right.

In reply to elsewhere:


No, I said that motivation *reduces* (not "stops") if one gets a decent standard of living without having to work at all.

Then why are there higher paying jobs now? Well, currently such a person has a choice between doing a job for (say) 50k or living on benefits (5k-ish?). That means that working makes a huge difference in their standard of living so there is a big incentive to work.

If, however, they had a choice between working for 50k or not working at all and getting 27k, then plenty would take the latter option. One can see that from the number who opt for early retirement, or would like to if they could.

The other point is that, if we're handing out 27k to everyone, then any earned salaries would have to be heavily taxed (50% tax, or more?) in order to fund the 27k-for-everyone.

That means that the improvement in standard of living for those opting to work would not be that great. Which means that more would not opt to, which means that those who did would have to be more heavily taxed, and we're into a spiral.

I don't think we can have a system where people take the attitude: "I exist. I deserve a decent standard of living. But I can just sit on my arse. It's society's job to provide me with a decent standard of living". We have to maintain the idea that, primarily, people individually have the responsibility to provide themselves and their families with a decent standard of living (with society being there with a safety net at some level below that).

In reply to summo:



We just drastically disagree about human motivation. To my mind, people work both because they want more money, but also because money is a proxy for success, status, etc. Otherwise we'd all be doing the minimum stress jobs we can for as few hours as possible.

I also reject your idea that the UK is relatively low tax. Compared to Scandinavia that might be true, but when you add income tax and NI the UK has one of the highest income tax regimes in the world - top rate of 45% (not incl NI!) against global average 33% and OECD 42%. We have marginal rates of 62% for earners between 100k and 122k, due to the removal of the personal allowance. That's the highest marginal rate anywhere in Europe.

In reply to andyfallsoff:


As someone living in Scandinavia I would disagree. Plus it's not just the headline rate that counts, but what the state does or doesn't provide. Unemployment insurance in the nordics is over and above the taxes, it's paid for after from take home pay. Doctors or hospital visits are paid for, energy consumption taxes are high on electricity etc.. so devil is as always in the detail. Plus even on the rates here, there is no way they could afford to pay out ubi as the annual books still have a slight deficit (sweden).

Plus given the under funding of health and education etc at present in the UK. Taxes in the UK need to rise to find these never mind anything else.

In reply to summo:

You're not getting it are you!

In reply to Big Ger:


You know the answer to that: no. They have been carried out in bits of America, Canada, Namibia, India, Brazil, Finland and the Netherlands. I'm sure they all have plenty of folk you'd consider feckless scroungers yet the problems you imagine don't appear to have manifest.


Telling of what? Say what you mean if you don't wish to be misunderstood. You picked probably the most single obvious example in Britain today of low skilled work that has been automated to make a point about needing low skilled workers and you don't expect to be called on it?


What do you mean by the 'working classes', those who choose to continue working after our hypothetical UBI is implemented or the traditional 'working class', unskilled and semi-skilled labour?
jk

In reply to summo:


Fair point that what you get for the money matters, but I don't think you can describe the UK as low tax in terms of contributions. On an assessment of tax rates compared to other countries it clearly isn't.


Interestingly enough, Finland was one of the countries the OECD used in their modelling of the effects of UBI. On the stats there, UBI actually resulted in a saving to the public purse compared to the existing benefits system. If the effect would be similar in Sweden, you might find UBI helped resolve the deficit. It isn't fair to necessarily assume that UBI is an expensive treat that will cost more - which seems to be your starting point.


I do agree with this.

In reply to Stichtplate:



All down to the economic incompetence of this "government"

In reply to jkarran:


So 7 countries have trialled UBI and not one thought widespread implementation was a good idea. That seems fairly conclusive regarding the wisdom of its adoption any time soon.

In reply to Root1:


Yep. With a bit of help from the banking crisis.

In reply to Stichtplate:


What an odd conclusion to draw.

I'd suggest perhaps they're more wary of leaping to firm conclusions than you appear to be on inadequate evidence and that even if they were keen to implement UBI more broadly political processes, especially those which bring about significant change without huge external pressure are always slow and faltering.
jk

In reply to The New NickB:


No I'm not. You give me tomorrow say £10k/yr and I will work less, perhaps drop down to 1 or 2 days a week as it allows me to do more sport. Give me more money and I'll work even less or stop altogether.
I just don't see how this could work on a national or global scale.

In reply to Big Ger:


You chose the example. Don't get upset because you chose a bad one. For most examples of low-skilled jobs people will be able to give concrete examples of technology that is being developed to replace them, whether it's now, soon, or in the more distant future. The economic incentives for companies to do that are vast. If you then want to wave your hands and say that you actually meant a wider selection of jobs, that doesn't really prove anything.

In reply to jkarran:




If the countries involved weren't serious about weighing up options why waste time, money and political capital conducting trials?

End result, 7 trials against 0 implementations.

How many times do you generally bang your head against a brick wall before you reach the conclusion that it hurts?

In reply to andyfallsoff:

I fail to see paying ubi to an entire population can be cheaper than paying benefits to a much smaller proportion? Unless the ubi is much lower and insufficient to live off? The maths just wouldn't add up.

In reply to Coel Hellier:



I don't think that follows, we need to get past the 'state spending needs to be paid for from taxes on income' assumption if UBI is to happen. What we actually need to do is replace the current 'benefit system' of indirectly state-supported unearned income from investments in property and financial instruments (including pensions) as well as state provided benefits with UBI. The state should get the money it needs by charging for the use of land and money rather than taxing income and consumption. The people who get f*cked up by the transition should be the financial industry and those living off investment income because the goal is to distribute unearned wealth evenly rather than the present system which concentrates it. The outcome should be a distribution of wealth which looks more like a normal curve than the present situation.

I also think that one outcome of UBI would be increased entrepreneurial activity. A lot of people have business or creative ideas they would like to pursue but they can't afford to do so because they have a family and can't take the risk of failure or don't have sufficient savings to live off if the business takes a couple of years to take off. A tax system which made it really hard to stay wealthy without work would also encourage successful people to keep working rather than sit in a big house and live off investment income. Also, more even distribution of money will result in increased demand for products and services.

In reply to jkarran:


They should have written their successful conclusion first, then designed the trial to give them the result they wanted?

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


Why bother, if your business takes off etc.. you'll just get hammered by the very wealth taxes that were funding your ubi in the first place? Better to just coast, find the balance etc.. no need to strive.

In reply to Stichtplate:

How many ground tests and flights between Gagarin's first orbit in 1961 and Apollo 11's success in 1969? Would you have concluded after Apollo 10 that the process of getting man to the moon was obviously impossible since there'd been loads of 'unsuccessful' space flights (when judged against the 'man to moon' criterion and many in absolute terms) or would you have understood you were witnessing a painstaking process of rigorously testing and evaluating, that even when solutions are found their implementation takes time?
jk

In reply to jkarran:

You can modify a rocket and improve it, through trial & error.

Maths doesn't change no matter how many times you recalculate the same equation. (With the exception of using an abbotcus).

In reply to jkarran:

The development of space flight and the trialling of UBI are so far apart , in so many ways , as to make any comparison ludicrous.

In reply to summo:



The point is that it's always been necessary for humans to work to support ourselves and provide for our basic needs. Our definition of "basic needs" has broadened somewhat through history, but the need for people to work to provide them has remained constant. Because of that, we've always made sure that there are incentives for as many people as possible to be involved in that work in some form. Whether it's through economic incentives or culture, we've found ways to discourage "freeloaders".

It seems reasonable to suggest that, at some point in the future, technology will be capable of providing so many of those basic needs that there are very few jobs that need doing by people. If you accept that basic premise, then you need a system that can handle it. It seems to me that there are two ways it could pan out:

1. We carry on demonising "freeloaders" but with fewer and fewer simple jobs needing doing by people, huge and increasing proportions of the population cannot possibly find jobs. We end up with an extremely stratified society where the upper classes who own the machines doing the work are vastly rich, small numbers of middle classes have complex jobs doing the bits of building, programming and maintenance that machines still can't and a large underclass is jobless and penniless. That seems like where we're probably heading.

OR

2. We accept that with technology providing most of our needs, we can dispense with the expectation that everybody must contribute by working. Let everybody "freeload" a bit while machines provide for us. Provide good incentives (monetary or otherwise) for the few jobs that still need doing by people.

In that view, a UBI that motivates you to reduce your working hours isn't necessarily a problem. It's a step on the path towards option 2. I'm not suggesting that we're ready for a UBI yet. The technology isn't at the level where it can do enough of the work and we're CERTAINLY not culturally prepared for the necessary shift away from demonising freeloaders!

When it is introduced, it would have to be done slowly and experimentally, with the level tailored to incentivise the amount of work that still needs doing by people at any given stage. If, say, £10k motivates too many people to give up work altogether, it might have to be lower. Maybe then you'd choose to work four days and climb for three. For each few people in your line of work that did the same, somebody else could perhaps be employed as well.

In reply to Luke90:

I will agree about automation. I think we need to work for our physical and mental well-being. Better for everyone to work 1,2 or 3 days and we ALL lower our standard of living expectations (multiple cars, overseas holidays etc).

The idea that someone works full time whilst another does nothing, won't work.

But then it gets complex in terms of education. If someone is destined for a life of leisure on ubi, why even bother paying for them to attend school, college, uni etc.. so we select the best? Genetics? Should those inferior be allowed to breed? How do you decides who works, who doesn't? Ever seen the film Elysium?

In reply to Stichtplate:


Why? Both seem very expensive requiring bold and visionary investment from nation states, both require careful incremental investigation to ensure the desired outcomes are achieved and undesirable ones avoided, both meet lots of political/ideological opposition, both are complex, hard for the general public to understand in more than broad terms, both spin off significant unexpected positive developments: computers and GPS for a space program example, improved mental health, entrepreneurship and dramatically reduced crime for some noted UBI trial benefits. Ludicrous, or just different?
jk

In reply to summo:

This is the OECD's conclusion, not mine: https://www.oecd.org/els/soc/Basic-Income-Policy-Option-2017-Presentation.p...

I think that the idea is that the UBI would make a personal allowance for tax (the nil band up to c.£10.4k) unnecessary - so that everyone pays tax, even on low incomes (a point which on other threads, people have suggested might be a good thing in terms of "buy in" to the system). A final UBI proposal would therefore raise more cash before spending more.

In reply to jkarran:



Space flight - developed by a painstaking process of trial and error by unified dedicated agencies.

UBI - disparate governments give it a whirl, don't like their conclusions, put it back in its box for possible further pondering sometime in the indeterminate future.

It's like comparing whales and oranges, not even vaguely in the same categories. I thought you were the engineer?

In reply to Coel Hellier:


You said "What then is the incentive for anyone to work?" and "why bother working?" which can be reasonably paraphrased as you saying motivation stops.

27k is your Marxist strawman number.


I agree but I also think there a reciprocal responsibility for a prosperous society to make opportunities available. If automation or a trickle up economy means only a minority could support families that doesn't seem desirable or sustainable.
A UBI might address that and stave off the consequences of "let them eat cake"!

In reply to summo:

Why wouldn't you work on something that interests you if you have the time to do so? If it is money you are interested in then you still get more of it from working: you still get the big house and big car and so on if your business is successful.

Quite likely if tax was on wealth tax rather than income you would get the house and the car faster by working hard because income taxes limit people's ability to get wealthy where wealth taxes limit peoples ability to stay wealthy after they stop working.

In reply to summo:




Have a like.

In reply to summo:


I agree to some extent, though it's hard to disentangle how much of that is inherent to human nature and how much of it is programmed in by our anti-freeloading culture. I certainly don't think sitting around watching TV all day would be good for anybody's mental health but I suspect a fulfilling hobby scratches most of the same itches as a job.


Definitely. Though in the longer term, you could probably achieve the same without the sacrifices.


Not on a widespread basis in the short term, certainly. Though it already happens, of course, at both ends of society.


Certainly have seen Elysium. Didn't love it as a film but I guess it played into that first negative scenario I described.

I guess the education question comes down to the fact that in a distant enough future that we don't expect many people to be working due to technology, we're probably talking about a scenario where education can also be provided with minimal human input. (And doesn't necessarily need to happen in a single big block at the start of your life.)

In reply to john arran:


What a caricature you are.
You actually think you were doing the world a favour by choosing not to work and taking, say, NHS money, for a life of climbing.
"one more job available for someone who really wanted to work"
People get jobs for money. Not because they really want to work.
They don't want to pay tax to support you.

Your excuse is "there weren't enough jobs for everyone".

"there will soon(ish) be a need for many people to be doing bugger all"
"choice many people are going to be faced with"
"there won't be nearly enough jobs"

To start with there is now low unemployment. Probably because of the automation making more things viable.
Everybody is bleating that the NHS will fail now because cheap migrants won't come to wipe old peoples bottoms.
But you wouldn't want to do that, like they do, would you ?

As a "socialist" you presumably believe in owning the means of production. Except you can only conceive of working in a "job" as a slave to someone else. People create wealth and jobs. But not people like you.
Do landscaping, grow plants, provide services, food, get a 3D printer to make things people want, write software, arrange climbing holidays, sell things on ebay.
There are an infinite number of ways to contribute to the world instead of being a parasite on everyone else.

In reply to Luke90:

So with automation, either AI decides what machines we need and how to build, programme etc. Or there is human input? If human who does the work, who selects. Special exams, the 16 plus. Pass and you work in IT, fail and it's a life of leisure?

Hobbies may replace work for fulfilment to some level. But there is something about an honest days graft that earns a crust. It's like earning that bit of extra money that affords a treat, doesn't it feel better when it's earned etc.. without a longer term genetic level change in us I think zero work would cause more mental health issues.

In reply to elsewhere:


That was the point, I was trying to flush out what the actual proposal is, since it makes a huge difference whether we're talking about:

UBI at current benefits level.
UBI at current minimum-wage level
UBI at current average-wage level.

The first of those effectively amounts to much less claw-back if someone on benefits does some amount of work. I can see good arguments for that.

The other two do not seem to me feasible given human nature. A minority of people might work because they enjoy it; most humans don't and won't. Even those that would want to work would find that, say, 3 days a week sufficed.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


I see your point, but ill take it to the extreme. I work and have all the materialistic stuff but no time relative to others to enjoy it. I retire and lose it, because it's unearned wealth? Why bother? I've worked for nothing?

In reply to summo:
Nothing works when taken to the extreme.

In reply to elsewhere:


True. But with ubi there can't be a half way house. Either it is enough to live off, or it isn't and needs topping up. But then do you have a London allowance etc.. What about housing costs? Does it track cpi/ rpi ? Migration if ubi is better here than there. People complain now about a couple of quid in child benefit reaching poland.

It's easy to say give everyone some money (Labour or tory manifesto) much harder to explain how it will work and where the money comes from.

In reply to David Riley:
















Excellent rant. I'm pretty sure that not a word of it is in response to what I actually wrote, but don't let facts get in the way of a cathartic letting-off of steam!

In reply to john arran:

How can that be so, since I quote what you said.

In reply to summo:


If you take that view to the extreme everybody works for nothing no matter what because you can't take it with you when you die.

Being well off for years doesn't become 'nothing' just because it is impossible to make you and your family well off indefinitely.

You wouldn't lose all your wealth instantly when you retire, you'd just see your wealth gradually fall off over time rather than stay constant or increase. When you get really old it isn't that big a deal because what you can do is constrained by your health rather than how much money you have. Arguably we are better off having money earlier in our life when we are able to enjoy it than have it gradually build up so we attain maximum wealth at the point we can't do anything with it.

In reply to Coel Hellier:






Higher numbers become more plausible when you use GDP per capita. I don't know what the best number is to encapsulate average income rather than average wage.


UBI is an idea for when those things actually become necessary or desirable due to economic change.

In reply to David Riley:


I think you'll need to read my post and your reply more carefully to see the many places you've misinterpreted it. I have neither the time nor the inclination for a detailed retro analysis.

In reply to summo:


There can always be a half way house in economics. Anything else is the stupidity of an ideologue.


There is no either/or. It would be enough for some whilst others would consider it inadequate and in need of topping up.

>But then do you have a London allowance etc.. What about housing costs? Does it track cpi/ rpi ? Migration if ubi is better here than there. People complain now about a couple of quid in child benefit reaching poland.


All good points.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
>When you get really old it isn't that big a deal because what you can do is constrained by your health rather than how much money you have. Arguably we are better off having money earlier in our life when we are able to enjoy it than have it gradually build up so we attain maximum wealth at the point we can't do anything with it.



Ageist claptrap. A human beings ability to enjoy life and any money they have earned is constrained by their wit and imagination, not their health.
Going off your argument disability payments should be much less than welfare for the able bodied, after all what are the poor cripples going to do with the cash anyway.

In reply to john arran:

My post was making the following general points :

There is never a shortage of work to do.

People should always try to contribute. So opting out and living on a universal basic income is not acceptable.

In reply to Luke90:


But hang on a sec, who is developing and maintaining this amazing tech? Presumably companies who have invested years in it and in the people that understand it. So how do you get from that to "freeloading while machines provide for us"? Is it nationalisation of the tech or just taxing the companies that own it highly, and if the latter what will stop them moving countries unless all countries are doing the same thing?

The article posted by Nick above does just seem to talk about raising taxes to fund UBI, then you're back to the same issue as above - how do you stop people/companies/both buggering off to where they'll pay less tax?

In reply to summo:

The general human muddle or birth luck and inequality of opportunity based unfairness will probably end up deciding these things? I'm not saying it's desirable though.

In reply to Matt Vigg:


Tax. It's the things that stop them skipping out for lower tax regimes today and the same things that stop us attracting businesses from higher tax regimes: inertia, language, they're invested in people, locations, made in xyz branding, barrier free access to the lucrative local market, established supply chains, healthy educated workers, robust national infrastructure, robust and fair rule of law, easy access to a corruption free courts, thriving network of interconnected businesses and research institutions, nice safe place for owners/workers to live and work... Of course some of this is changing fast now we've cut our nose off to spite our face with brexit.
jk

In reply to Stichtplate:


Of course we can pay public sector workers properly. We just choose not to when we exercise our choice at the ballot box.

If we want a good health and education service we have to be prepared to pay for it through higher taxation.

Martin

In reply to Stichtplate:

It's not ageist claptrap it is personal observation of what happened to my parents. My mother was far richer in her eighties than at any other point in her life but she didn't get much enjoyment of it. Same with my father in his seventies. The diseases of age limit your choices and they also take away your desire to do new things.

It is entirely normal to have a long period of gradually worsening health before you die and for old people to find their wealth accumulating because they spend less than their pension income because they don't get out much and their investments and property increase in value. We have a system which makes people wealthy at the point in their life where wealth is of least benefit to them because they are basically stuck at home.

In reply to jkarran:
OK fair enough, so the way in which we'll all be living off the machines is via the tax paid by the companies that own them, simple enough. To stop those firms moving off though we're gonna need a skilled workforce to keep them because from your list that's the only thing that stands out as being difficult to replace in another country and even that's not impossible.

Edit: btw, I'm not against higher taxes, I pay more tax now living in Germany than I will when I come back to the UK shortly and the services are definitely better in Germany. What I'm not so keen on with this idea is the idea of giving people money to do nothing, I've always worked hard to get what I've got in and out of work and it feels good. There's something very matrix like about the idea of us all getting money for sitting on our arses, I appreciate it's a difficult problem to solve though.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


I see it more as we have advanced medical science where we can extended a person's life by 10 to 20years, but as yet have little control over the quality of it. I don't see it as a taxation issue. More to do with how we as families and a society care for our elderly relatives.

In reply to Matt Vigg:

Well, I think that utopian science fiction concept of machines doing the work while humans lead lives of leisure is decades to centuries in the future. I have no idea what kind of political change might have happened along the way but if we've arrived at a utopia rather than a dystopia, I imagine that most countries would be looking pretty socialist from a present-day perspective. It's also possible to envision much more convergence and international union, or at least much less disparity between different countries and areas of the world. I'm not sure whether I find that any more plausible than dystopian options, though I like to think that over the broad sweep of history, people tend to gradually act with slightly more humanity towards each other.

In reply to Luke90:

Some natural disasters might have thinned the global population a little too.

In reply to summo:


I guess that depends how far into the future we're talking. Eventually, in the really distant future, I could imagine humans being almost entirely superfluous. Maybe you'd have some leadership councils or maybe AIs would be judged to be better at that too. In the nearer term, but still a few decades into the future, where perhaps a significant number of people are still needed to work, there could be all kinds of perks and incentives for people to do some work. Maybe only part time or for a shorter segment of their life.


I imagine that, like now, there would still be a variety of job types available that suit different skill sets. As I indicated above, it doesn't have to be all or nothing. Some might choose to work harder for more perks, some might work less. Some would be more talented and useful, some less so. There doesn't have to be a binary decision at a specific point in life.


As I suggested in an earlier post, though, I suspect that desire for "an honest day's work" is more cultural than fundamental. Society has always, up to the present day and beyond, needed to find ways of discouraging freeloading in order to keep functioning. But if that drive is as innate as you say, that can only help ameliorate some of the other issues you've raised. How can you argue that you feel a great drive to work but also that you'd probably stop almost completely if you were given a UBI?

In reply to Dax H:



I think the point of UBI is that it can allow you to undertake activities that would otherwise be prohibitive unless you were well resourced: eg. volunteering for organisations or community activities instead of paid labour, or starting up business ventures safe in the knowledge you are safe with food and housing even if you aren't making any meaningful profit.

Equally, if we can move away from the idea of "taking too much from the working man" and towards an idea of "my salary after taxes is X amount", then the working man doesn't necessarily see this as a loss. I earn an income of a set amount. If the government is deducting that as PAYE from my employer than I don't notice. It obviously impacts an employer's ability to afford sufficient staff, though it may equally mean they don't need to pay staff as much in the first place. A secondary impact of that is when a company goes through hard times, employees won't necessarily have to jump ship because a salary is going unpaid or being reduced. Out of loyalty I would imagine many might wish to remain with their employers but are otherwise forced to ditch them (which just compounds a company's downward spiral) in times of hardship.

There are benefits on both sides of the equation and the societal change could be profoundly positive.