Free money for the Yoof!

[vetran]

Which is already the case with benefits. Although since you get UBI whether you work or not, it will reduce fraud and the benefit of lying in the first place.


Still waiting on your answer to the question, but anyway nobody said UBI was Nirvana. It's just a different way of thinking about things. Everyone gets the bare minimum to live whether they work or not, if they want a nicer life they have to work. The hard-core professional doleites who are chronic work-avoiders (the ones the Daily Mail talks about) already know how to play the benefits system anyway, the majority of those out of work want a decent job and don't need to be bullied into it. Either way, the machinery of distributing and checking up on everyone is vastly expensive and could be dismantled.

So the argument goes anyway. How much do you think it costs the state each week to pay someone their benefits, in terms of all the overhead and bureaucracy? 10% more than the claimant receives, 50%, 100%? Is it worth spending £100 to save £20, forcing unskilled people to do meaningless work just "so they're not sitting about"

Well as much of it is automated and paid direct not a lot.

So those currently receiving housing benefit etc will get £1600 a month and no other benefits?

https://www.gov.uk/benefit-cap/benefit-cap-amounts

That should be interesting.

Or do we keep the existing in work, disability and housing benefits?

Who is going to pay £1600 for each person of working age, my taxes might support a few people but the Police, NHS etc want paying as well.

What happens when Landlords realise most poor people got an extra £1600 a month?

[SueEllen]

Well as much of it is automated and paid direct not a lot.

So those currently receiving housing benefit etc will get £1600 a month and no other benefits?

https://www.gov.uk/benefit-cap/benefit-cap-amounts

That should be interesting.

Or do we keep the existing in work, disability and housing benefits?

Who is going to pay £1600 for each person of working age, my taxes might support a few people but the Police, NHS etc want paying as well.

What happens when Landlords realise most poor people got an extra £1600 a month?

You know you can do some research on how UBI projects have worked elsewhere in the world e.g. https://www.dw.com/en/does-finland-s...ome/a-53595886. ?

[d000hg]

What happens when Landlords realise most poor people got an extra £1600 a month?

I never mentioned £1600. Are you going back to some specific trial and treating that as the definition of UBI again?

The question how people receiving additional benefits get treated is a good one. People typically get 'paid more' for having kids or being disabled, I don't know what UBI advocates say about that. Equally, should people in more expensive areas get more?

[vetran]

I never mentioned £1600. Are you going back to some specific trial and treating that as the definition of UBI again?

The question how people receiving additional benefits get treated is a good one. People typically get 'paid more' for having kids or being disabled, I don't know what UBI advocates say about that. Equally, should people in more expensive areas get more?

Well as the basis for this thread is the welsh trial that pays £1600 it seems to be the going rate.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-b2015861.html

[vetran]

You know you can do some research on how UBI projects have worked elsewhere in the world e.g. https://www.dw.com/en/does-finland-s...ome/a-53595886. ?

Even if people are looking for economic gains, argues Ylikanno, increasing people's wellbeing is a good place to help long-term unemployed people to find work.

"When wellbeing is on a better level, people have better chances to get a job. Employers see them as more capable of work," she says.

Is that supposed to be compelling??

So if we have universal income won't that sort of remove the gains?

You happy for me to retire early with you picking up the bill? We have established once us rich home owners have finished the mortgage we can live nicely on £3000 a month for a couple. Once everyone gets £1600 a month everyone will be offended because they are special and want more.

So no financial benefits and no clue who will pay for it.

Seems a higher percentage of the UK is employed than Finland so obviously we know more about getting a job.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...te-in-finland/
71.6%

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...-uk-by-region/

75%

My experience in getting a job is to aggressively develop / present your skills and personality with more confidence and you find the job you want. When worrying about paying the bills you get less choosy and take anything that gets you there. Being chilled actually slows a job search.

As shown by a number of really positive stories about the homeless getting jobs, a shower, shave, haircut , new (to them) suit plus someone believing in them is the most important. That is what a lot of the homeless charities offer and it works. Having money to "find yourself" doesn't.

[SueEllen]

I never mentioned £1600. Are you going back to some specific trial and treating that as the definition of UBI again?

The question how people receiving additional benefits get treated is a good one. People typically get 'paid more' for having kids or being disabled, I don't know what UBI advocates say about that. Equally, should people in more expensive areas get more?

The answer to that would likely be "No".

You would probably have a larger tax allowance for each child under 18 if you were working as there would be no child benefit.

You would also probably have a larger tax allowance if you had a disability and were working as there would be no disability benefits.

There would still be the problem of defining who is disabled but it may likely be doctors doing it as the idea is to decrease the number of civil servants the state employs dealing with benefits of all kinds, which btw would include pension. It would also mean that people wouldn't get things like free prescriptions and free/concessionary travel e.g. bus pass unless under 18. However it probably be easier and cheaper to get rid of the prescription fee for everyone, and ensure more medications could be brought from a pharmacist.

[SueEllen]

Is that supposed to be compelling??

That was the first project of UBI that I Googled, though I heard about it before and watched a documentary on this particular one.

So if we have universal income won't that sort of remove the gains?

The interesting thing was the people taking part were all trying to get back into work as the amount of money given to them while more than certain benefits, was not enough for them to live a fulfilling life.

You happy for me to retire early with you picking up the bill? We have established once us rich home owners have finished the mortgage we can live nicely on £3000 a month for a couple. Once everyone gets £1600 a month everyone will be offended because they are special and want more.

You keep mentioning the UK - well Welsh project amount given to care leavers. It is more likely any other project would give people a far lower amount for example the tax allowance.

So no financial benefits and no clue who will pay for it.

Well if you aren't paying civil servants to give out benefits that would free up a decent amount of cash.

Seems a higher percentage of the UK is employed than Finland so obviously we know more about getting a job.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...te-in-finland/
71.6%

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...-uk-by-region/

75%

The mistake you keep making each time is doing a comparison with one project. Also unemployment figures are collected differently in different countries.

My experience in getting a job is to aggressively develop / present your skills and personality with more confidence and you find the job you want. When worrying about paying the bills you get less choosy and take anything that gets you there. Being chilled actually slows a job search.

As shown by a number of really positive stories about the homeless getting jobs, a shower, shave, haircut , new (to them) suit plus someone believing in them is the most important. That is what a lot of the homeless charities offer and it works. Having money to "find yourself" doesn't.

How does that fit into giving care leavers, who are vulnerable young adults, UBI? Anyway as I mentioned in a previous post just throwing money at people doesn't fulfil all their needs, however civil servants aren't the people who will help them.

[vetran]

under the old system administration was 3.6%

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/reque..._the_dwps_budg

Unemployment is a tiddly amount of the budget.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/gover...ent/2016-03-16

So universal benefits wouldn't do much for the unemployed but would cut the other benefits.

I think its fair to suggest if we instigate UBI there will be many unintended consequences.

[SueEllen]

So universal benefits wouldn't do much for the unemployed but would cut the other benefits.

I think its fair to suggest if we instigate UBI there will be many unintended consequences.

That's why LM stated very early in the thread you would have to rip up the tax code and start again as every adult over 18 whether they are in work, a pensioner, a student, unemployed, disabled and not able to work, a carer or otherwise regarded as economically inactive would receive the same amount of money from the state.

[vetran]

That's why LM stated very early in the thread you would have to rip up the tax code and start again as every adult over 18 whether they are in work, a pensioner, a student, unemployed, disabled and not able to work, a carer or otherwise regarded as economically inactive would receive the same amount of money from the state.

So it will apparently be cheaper than 3.6% administration overhead, for the number of people we can already identify, we just need to redefine benefits completely, work out who everyone is (clue the government doesn't have one), rewrite the world's biggest tax code and find the magic money tree. Finally then the few percent of unemployed that haven't found a job in decades will suddenly feel better about looking for a job. There are no proven economic or social benefits.

It seems simple, well at least the people supporting it seem to be.

The current system identifies those in need, provides them with a measured amount of money and targeted support.

UBI throws cash about and hopes those less fortunate can care for themselves on their own.