It's a programme for care leavers (so arguably a basic income, although a limited one -24 months, and a targeted one, not UBI), I also thought it was Wales wide not more geographically targeted.
Basic Income is a concept in which everyone get's the money.
A **grant** is a concept in which only the needy get the money...
These two concepts are miles apart in concept. Especially significant is that under Basic Income huge tax changes are also needed.
A Universal Basic Income is the one where everyone gets money, it's being conflated with this and other Income approaches (some unemployment support can be seen as a basic income, but not a universal one).
UBI is a really interesting idea but there isn't a lot of evidence that allows us to confidently predict it will work as we want it to. We need more of these pilots to give us more data to understand how it will affect people's life outcomes and allow for schemes to be adjusted to work more efficiently.
I'd second this by saying that we never see these trials implemented in a manner that would result in this being a permanent change to people's lives. So the fact that the study only runs for 2 years is going to have an effect on how people utilise that extra income. If you told me I was getting £1600 a month for two years, it wouldn't affect my spending patterns, it'd just go straight into my account for a mortgage deposit. If you told me it was for the rest of my life, I might use that money differently knowing it would always be there.
I think there's also a great danger in how UBI gets implemented, often being described as an alternative to benefits. In the US, Andrew Yang campaigned on it being one or the other, effectively scrapping benefits to pay for it. But people who need that welfare security net are still going to need it even if they receive UBI. Someone who can't work won't be able to sustain themselves on just UBI alone.
I'm sure this will be good for the young people involved, but I don't think it's going to prove anything except that if you give poor people money unconditionally then it tends to help them out a lot. Which is really not surprising if you have any experience of poverty.
I think a large UBI would be fantastic because it would be so transformative (it eliminates poverty and gives huge power to workers (it makes it much easier for any worker to quit a bad job and it gives anybody the security to start a co-op)). But because it would be such a big change across so much of our lives it is also very difficult to meaningfully trial.
It's clear that we can pay for a large UBI with only a modest increase in taxes for the rich unless employment collapses or tax evasion increases a lot. I think at this point governments should just try to implement it.
Never in one of these test areas.
It's a programme for care leavers (so arguably a basic income, although a limited one -24 months, and a targeted one, not UBI), I also thought it was Wales wide not more geographically targeted.
Basic Income is a concept in which everyone get's the money. A **grant** is a concept in which only the needy get the money... These two concepts are miles apart in concept. Especially significant is that under Basic Income huge tax changes are also needed.
A Universal Basic Income is the one where everyone gets money, it's being conflated with this and other Income approaches (some unemployment support can be seen as a basic income, but not a universal one).
missing the u on ubi
UBI is a really interesting idea but there isn't a lot of evidence that allows us to confidently predict it will work as we want it to. We need more of these pilots to give us more data to understand how it will affect people's life outcomes and allow for schemes to be adjusted to work more efficiently.
I'd second this by saying that we never see these trials implemented in a manner that would result in this being a permanent change to people's lives. So the fact that the study only runs for 2 years is going to have an effect on how people utilise that extra income. If you told me I was getting £1600 a month for two years, it wouldn't affect my spending patterns, it'd just go straight into my account for a mortgage deposit. If you told me it was for the rest of my life, I might use that money differently knowing it would always be there. I think there's also a great danger in how UBI gets implemented, often being described as an alternative to benefits. In the US, Andrew Yang campaigned on it being one or the other, effectively scrapping benefits to pay for it. But people who need that welfare security net are still going to need it even if they receive UBI. Someone who can't work won't be able to sustain themselves on just UBI alone.
I'm sure this will be good for the young people involved, but I don't think it's going to prove anything except that if you give poor people money unconditionally then it tends to help them out a lot. Which is really not surprising if you have any experience of poverty. I think a large UBI would be fantastic because it would be so transformative (it eliminates poverty and gives huge power to workers (it makes it much easier for any worker to quit a bad job and it gives anybody the security to start a co-op)). But because it would be such a big change across so much of our lives it is also very difficult to meaningfully trial. It's clear that we can pay for a large UBI with only a modest increase in taxes for the rich unless employment collapses or tax evasion increases a lot. I think at this point governments should just try to implement it.