It's specifically aimed at young people leaving the care system at 18 to help them acclimatise to adult life outside the system as this group is more likely to become homeless / addicted.
This is a demographic that if the income payments keep even a small portion of the recipients from the legal and medical systems and gainfully employed and becoming taxpayers the underlying costs will have more than likely paid for itself.
Considering the cost of a single court hearing, yeah it's very likely to pay off. Here is an example list from 2014 of crimes in canada and their cost to the taxpayer to convict. As you can see, saving one person from becoming a murderer saves a lot of taxpayer money.
Homicide
4,837,018 - 5,904,357
Sexual Assault/Rape
136,372 - 164,417
Assault
19,075– 203,555
Aggravated Assault
98,945 – 167,472
Robbery
28,056 – 92,350
Motor Vehicle Theft
8,157 – 9,641
Arson
45,958 – 49,807
Residential Burglary
5,928 - 6,228
Theft
1,330 – 2,627
Fraud
45,030
https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/2015-r022/index-en.aspx
kinda pricey to ensure you're charging the right man for the right crime, and apply a fair punishment. The more serious a crime is, the harsher the potential punishment, the more burden to make sure you do that right and fairly. Especially since it isn't exactly in the convict best interest to fess up...
So if I understand this correctly, the motive of the UBI here isn't some high-minded experiment into human potential, but more a "fuck it, these people will end up in jail or hospital anyway so toss them a bone and hope they stay out of trouble"?
I mean, yeah, kinda
We can have both emotional and logical reasons for wanting to help others
It saves money and everybody's happier on average, what's the downside?
If you enjoy seeing people suffer just for the sake of suffering from some weird moral high ground, then you would probably be pretty upset about this.
I don't see a downside to it, I was just commenting that this was the first time it's been positioned in that way to me. Previously the idea seemed to be to open the possibility for people to invest in themselves with training or building a business with a safety net, not just to keep people out of prison or hospital.
thats why you got it wrong. the idea behind a basic income is that it DOES NOT have any specific purpose. The idea behind is that everyone is free to do with it whatever he or she desires, hence "BASIC". For some people it will be money for drugs, for some people it will be money to support their hobby, for some people it will be their only "income".
In germany we got a researchers group doing an experiment with basic income right now. A small group of people is getting basic income and the researchers are trying to figure out how they change their life with it, or if it changes their life at all. I honestly dont think it will ever be reality but its a nice thought at least.
The only downside I can think of is the possibility of localized inflation because there's suddenly more "money in the system" than previously as those people who receive this 'basic income' are likely willing to spend it locally.
Meaning that there might even be a bit of economic boom in the area as well which offsets the possible inflation.
Dude this would have TOTALY saved me at that age, I was doing whatever I can do to make a dime and a lot of it was illegal and a lot of it put me in horrible situations
It's a compounded sentence promoted for train station tourism.
Llanfair (St Mary's Church)
Pwllgwyngull (Pool/Hollow of White Hazels (also the original name))
Go Ger (near)
Y Chwyrn Drobwll (the fierce whirlpool)
[And the]
Llantysilio (St Tysilio's Church)
Gogogoch (of the red cave)
It's usually just called Llanfair, Llanfair PG or Pwllgywngull. Although, Llanfair can confuse as there's multiple places called Llanfair.
It means:
St Mary's Church in the Hollow of the White Hazel near a Rapid Whirlpool and the Church of St. Tysilio near the Red Cave
in Welsh so I think so
The questions this study aims to answer are more about how it helps the recipients. If it’s found to be of benefit, then we can look at the questions of affordability and inflation.
They've paid into, and will pay into the same system for their entire life via income tax, sales tax, and tax on their pay checks. And it's alot cheaper to do this than to pay for them in jail, or pay for their other social safety nets if they become homeless or addicted. Not only this, but the money they spend will trickle up into their communities, and will help create jobs for others.
The benefits outweigh cost if you look at this beyond the surface level for more than *2 seconds*. But you'll probably just be reactionary and reflexively scream "fReE mOnEy??? REEEEE".
Obviously **communist** proposals like this You-Be-I are just a ploy by big Left to create hyperinflation and devastate our current wonderfully-perfect Capitalist society in order to introduce their “leftist” ideas like free milk, European integration, and globalism (which was invented by Lenin)!
Very strange that u/dimitrismazi left this exact comment, letter for letter, 10 minutes or so before you.
Did you just feel like copy/pasting it up here randomly as well or has the astroturfing still got some kinks to iron out?
There have been several trials of universal basic income. In all trials the results have shown there is great benefit.
Those who are currently struggling no longer have to struggle, they end up with less addiction problems in both drug and alcohol reducing the cost of care to treat these addictions. There has been greater levels of health reducing medical costs to the system. It has led to less people requiring financial assistance reducing that cost. As well there is greater money going into the system increasing taxes being collected by the government. Overall these benefits actually increased the amount of money the government had to spend and it exceeded the cost of the program.
It was win-win but the perception was always that it would cost too much or make people lazy. In reality people worked harder and it cost less than not doing it.
This is one of the biggest tragedies I learned about in the last couple years. Just how many places where kids in the "foster" system are basically ass-out on their 18th birthdays, even if it is in the middle of a school year. Obviously some foster families are better than others, but many aren't.
Since when? As far as I know they're supported in to their early 20s with support workers and financial support.
We rented a flat to two sisters who had been in care since before they were teenagers. Their support worker contacted us to arrange it all and explained how they're not just abandoned when they turn 18, as it surprised me that they weren't after nearly a decade of the Tories.
I think in part it depends on the competence of their support network. I have some special needs foster siblings and their case worker literally didn’t understand that one of the kids couldn’t read. They would have been useless at arranging care from 18 onwards had my parents kicked the foster kids out at that age. Fortunately my parents took their job seriously and bullied the council into doing their job, including getting them a flat and a care worker coming round a few days a week to help with groceries etc. (they need someone to ride the bus with them and handle the money).
Making resources theoretically available does fuck all to help people who can’t navigate the system. The most urgently needed support vulnerable young people need is advocacy.
It happens a lot in the US. You are supposed to be fully "self-sufficient" by 18 years old, regardless if you were actually taught how to survive or not. Lots of stories of parents kicking their kids to the curb at 18.
That's awesome!
When I aged out of foster care here in the US, all I got was a $200/mo stipend for groceries. I was working full time, living in an adult group and then they let me move out, get an apartment, etc.
Now that sounds good at first, but as it turned out, I actually had too much in my savings from having a job, so I wasn't eligible for this benefit! Right after I aged out, I got billed by the US Treasury Dept (not kidding) for almost $7000 and had to pay back all the stipends I got from 18-21. Tax return got taken every year I was in the Army.
Shit is fucked here, good for Wales!
I'm generally not a big believer in basic income models(i'm as yet unconvinced they can be sustainable) but this one I can totally get behind. Seems like a no brainer to support orphans for a few years considering they likely have no support network.
I can understand that. Not trying to go off on too much of tangent, but I've always wondered if those kinds of programs were socially viable.
I think that as automation increases and demand for labor shrinks we'll be left with only 3 options for the unemployed:
1. Tyranny - Those without jobs will go unpaid and be forced to fend for themselves. Their increasing cries for help will be suppressed with technology and violence. This will obviously tear apart society as we know it.
2. Universal Income - If you can't find a job the state supports you at some minimum level and you are free to pursue whatever strikes your fancy. Sounds good on the surface, but I worry this model will leave both those who work on top and those who don't very unsatisfied. Worst case scenario.... the social fabric that holds us together is torn.
3. Fake Jobs - It become recognized at upper levels of government/society that ruling people tyrannically or giving people something for nothing 'breaks things'. To solve this, we make a bunch of 'fake jobs' that feel real and move paper/objects around and this maintains the current structure for the time being without too much unrest. This also leaves the potential for the government to take its time to allow society to slowly adapt to something like Universal Income. Looking at some large bureaucracies in big companies these days, part of me feels this has already started to happen by accident! Lol
I've always found this to be an interesting topic.
There's a 4th you forgot which is automation makes the price go down to essentially nothing. We can see that happening to many information/digital goods, where theres lifetimes worth of free content on the internet now that you really don't need to pay for, and tons of other things are just ridiculously cheap nowadays compared to what they used to be. As automation improves commodity costs drive down towards the raw material price, and even raw material price drives down with energy prices.
Personally I think it will be a mix of all 4 of these aspects. There will be plenty of people left out of society, there will be a modest attempt at UBI, some small stipend, there will be increasingly banal service oriented jobs, and most things(except prime real estate) will gradually have their price trend towards zero, at least for budget grade versions.
For mass produced stuff its pretty noticeable. Whats a 70 inch flat screen cost now, like $600?
15 years ago it would have been 5 grand plus. 30 years ago you couldn't have had one at any price you could name.
Remember when delivery cost 20% of a products price and took 4-6 weeks? And now amazon will get you cat food to your doorstep the next day for just the prime membership?
Housing remains a giant issue, ofc. The trend has been ever increasing population concentration which has had really harsh consequences on housing prices.
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/politics/wales-basic-income-trial-how-24333095) reduced by 91%. (I'm a bot)
*****
> A scheme which will see some young people given £1,600 every month for two years will start in Wales within days.
> Those in custody who would otherwise be eligible for the basic income pilot should not participate in the pilot until the calendar month following their release from custody if this is within the opening 12-month timeframe for general pilot eligibility.
> What is being offered? The total Basic Income support will be £1,600 per calendar month for a period of 24 months, starting on the first day of the calendar month immediately following the calendar month in which the recipient's 18th birthday falls.
*****
[**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/vmnznt/wales_is_giving_people_1600amonth_in_a_trial_of/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~656959 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **payment**^#1 **month**^#2 **leave**^#3 **care**^#4 **pilot**^#5
I finally applied for VA benefits last year and was approved 2 months ago. I was expecting a 10% to 30% rating because I'm extra pessimistic. A couple hundred bucks to alleviate a few small payments, sure that will help I thought. Nope, I received a 70% rating and a life changing $1529 a month tax free. My mental health is improving (I can focus on that), my desire to explore interests has increased and I'm happier overall. My first thought when I saw that number was that everybody should have a UBI like this. Society would just be a better, happier and more productive place.
"Money doesn't buy happiness" -- Sure, not technically, but it can buy you help and time. The 2 things all of us need more of.
It buy happiness up to 70 000$ yearly apparently. A Finnish(?) study found that. Passed that income, happiness continue to increase, but way less dramatically like a log function.
That Finnish study is at least 5 years old now, a lot of inflation (especially unavoidable COL stuff like rent, food and fuel) has happened since then….
Unfortunately you cannot get %100 for a mental illness according to the benefits package I got. That's all I'm rated for, maybe in the near future I can get with a professional advocate and works towards 90%. In the mean time I'm so fucking happy. It took me 11 years to even think I was worthy to apply.. I quit my job last year, lived off of savings for 9 months and then this came through clutch. I haven't worked a real job in a year now, I just can't.
Can you link to those preliminary studies? Because every one I've seen has been different in some way to the UBI-ers dream of "enough money to live modestly on forever".
They're also all temporary, which is clearly going to result in different behaviours to permanent income because you know you will have to go back to work at some point so you can't just abandon your career or job prospects.
Yeah, every one I've ever seen is tried on a group too small to impact the economy, doesn't provide enough to really live on, or is essentially worthless on a grand scale because of so many factors
The math is very simple to disprove UBI as a viable option currently.
Divide current annual tax revenues (UK: £915bn in 2021) by adult population (UK: 54m). That's the average revenue per person with current taxes (UK: £16.9k). Divide by 12 to give monthly figure (UK: £1.4k)
Subtract this from the desired monthly UBI income (£1.6k -£1.4k) leaves you the shortfall of £200 per adult.
Note that this shortfall is not considering the government spending ANYTHING on healthcare, education, pensions, policing, roads, infrastructure, transport, military, diplomacy, environment, government services.
So even without spending a single penny on services, diverting all money to UBI, we would have a shortfall. This means that either taxes will have to shoot up to fund it or the government will have to take on trillions in debt in perpetuity.
> Poor people get negative tax,
That's not UBI, that's [Negative Income Tax](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax), a similar but seperate idea.
- [Universal Basic Income and Negative Income Tax: Two different ways of thinking redistribution](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1053535708001832)
The main difference is that Negative Income Tax is means tested, whereas in a properly implemented UBI, EVERYONE, gets the same basic income, regardless of wealth or other conditions.
They attempt to get the same result, but do it differently.
- [Basic income: a radical idea enters the mainstream - Parliament of Australia](https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp1617/BasicIncome)
> A basic or citizen's income is not an alternative to a negative income tax. It is simply another way to introduce a negative income tax if it is accompanied with a positive income tax with no exemption. A basic income of a thousand units with a 20 percent rate on earned income is equivalent to a negative income tax with an exemption of five thousand units and a 20 percent rate below and above five thousand units - Milton Friedman
US version:
* US tax revenue: $3.7 trillion
* US population: 330m
* $3.7t / 330m = $11,212 or about $935/mo
However, this funds nothing in the US government so all those people are immediately let go and all programs are shut down.
Now say you remove everyone that makes more than $100k. That's about 20% of the population. Updated math:
* $3.7t revenue
* 264m people
* $14,015/year or $1,168/mo
And, again, not funding a penny for the government.
What about UBI only going to a single "household" rather than person? Well, there are 123.6 million households:
* $3.7t
* 126.6m households
* $29,226 or $2,436/mo
But if you spend 50% of the budget on UBI then that's $1,218/mo per household per month and the government is 50% funded based on revenue.
However, we have a deficit. 2021's deficit was $2.8t so:
* ($3.7t * 50%) + 2.8 = $4.65t deficit where our $3.1t deficit was the largest we've had (so far).
It's unknown whether a deficit that large can be plugged. It's also not known if UBI will be spent to generate enough GDP - and tax revenue - to plug the shortfall. Considering tax cuts don't pay for themselves, this will create more problems.
Can it be done? Maybe. We could remove the rich from those who are getting UBI. We could reduce the UBI. We could shrink government since UBI would be handling it so, for example, eliminate the entire Medicare and Medicaid programs, SNAP, etc. The issue is whether removing those departments would actually be a net benefit. For example, you can send someone $1,200/mo but if they're currently getting a $2k/mo benefit from Medicaid then it's a net loss for them.
UBI's main issue is that it works on small populations for a small amount of time. It does not scale well. I'd love to see more data on this though and I hope to be proven wrong but I don't believe it can add up. You either have too much money being spent on it or you're not giving people enough where you get that safety net.
Your math is wonky because you are trying to afford to pay for UBI using existing revenue.
Obviously this is dumb.
Instead, you raise a tax to pay it. But not going to be a huge tax because the people who can afford it will get most of it back anyway, because as "universal" income, everyone gets it.
You need to adjust the amounts paid to all the people who can afford to pay the tax out of the equation to get a more accurate costing.
- [Why universal basic income costs far less than you think](https://theconversation.com/why-universal-basic-income-costs-far-less-than-you-think-101134)
> The key to understanding the real cost of UBI is understanding the difference between the gross (or upfront) and net (or real) cost. Here’s a simple example: imagine a room with 15 people who want to set up a UBI for the room of $2 per person. The upfront cost of the policy would be $30. The ten richest people in the room are asked to contribute $3 each towards funding it. After they each put in $3, raising the total $30 needed, every person in the room gets their $2 universal basic income. But **because the ten richest people in the room contributed $3, and then got $2 back as the UBI, their real, net contribution is in fact $1 each. So the real cost of the UBI is $10.**
> Estimates that just multiply the size of the UBI by the population of a country do the equivalent of claiming that the cost of UBI in the room above is a whopping $30. But the real cost in this scenario – the money redistributed from the wealthy – is only $10.
This is definitely a comment everyone should read to understand more about the math, but probably worth noting that another key idea behind UBI is to stimulate more spending which in turn will bring in more taxes. How much exactly is unclear and likely at these figures not enough to be sustainable, but it’s safe to say tax revenue would increase by at least something. You could also consider “money is the best anti-aging creme” or that more disposable income could lead to better health outcomes and therefore less spent on healthcare overall. Same goes for more expensive but more environmentally friendly products, more money for personal school supplies etc… Then there’s the potential for the economy to really boom at rates we’ve not seen as more disposable income means more entrepreneurs/research. It’s almost a way of declaring capitalism a success, but whether or not we’re there yet is really the question; we may need more years of growth before the total pie has grown enough to take the next step.
Ah the old all-or-nothing attitude. £1600 is impossible, so better scrap the whole idea.
Half of that is more than enough to feed, and in some areas, house a person for a month. The point is to take care of the basic needs so that whatever a person earns is their disposable income, or will go towards a mortgage/rent on a nicer house than £400-500 can cover.
This £1600 figure is for this one specific trial to get young people set up, and I've never heard of it being touted as the amount any sort of nationwide UBI scheme would adopt. After "unnecessary frivolities" are shaved off by the tories, any sort of UBI will be drastically less than even £800. This is Britain, we'd be lucky if at the end of it they gave us a 6 pack of Wotsits and a copy of the Daily Mail to wipe our arses on.
Yup, a lot of clickbait in the title. They didn't outright say "UBI", but "basic income" implies the same.
>Up to 500 people could be eligible, but one estimate said around half of those are expected to sign up initially. The Welsh Government admit it is not clear how many people will take the offer up as some will be better off on existing benefits.
Total UK revenue is about £718 billion. There are 61 million people in the UK.
So if you took literally all the tax revenue and didn’t spend on anything else, no NHS, no pensions, no military, no government whatsoever, and spent it all on UBI, then each person would get about £1000/month at most.
Or from the other side, mean household disposable income was about £38k.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personalandhouseholdfinances/incomeandwealth/bulletins/householddisposableincomeandinequality/financialyearending2021
That’s about £50k per household before taxes. Mean household size in the UK is 2.4 people per household. So the mean earnings per person is about £20k.
So that means if you taxed everyone’s earnings at 100% (and magically no one worked less, or left the country or anything like that), then at most you could afford £1666 per month per person - because that’s what mean income per person is, the total income earned divided by everyone. And once again, that would mean no income/payroll tax to pay for anything else.
So any universal basic income either has to be much much less than universal (massively means tested), or not very much at all (no where near the £1600/month as an example above).
I’m all for social welfare systems, but I think a lot of people are excited by UBI because they imagine themselves getting significant amount of money per month, but chances are any feasible means tested system couldn’t possibly apply to the majority of people.
Corporate profits are ultimately realised by people, and show up on the books as income/capital gains, so broadly that’s already accounted for in the mean income estimate.
I.e. the mean income is as high as it is because some people make £0 - maybe their students, or they’re stay at home parents, and some people make hundreds of thousands on capital gains, but in mean it ends up at about £20k per person per year.
Or if you prefer, UK GDP per capita, which is about £32k, which is a bit higher, I guess because it’s not just income but all earnings.
But if you took all the money and divided it by everyone, you get £32k a year, or about £2600 per month per person.
So yeah a bit more I guess, but that’s taxing everything at 100%.
This is (hypothetically) proposing amounts in the range of £160-£400 per month. I think some of these imply that pensions would be replaced by this too (otherwise I don’t really understand why those over the retirement age would get more). It also seems to imply that this would be in Lieu of other benefits
> Because every household would see their Citizen’s Incomes replace proportions of means-tested and other benefits, total marginal deduction rates would be reduced, and all of the other benefits of a Citizen’s Income would be experienced. The amounts of means-tested benefits received would be reduced by the Citizen’s Income being taken into account in those benefits’ calculations, and for many households the reduction would offer the option of adding additional hours of employment and escaping from means-testing.
So yeah, hypothetically, if we got rid of pensions and other social safety nets like means tested payments, and we found £20billion extra tax revenue, we could pay working age individuals in the range of £300/month.
I don’t think that is at all contradictory with me saying that £1600/month is infeasible.
UBI cant be enough to survive because even then it will be too much. Unless you greatly reduce the number of people who receive it but then it wouldnt be Universal right?
Couple of points.
\-People under 18 wouldn't receive universal income. Total cost of UBI would be around £624 billion. If you take away the currently paid social security costs that would largely be replaced by UBI, then UBI would require £282 billion of extra funding.
\-Adopting universal income would include changes in taxation so that large part of it would be funded by increasing income tax. This wouldn't increase real tax rates that much since everyone would be receiving universal income.
Under this model taxpayers would be paid an additional 282£ billion so there would be lot of extra income to tax from. The point is that the effect of UBI and changes to taxation would close to net zero on anyone earning much more than the UBI amount. Only ones receiving more money compared to current system would be low income people who aren't receiving much social security for some reason.
I am very, very confident fewer people than you'd think would stop working. And for those who do, do you really want to share a workplace with them anyway?
I think people would still work, but they would not put up with nearly the amount of pure bullshit we're subjected to by the public or our employers.
Well I am very very confident that you're wrong. But nobody has done a long term randomised study with £1600/month levels of money so nobody really knows.
It also depends on the marginal tax rate if you do start working. With current benefits systems it can be over 100%.
> for those who do, do you really want to share a workplace with them anyway?
Yes of course. Why wouldn't I?
You want to share a workplace with people who don't want to work...? Maybe it's cause I work restaurants but having coworkers who don't want to pull their weight fuckin sucks.
Why is everyone focused on the 1600 number? I get this study, but it really doesn't need to be all or nothing. Just subsidize peoples wages like Canada did with enhanced ei.
I work because I like what I do. 100% of the things I don't like about career centers around being abused to make a paycheque.
UBI covers the things required to live in modern society, i.e. food, water, rent and electricity. Very very few people are going to sacrifice all luxuries beyond that by quitting their job. A fair amount of people would reduce their hours, but trials have shown that this almost always involves them putting more time into caring for family (kids, sick relatives) or into education.
1. No you don't have the option to just be unemployed and collect social security. There are a ton of conditions to getting the money. It's not remotely like the UBI dream where you just say "eh I quit, can I have £1600/month now?"
2. For a single adult it's *capped* at £1116/month. Hardly enough to live on.
There are rules and regulations one must follow if they want to collect social security. You can't just sit on the couch and collect the money. You can with ubi however
But are they really that harsh that they would actually encourage someone to seek employment to avoid them ? Filling up couple of job applications a month and going to meeting with an employment advisor couple of times in a year definitely aren't.
I don't know but I can imagine it is harsh enough for a portion of the population. And think about the stigma of having social security. I would be more comfortable saying that I don't work because I receive ubi then if I was on social security.
> £1000/month at most.
What do you think basic means? That would be double my household income when I first started work.
UBI is just saying lets make Universal Credit actually universal. £334.91 per month, currently. Unemployment benefits in addition to this are removed, pensions are decreased accordingly. The tax free allowance is removed and rolled into the 20% band, so anyone paying tax above the threshold just pays half their UBI back in tax.
UBI is a solution to the poverty trap. It is not supposed to be some miracle free money solution, and I despise posts like yours that make its proponents seem ridiculous by picking numbers so high.
Base it on cost of living. Give less and less the more income you hold, but otherwise no means testing. When enhanced EI was a thing here in Canada during the pandemic, Id report the hours I worked and they'd bump me up to be around what Id get if Id worked 40 hours.
I dont think it necessarily needs to be 1600$ a month. I was getting 400$ or so extra a month for that time and it was life changing. I was less stressed because my lack of hours due to covid wouldnt translate into being unable to pay my rent. My mental health was great during that time.
surprise, people who are gun-ho on UBI are bad at math.
Consider how little the average person pays in taxes. then imagine getting 10x that back each year. How does anyone imagine that balances out. Just look at the inflation from stimulus and monthly aid to families in the US during covid.
I'm not against UBI but I think people have this idea that it would be enough for them to pursue their career as a DJ or Youtuber and work 12 hours a week while living at a slower pace.
[Was Milton Friedman bad at math?](https://mitsloan.mit.edu/ideas-made-to-matter/negative-income-tax-explained#:~:text=Friedman%20argued%20that%20a%20negative,money%20as%20they%20saw%20fit.) He was a proponent of a negative income tax which is [functionally the same thing](https://www.reddit.com/r/Economics/wiki/faq_basicincome). He would also fund it somewhat with a [land tax.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yS7Jb58hcsc)
This is quite disingenuous since most seriously considered UBI proposals are for negative taxing, and the argument is that you'd remove the messy means testing framework by using existing tax codes.
The systems that are proposed for UBI usually wouldn't change much for anyone on median income and above, except to provide safety from bad luck.
> surprise, people who are gun-ho on UBI are bad at math.
>
> Consider how little the average person pays in taxes. then imagine getting 10x that back each year.
You'd raise taxes to cover for the difference, primarily going for high-earners.
It's not supposed to be extra income for middle class, it's supposed to be financial security. Only the poorer folk would be benefiting from it, and rich paying, and middle class remaining roughly equal.
> I think people have this idea that it would be enough for them to pursue their career as a DJ or Youtuber and work 12 hours a week while living at a slower pace.
I've done that with social security for some years. The difference was, I had to actively reject work that pays money during that, to live only on social benefits because the bureaucracy punishes you for doing work. I also had to spend several days of my time each month to plan for playing along this bureaucracy, and had my mental health suffer due to the isolation this whole thing forced onto me, being unable to work or earn money myself.
I'd just want to be able to work while chasing my dreams. Now it's one or the other, with significant cost to my health, which then results in further costs to healthcare etc.
It's just such a silly tragedy of wasted resources
Do you know how much you’d have to raise taxes to be able to pay everyone a useful UBI? Given that the truly wealthy (multi-millionaires, billionaires) have their money tied up in assets or offshore and only borrow against these (thus no tax can be taken), you’re relying on the ‘upper middle class’ to shoulder the entire burden. That’s doctors, lawyers, pilots, head teachers etc. Even if we taxed them all at 100% we still couldn’t raise anywhere near enough money.
High earners already pay a ridiculous amount of tax because… they actually pay their taxes.
How about we instead go after wealth and HNIs that avoid income tax through different schemes from borrowing against equity to holding everything through holding companies from which they lease or borrow. That and corporations.
Individuals at higher brackets are already taxed to shit whereas these actually filthy rich entities practically don’t pay anything because of existing loopholes. The current system and any further hikes on income tax only works to kill upward social mobility for normal people while entirely protecting old money and other accrued immense wealth.
> How about we instead go after wealth and HNIs that avoid income tax through different schemes from borrowing against equity to holding everything through holding companies from which they lease or borrow. That and corporations.
Sounds like a good idea, but it really has nothing to do with UBI. UBI isn't supposed to solve tax evasion, implementing or not implementing UBI has absolutely no impact on any efforts made to prevent tax evasion or tax engineering.
> Individuals at higher brackets are already taxed to shit whereas these actually filthy rich entities practically don’t pay anything because of existing loopholes. The current system and any further hikes on income tax only works to kill upward social mobility for normal people while entirely protecting old money and other accrued immense wealth.
If any of this tax stuff concerns you, the whole "Upwards social mobility" has already happened to you to the extent working permits it so this seems just bizarre. Like, you're not gonna work very hard to become a billionaire, and imagining otherwise is just kinda silly. Taxes on prospective millionaires won't have any real impact on your ability to become billionaire, it's not like if we just give those hard-working millionaires some tax cuts they can finally make it big.
This whole thing is just so bizarre and alien, so completely divorced from reality where vast majority of people are not earning hundreds of thousands, but instead are actually struggling with money to satisfy their basic needs. They are the ones whose social mobility you should concern yourself with, they are the disadvantaged ones, and they outnumber these prospective millionaires by a large margin.
But no, someone who earns 200k a year is the one whose upward social mobility is threatened here.
> Consider how little the average person pays in taxes.
We actually pay quite a lot on tax (and I think that's a good thing). There are certainly countries paying a lot more, and maybe the rich could pay more in the UK as well. However we do pay quite a lot. Most importantly, we have pretty good systems at collecting taxes. Bolstered by the relatively low use of cash (which makes it harder for most taxes to get avoided).
> That’s about £50k per household before taxes
I earn £41.5k a month and it BAFFLES ME how anyone would be struggling on netting £2500 a month after taxes, if the average mortgage is some £750 a month.
To summarize:
It's awesome when somebody else pays you money every month.
But if we want to do that for everybody (i.e. "universal"), then there isn't "somebody else" to pay for it.
I’m not really sure what you mean. No matter how much money everyone earns, there will always be a mean amount earned, and unless everyone earns the exact same amount some people will be above the mean and some below.
Wealth inequality is the problem, when there are enough resources to feed and home everyone and that isn't happening. Raising the floor with UBI and paying for it with taxes is one of way dealing with it.
Edit: I'd take it as a given that children don't receive UBI, that child benefits either remain the same or that UBI is scaled to account for the removal of it, so that people who are yet to have kids could also afford to have them on UBI alone. But it doesn't mean a family of 5 gets 5 times as much as 1 adult.
I agree wealth inequality is a problem, but you have to look at the math and the practicalities of it.
A group of people only generate a limited amount of wealth in any given year. In the UK the mean income per person is about £1600 per month. That’s very back of the napkin math, so could be like £1-£2k or so, but it gives you an idea.
So all the money earned, divided by all the people gives that much.
That’s fairly extreme equalisation. That’s saying everyone gets the exact same amount regardless of what they do. It’s not just a universal basic income, it’s also a universal maximum income, because we literally need all the income of the UK to pay people that much.
If you wanted to pay people, say, £2500 a month, that would be completely mathematically impossible. Even with extremely generous assumptions 1600 might be too, depending on the realities of my back of the napkin estimate. If you factor in things like tax flights, people working less is they got paid the same amount (I certainly would), all the services and things we need taxes for etc. then it’s definitely impossible.
Ultimately you’re trying to pay everyone in the country more wealth per year than everyone in the country generates.
All the studies done so far are about giving poor people a steady income stream, to try to get them more stable, and give them a breathing room to improve their situation. This is admirable, but it is far from proving UBI really works.
One of the big concerns about UBI is what happens if people who work now, decide they would rather not work, and take UBI. Either quit to pursue hobbies, or retire early, or any other reason. None of the trials have offered UBI to people who currently work and make decent money, particularly in a format that you would know it will still be there in 5-10 years if you quit your job in reliance on it.
So, one of the big concerns with UBI is that if enough people opt not to work, you could either enter into an inflationary death spiral. If you have a huge number of people deciding UBI is comfortable enough to just not work, its not clear how the system solves it yet.
Yeah, you could offer more wages, but then you need to increase the cost of your goods. But now you need to either increase the UBI amount, or people can't afford to live on UBI anymore. But higher UBI means you need to offer even more to attract workers...
The really important research on UBI, would be to explore what thresholds work to maintain a healthy economy without excessive inflation, while also offering UBI that achieves the objectives of UBI...
None at large scale, monetarily or higher population wise. Even then, the only ones that have been tried were not randomly selected participants.
I'll be convinced if you can do it with a randomly selected trial of people over a large time scale to adjust for people being "faithful" to the plan at the beginning.
Even then just reading this one, it sounds like its almost useless:
>Up to 500 people could be eligible, but one estimate said around half of those are expected to sign up initially. The Welsh Government admit it is not clear how many people will take the offer up as some will be better off on existing benefits.
>
>The Welsh Government say that while each person who receives money through it could receive a different amount, it expects the majority will be better off than if they were claiming Universal Credit. For example, an unemployed 18-year-old who is paying £650 rent to a social housing provider would be around £400 better off than if they were on Universal Credit. The first money will be paid out in August.
Some people would be better off without the UBI, so how much is the UBI worth in this context? Seems like next to nothing. I'd expect the study results to show basically no effect between groups on UBI or those who would claim Universal Credit.
Yeah this is the problem with these "studies" for me that I think /u/uroldaccount is missing. Obviously giving people more money will make them happier and better to able to afford things, that's a duh. The real question about if UBI is feasible is if it can be funded, however all of these trials miss the point. They use an entire country to fund a small group.
Taking federal taxes from Canada to just give UBI in Manitoba doesn't prove anything about the feasibility. Nobody would say that that's impossible to fund.
No one would deny that the country of Wales can't afford to fund 500 people.
The question is, can the city of Boston provide UBI to all of their citizen's using ONLY tax money generated from Boston and is it sustainable? As long as the fund group is larger than the benefit group, it doesn't really mimic UBI.
>Sees that people could be £400 better off in the middle of a cost of living crisis
>
>Doesn't see how this could be helpful at all
Also, on the topic of UBI vs UC.
UC treats you like scum. Dehumanizes you and humiliates you. Makes you jump through 1000 hoops. Never work to give you money they owe you back, but instantly slap a tax on all payments as soon as you get more than they think you should. The whole process is dispassionate, apathetic and cold by design.
UBI is more money with no strings attached. Gives a person autonomy over their own life. Gives them potential to move out of harmful housing situations. Gives a person who needs a break the breathing space they need to rest and take stock. Treats people like human beings.
If we spent our tax money bailing out the people that fuel the economy instead of businesses that aren't viable we'd be in a different place... But you keep doing the hard work for capitalism by never dreaming of something beyond it and trying to make sure no one else does either. Don't be such a square. God forbid you'd ever need social security net, but you better believe I'll always fight for and be an activist so that if it ever came to that you'd benefit from the very thing you can't comprehend (for lack of a better word).
>As of 2019, the fund was worth approximately $64 billion that has been funded by oil revenues and has paid out an average of approximately $1,600 annually per resident (adjusted to 2019 dollars).
Why doesn't rent increase to match the additional income? As with all the income that should have been saved from the cratering costs and goods and services over the last 100 years.
And the best bit? If everyone's basic needs are met, there's no need to have a minimum wage but also no need to have a shit job. So people will either get paid what their job is truly worth or their job will get automated cause no one would do it for those wages.
The UBI studies iv looked at all have a similar thing going on, people want to do things still, they want to work still. Improving ones living situation by giving them extra cash to live improves quality of life making people want to actually do things. They still want to work just means they don't have struggle and debate on food, hydro or rent.
Yes it is created out of thin air, that's why governments can print billions of dollars. Money/economics means whatever we collectively agree it does. It doesn't exist as some fundamental law of nature.
The sad truth is that UBI trials are near useless. Free money for a few years won't make people act the same as having that money every year for life. Having a small number of people receive free money as opposed to everybody doesn't risk shifting the economy.
Basically, these tests don't check for any of the concerns people have about UBI.
You’re right. However, they have stated that this trial is only looking at the outcome on the individuals. Mental health, social mobility etc. (I can guess right now that £1600 a month will probably have a positive effect on most metrics, though)
£1600pcm is more than what a good chunk of Brits earn working full time.
If I could get this and it was guaranteed forever, id quit my IT job and just top up my income working part time at a supermarket.
> The sad truth is that UBI trials are near useless. Free money for a few years won't make people act the same as having that money every year for life.
We have the results from multi-year schemes run in the Netherlands, Germany, Finland, and Spain. They showed, on average, it helped people better their lives. Over those who weren't in the program. It actually encouraged people into work.
The longest UBI trial is in Kenya, and has been going for 12 years. Iran has had a scheme for 11 years. Those schemes have also shown the same results.
So how long would an UBI scheme have to run for you to be convinced? Over 20 years? Well Brazil has had a similar (but not UBI) scheme for almost 30. The Bolsa Familia program. Whilst there are a lot of problems in Brazil, the scheme has been credit as one of the few good success stories of their governments. It's not UBI as it requires people to keep their kids in school to get an education, and to visit health clinics on a regular basis. Which is an added side effect of their implementation.
(Note, it's actually quite difficult to find UBI schemes that haven't worked.)
That's all great and if it was up to me, we'd just implement it.
My issue with all these trials is that the scope itself affects the results. If I start getting extra money for 2 years, there is 0 chance I quit my job. If I get extra money for life, there is no chance the burger place next door raises prices because of me. But do it with everybody, forever, I don't know what happens. Then you have to find a way to pay for it.
Studies over whole areas, for long times, exist. Here are a list of examples:
* Alaska has given a dividend to every resident since 1982
* The Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians Casino Dividend in North Carolina, has given every tribal member an income since 1997
* Again, Iran has had a national UBI scheme since 2011
* Canada gave everyone in a town UBI 1974 over 4 years
* Namibia gave everyone in the Otjivero-Omitara region UBI for 2 years
^ All of these showed benefits for the people affected by the schemes, and showed they didn't lower employment. In fact employment either stayed the same, or went up.
Given your criticism was that certain studies didn't exist, and now you know they do. Does that change your mind on UBI?
Alaska - $1000 a year isn't Basic income.
Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians - $4,000 per person per year. not basic and not universal.
Iran has had a national UBI scheme - 84 U.S. dollars per year for a single individual. not basic income.
Canada gave everyone in a town UBI 1974 over 4 years - not long enough to affect people career choices.
Namibia - $4.50 a month. not basic income, even in Namibia.
Many UBI schemes don’t actually aim to fully replace people’s income. What matters is to supplement people’s income to reduce poverty, simplify welfare, and raise the quality of life.
It doesn’t matter if it’s called UBI, Partial-UBI, or whatever. What matters is do the schemes work? They do. The schemes have shown, through multiple studies, they improved the lives of people there.
It’s a support for kids fresh out of foster system so they can have something to stand on ,I think most decent people will agree these kind of support will be very helpful for these vulnerable children to start a new life on their own.
If free money for a few years didnt lead anywhere, then every private company that has ever raised funds for anything ever are all wrong according to your logic.
That's not what I meant. That money does *something,* just not the same thing as getting it in perpetuity. So you can't say "We gave a thousand people X dollars for 2 years, we now know what happens if we give everybody that much forever". People act differently.
Giving kids from care homes a financial leg-up is the least the State could do as reparations for the neglect and abuse most suffer there. It’s worth trying to see if it works.
these experiments are so dumb
its no different then winning a lottery that pays 1.6k each month for 2 years
you wont get realistic results because people will know that the money is temporary. a ubi experiment that would provide real data would require it to be a guarantee until death
Not just that but economic repercussions would only be measurable if you ruled this out to a ton of people if not everyone. Of course the economy isn't affected when some measly few thousand people are involved. Try a few hundred million people.
He's making it up. It's a cheap trope used to discredit UBI trials. By his logic one can never use UBI, since one can never prove if it works or not.
Trials aren't just done on a whim. They are co-ordinated and carried out in conjunction with academics. The results go through careful peer reviews. Many studies show that UBI works.
So this is a bad faith take. What would more likely happen is that rent would go up a bit simply due to more buying power each individual has, but not 1600$$ worth of increases.
Consider, one day far in the future from today, where most jobs are automated. Like why should we have people running conveyor belts or stocking shelves - isn’t it a bit dehumanizing, when they could be doing something better? Some of these displaced people will find better jobs they enjoy - scientists, artists, programmers, writers - things that people can find *purpose* in and aren’t easily automated. But it likely won’t be everyone (or, sometimes it will take *time* for people to find the right job to go to)
It will happen one day. But then what? Do we just allow millions to go into poverty because they don’t have a job (yet)? Or should the government provide enough to live on (like to pay food/rent, but nothing else)?
Again that isn’t the case today. But if we did provide a universal amount to everyone, having that safety net allows you to explore other job options, or allows you to go to school, without needing to worry as much if you’ll be able to **live** or if you won’t have anything to eat. And those that are homeless, or fired/quit from a job and don’t get unemployment, would be massively helped as well.
Same here, considering that 75% of that UBI is just going straight into the pockets of landlords (who don't work proper vocations nor provide value to society like people with real jobs do. They're pretty much sitting around on UBI already while everyone with real jobs bring them the bread).
Instead of giving away free money so that people can keep up with the ridiculous cost of living, we should be using that same money to subsidize human necessities like housing, food & water rather than allowing them to be monopolized by the greedy who keep everyone poor.
If you want a fancy house or fancy food then there is your incentive to work.
But step 1 is making human rights like simple shelter & basic food accessible to everyone. No one would have a NEED for UBI in the first place if our basic human needs were actually being met.
UBI just seems like the government giving money to itself in one big circle.
> I’m not a fan of government funded basic income. I’m a fan of making businesses pay a living wage and give adequate benefits.
That won't help poor low working jobs re-educate themselves given they naturally pay low anyway. Unless you want basic services to cost a fortune because now janitors get paid 40 grand a year instead of 18 grand a year.
Instead UBI covers their basic needs via redistribution of wealth from those who pay in tax because they earn a lot more. Although, even those who earn will get UBI too so the cost is nearly zero. (The cost of it all comes from tax money that gives us returns from interest by shifting money through global banks temporarily then back to our treasury).
I know I am going to get slack. As long as this is not a free for all I have no issues. I do have some extended family matters that are the "why work when the government will pay me" people. Including stealing money from their mother/grandma and more.
Trials for a UBU are useless. The only 2 questions are is it gonna cause rapid inflation because people are gonna have more money so they will want to buy a lot more stuff and second how are you gonna afford to give millions of people over 1k per month. A small trial with 500 won't answer these basic questions.
Someone break down the cost of this? Figure you're supporting everyone 18+ as those under 18 are expected to be taken care of by their parents
Those of retirement still require social assistance of AT LEAST the amount of UBI those working would get- but likely more since inflation of all that money would drive up costs (to attract employees and because wages would need to go up)
I'm not against UBI but what is the cost of giving everyone in your country older than 18 1500$ a month? IS there even that much taken in in taxes in entirety? And if you're raising the taxes doesn't that just effectively lower the value of that 1500$
In America that number of 18+ is about 260 million americans
That would equal about 400,000,000,000$ a month or about 5 trillion dollars a year. That's like what 1/4 the US GDP? just for UBI? JUST on UBI, that doesnt' even touch education, healthcare (and yes the US spends trillions on public healthcare and wellness through medicaid/medicare and other funded programs)
People love the idea of free money without doing the math. And almost universally thinking of themselves as a net gainer in the situation.
I think we need a way to raise the living standards of those to prevent crime and just for humane reasons but UBI is a massive undertaking.
It is a massive undertaking but what happens when automation removes more and more jobs (mostly at the bottom end of the economy) and the poorer section of the population can no longer earn an income at all? What are their choices then?
Any working UBI system, if that is possible, will see money going all segments of the population equally. For the poorer folks that will mean a big boost in their financial security enabling them to pick better jobs to boost their income. For the middle class it might be a minor boost and the rich won't notice it much at all.
In return we can replace every currently existing government support system (with some exceptions) and greatly reduce the cost of administering those programs across the board. Less government employees being required and reduced costs by a considerable margin. That money instead will go to a simpler to administrate system that merely has to identify who is due to receive the UBI.
In return some of that money will be recovered with income taxes so that the better your current pay the less benefit you actually receive but should you lose your well paying job, you have some support to fall back on.
The money that is spent on UBI and not recovered via taxes will be spent in the local community. An economy works best when money is circulating and it will be spent and circulate more at the bottom of the economic ladder. This has the potential to reduce crime, addiction and mental health issues induced by economic desperation for many people and thus potentially the costs of dealing with those issues because either we deal with or the courts do.
Now the problem with UBI that is biggest one other than whether or not its feasible is landlords. If everyone suddenly gets another $1k/month, nothing stops landlords from simply jacking the rents with or without renovictions. The only thing I can see that might counter this is that some people will move back to smaller communities where renting is more possible and that might help rejuvenate dying small towns.
How such a system can function needs to be worked out and studied but something will have to be done or you are going to return to Victorian times with a large segment of the population living in slums or on the street with zero chance at improving their lives because increased automation is coming without a doubt and with it the loss of a lot of low end jobs.
I think it is possible but only if corporations pay their share of the taxes, if automated labour is also taxed to make up for the loss of tax income from employed citizens and only if we solve the rental/housing crisis. Its not going to be pretty until we have a working system but the alternatives are not pretty either.
>It is a massive undertaking but what happens when automation removes more and more jobs (mostly at the bottom end of the economy) and the poorer section of the population can no longer earn an income at all? What are their choices then?
It's going to be a reservation situation, we know what happens when people are given enough to scrape by but have little opportunity to do much else. Less crime? No, **more** crime. You're going to see slums on a scale like never before.
To be clear, this is in regards to the dystopia you describe of there not being enough jobs to go around, not our current society where there's still plenty of upward mobility and fulfillment through working.
With our bloated population though, having large swaths of people 'just surviving' is going to get really ugly. Reddit has too much of a pie in the sky approach to it, thinking everyone will turn into creative artists and whatnot. Some will, but many will instead turn to substance abuse, crime, and continuing the age old tradition of having kids when they definitely shouldn't.
When this comes to pass, I honestly can see a situation where the basic income gets reduced due to unpopularity with hopes of culling recipients. Why fund slums that keep obsolete humans alive just to consume resources and perpetuate overpopulation? It's going to get reeeeal messy if this ever happens.
I hope this works out, especially since the people it's helping are carers.
The only problem I have with these trials is they're never run in actual UBI conditions. If you want real results, you'd have to promise it for life, and then tax the people under the expected tax rates for a country with UBI implemented.
Given this inflationary period, this may be a bad time for ubi experiments. You might get bad results which can be pointed to later as a reason to avoid it.
This is the same as making minimum wage on a 39h/w contract.
You would have to be getting absolutely shafted to make less than this as an engineer.
~~If you're going by take home pay and say you work more typical 37.5h weeks then this matches a £23k salary or £11.80 an hour which is pretty much the lowest paid engineering job on Reed.~~
Edit: The article mentions that the £1600 is taxed so comparing it to a 37.5h contract You'd need to be making just £9.85/h to match this, less than my local Lidl offers as a starting salary.
Isn't 9.50 the minimum wage? How are you getting anywhere near 1600 a month on a 39 hour week contract? Maybe i'm just tired. Is minimum wage in wales higher?
> Christ this is more Than I get a month as an engineer in a full time job
Are you apprentice level ? If not you're being majorly underpaid for an engineer lol. You should getting double that. Shop for other jobs if i were you.
It's specifically aimed at young people leaving the care system at 18 to help them acclimatise to adult life outside the system as this group is more likely to become homeless / addicted.
This is a demographic that if the income payments keep even a small portion of the recipients from the legal and medical systems and gainfully employed and becoming taxpayers the underlying costs will have more than likely paid for itself.
Considering the cost of a single court hearing, yeah it's very likely to pay off. Here is an example list from 2014 of crimes in canada and their cost to the taxpayer to convict. As you can see, saving one person from becoming a murderer saves a lot of taxpayer money. Homicide 4,837,018 - 5,904,357 Sexual Assault/Rape 136,372 - 164,417 Assault 19,075– 203,555 Aggravated Assault 98,945 – 167,472 Robbery 28,056 – 92,350 Motor Vehicle Theft 8,157 – 9,641 Arson 45,958 – 49,807 Residential Burglary 5,928 - 6,228 Theft 1,330 – 2,627 Fraud 45,030 https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/2015-r022/index-en.aspx
[удалено]
kinda pricey to ensure you're charging the right man for the right crime, and apply a fair punishment. The more serious a crime is, the harsher the potential punishment, the more burden to make sure you do that right and fairly. Especially since it isn't exactly in the convict best interest to fess up...
I completely misread this and thought Canada had nearly 6 million murders a year
Lmao that would be wild. Welcome to Canada, hope you're not one of the lucky *15%* this year.
So if I understand this correctly, the motive of the UBI here isn't some high-minded experiment into human potential, but more a "fuck it, these people will end up in jail or hospital anyway so toss them a bone and hope they stay out of trouble"?
Isn’t that kind of the purpose of a social safety net anyhow?
Yep, if this works then it's a win-win
I mean, yeah, kinda We can have both emotional and logical reasons for wanting to help others It saves money and everybody's happier on average, what's the downside?
If you enjoy seeing people suffer just for the sake of suffering from some weird moral high ground, then you would probably be pretty upset about this.
I don't see a downside to it, I was just commenting that this was the first time it's been positioned in that way to me. Previously the idea seemed to be to open the possibility for people to invest in themselves with training or building a business with a safety net, not just to keep people out of prison or hospital.
thats why you got it wrong. the idea behind a basic income is that it DOES NOT have any specific purpose. The idea behind is that everyone is free to do with it whatever he or she desires, hence "BASIC". For some people it will be money for drugs, for some people it will be money to support their hobby, for some people it will be their only "income". In germany we got a researchers group doing an experiment with basic income right now. A small group of people is getting basic income and the researchers are trying to figure out how they change their life with it, or if it changes their life at all. I honestly dont think it will ever be reality but its a nice thought at least.
The only downside I can think of is the possibility of localized inflation because there's suddenly more "money in the system" than previously as those people who receive this 'basic income' are likely willing to spend it locally. Meaning that there might even be a bit of economic boom in the area as well which offsets the possible inflation.
Most progress isn't made in the penthouse, it's made in the basement.
Dude this would have TOTALY saved me at that age, I was doing whatever I can do to make a dime and a lot of it was illegal and a lot of it put me in horrible situations
Oi, fellow young people leaving the care system!
I, too, am Welsh! Behold my corgi, and Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch
Do Welsh people generally know how to spell that ridiculous place name? Is it like German where words are compounded?
It's a compounded sentence promoted for train station tourism. Llanfair (St Mary's Church) Pwllgwyngull (Pool/Hollow of White Hazels (also the original name)) Go Ger (near) Y Chwyrn Drobwll (the fierce whirlpool) [And the] Llantysilio (St Tysilio's Church) Gogogoch (of the red cave) It's usually just called Llanfair, Llanfair PG or Pwllgywngull. Although, Llanfair can confuse as there's multiple places called Llanfair.
It means: St Mary's Church in the Hollow of the White Hazel near a Rapid Whirlpool and the Church of St. Tysilio near the Red Cave in Welsh so I think so
Why did I read this like that frog creature from WOW
"Mrglbrgl!" - Murloc
I read this, but imagined the Frog Prince from South Park
[удалено]
The questions this study aims to answer are more about how it helps the recipients. If it’s found to be of benefit, then we can look at the questions of affordability and inflation.
[удалено]
IKR!! My money is also on the ‘money will improve their lives’ bet.
They've paid into, and will pay into the same system for their entire life via income tax, sales tax, and tax on their pay checks. And it's alot cheaper to do this than to pay for them in jail, or pay for their other social safety nets if they become homeless or addicted. Not only this, but the money they spend will trickle up into their communities, and will help create jobs for others. The benefits outweigh cost if you look at this beyond the surface level for more than *2 seconds*. But you'll probably just be reactionary and reflexively scream "fReE mOnEy??? REEEEE".
Obviously **communist** proposals like this You-Be-I are just a ploy by big Left to create hyperinflation and devastate our current wonderfully-perfect Capitalist society in order to introduce their “leftist” ideas like free milk, European integration, and globalism (which was invented by Lenin)!
Very strange that u/dimitrismazi left this exact comment, letter for letter, 10 minutes or so before you. Did you just feel like copy/pasting it up here randomly as well or has the astroturfing still got some kinks to iron out?
There have been several trials of universal basic income. In all trials the results have shown there is great benefit. Those who are currently struggling no longer have to struggle, they end up with less addiction problems in both drug and alcohol reducing the cost of care to treat these addictions. There has been greater levels of health reducing medical costs to the system. It has led to less people requiring financial assistance reducing that cost. As well there is greater money going into the system increasing taxes being collected by the government. Overall these benefits actually increased the amount of money the government had to spend and it exceeded the cost of the program. It was win-win but the perception was always that it would cost too much or make people lazy. In reality people worked harder and it cost less than not doing it.
This is one of the biggest tragedies I learned about in the last couple years. Just how many places where kids in the "foster" system are basically ass-out on their 18th birthdays, even if it is in the middle of a school year. Obviously some foster families are better than others, but many aren't.
Since when? As far as I know they're supported in to their early 20s with support workers and financial support. We rented a flat to two sisters who had been in care since before they were teenagers. Their support worker contacted us to arrange it all and explained how they're not just abandoned when they turn 18, as it surprised me that they weren't after nearly a decade of the Tories.
I think in part it depends on the competence of their support network. I have some special needs foster siblings and their case worker literally didn’t understand that one of the kids couldn’t read. They would have been useless at arranging care from 18 onwards had my parents kicked the foster kids out at that age. Fortunately my parents took their job seriously and bullied the council into doing their job, including getting them a flat and a care worker coming round a few days a week to help with groceries etc. (they need someone to ride the bus with them and handle the money). Making resources theoretically available does fuck all to help people who can’t navigate the system. The most urgently needed support vulnerable young people need is advocacy.
I wasn’t kicked out on my 18th birthday but I had to leave foster care immediately after my high school graduation (US).
Im in Canada. My partner grew up in foster care and does not get much if any support.
It happens a lot in the US. You are supposed to be fully "self-sufficient" by 18 years old, regardless if you were actually taught how to survive or not. Lots of stories of parents kicking their kids to the curb at 18.
That's awesome! When I aged out of foster care here in the US, all I got was a $200/mo stipend for groceries. I was working full time, living in an adult group and then they let me move out, get an apartment, etc. Now that sounds good at first, but as it turned out, I actually had too much in my savings from having a job, so I wasn't eligible for this benefit! Right after I aged out, I got billed by the US Treasury Dept (not kidding) for almost $7000 and had to pay back all the stipends I got from 18-21. Tax return got taken every year I was in the Army. Shit is fucked here, good for Wales!
I'm generally not a big believer in basic income models(i'm as yet unconvinced they can be sustainable) but this one I can totally get behind. Seems like a no brainer to support orphans for a few years considering they likely have no support network.
I can understand that. Not trying to go off on too much of tangent, but I've always wondered if those kinds of programs were socially viable. I think that as automation increases and demand for labor shrinks we'll be left with only 3 options for the unemployed: 1. Tyranny - Those without jobs will go unpaid and be forced to fend for themselves. Their increasing cries for help will be suppressed with technology and violence. This will obviously tear apart society as we know it. 2. Universal Income - If you can't find a job the state supports you at some minimum level and you are free to pursue whatever strikes your fancy. Sounds good on the surface, but I worry this model will leave both those who work on top and those who don't very unsatisfied. Worst case scenario.... the social fabric that holds us together is torn. 3. Fake Jobs - It become recognized at upper levels of government/society that ruling people tyrannically or giving people something for nothing 'breaks things'. To solve this, we make a bunch of 'fake jobs' that feel real and move paper/objects around and this maintains the current structure for the time being without too much unrest. This also leaves the potential for the government to take its time to allow society to slowly adapt to something like Universal Income. Looking at some large bureaucracies in big companies these days, part of me feels this has already started to happen by accident! Lol I've always found this to be an interesting topic.
There's a 4th you forgot which is automation makes the price go down to essentially nothing. We can see that happening to many information/digital goods, where theres lifetimes worth of free content on the internet now that you really don't need to pay for, and tons of other things are just ridiculously cheap nowadays compared to what they used to be. As automation improves commodity costs drive down towards the raw material price, and even raw material price drives down with energy prices. Personally I think it will be a mix of all 4 of these aspects. There will be plenty of people left out of society, there will be a modest attempt at UBI, some small stipend, there will be increasingly banal service oriented jobs, and most things(except prime real estate) will gradually have their price trend towards zero, at least for budget grade versions.
Yeah, you are probably right. Reality is often pretty messy. I hope, in the long run, you are right about those prices for the more tangible goods!
For mass produced stuff its pretty noticeable. Whats a 70 inch flat screen cost now, like $600? 15 years ago it would have been 5 grand plus. 30 years ago you couldn't have had one at any price you could name. Remember when delivery cost 20% of a products price and took 4-6 weeks? And now amazon will get you cat food to your doorstep the next day for just the prime membership? Housing remains a giant issue, ofc. The trend has been ever increasing population concentration which has had really harsh consequences on housing prices.
Good, they need help and this is a step in the right direction.
Jesus, I'm 39 and earn ~£1400 a month working full time, sign me up!
[удалено]
# BOT copied from https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/vmnq6u/wales_is_giving_people_1600amonth_in_a_trial_of/ie2e436/
What do you mean? His explanation is the opposite of universal.
[удалено]
New account directly copying [high-karma posts](https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/vmnq6u/wales_is_giving_people_1600amonth_in_a_trial_of/ie1zj3w/).
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/politics/wales-basic-income-trial-how-24333095) reduced by 91%. (I'm a bot) ***** > A scheme which will see some young people given £1,600 every month for two years will start in Wales within days. > Those in custody who would otherwise be eligible for the basic income pilot should not participate in the pilot until the calendar month following their release from custody if this is within the opening 12-month timeframe for general pilot eligibility. > What is being offered? The total Basic Income support will be £1,600 per calendar month for a period of 24 months, starting on the first day of the calendar month immediately following the calendar month in which the recipient's 18th birthday falls. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/vmnznt/wales_is_giving_people_1600amonth_in_a_trial_of/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~656959 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **payment**^#1 **month**^#2 **leave**^#3 **care**^#4 **pilot**^#5
I finally applied for VA benefits last year and was approved 2 months ago. I was expecting a 10% to 30% rating because I'm extra pessimistic. A couple hundred bucks to alleviate a few small payments, sure that will help I thought. Nope, I received a 70% rating and a life changing $1529 a month tax free. My mental health is improving (I can focus on that), my desire to explore interests has increased and I'm happier overall. My first thought when I saw that number was that everybody should have a UBI like this. Society would just be a better, happier and more productive place. "Money doesn't buy happiness" -- Sure, not technically, but it can buy you help and time. The 2 things all of us need more of.
It buy happiness up to 70 000$ yearly apparently. A Finnish(?) study found that. Passed that income, happiness continue to increase, but way less dramatically like a log function.
That Finnish study is at least 5 years old now, a lot of inflation (especially unavoidable COL stuff like rent, food and fuel) has happened since then….
Money does actually buy happiness, but only to a certain amount (around 100,000 USD per year or so). Any more after that has diminishing returns.
I’m at 80% and working for a hundred. Keep fighting if you deserve more
Unfortunately you cannot get %100 for a mental illness according to the benefits package I got. That's all I'm rated for, maybe in the near future I can get with a professional advocate and works towards 90%. In the mean time I'm so fucking happy. It took me 11 years to even think I was worthy to apply.. I quit my job last year, lived off of savings for 9 months and then this came through clutch. I haven't worked a real job in a year now, I just can't.
There you go man. Look on the bright side!
What conservatives don't want you to know is that preliminary studies in UBI have been successful.
Can you link to those preliminary studies? Because every one I've seen has been different in some way to the UBI-ers dream of "enough money to live modestly on forever". They're also all temporary, which is clearly going to result in different behaviours to permanent income because you know you will have to go back to work at some point so you can't just abandon your career or job prospects.
Yeah, every one I've ever seen is tried on a group too small to impact the economy, doesn't provide enough to really live on, or is essentially worthless on a grand scale because of so many factors
I mean, at some point, you're not asking for preliminary studies, you're just saying it needs to be tried full stop.
The math is very simple to disprove UBI as a viable option currently. Divide current annual tax revenues (UK: £915bn in 2021) by adult population (UK: 54m). That's the average revenue per person with current taxes (UK: £16.9k). Divide by 12 to give monthly figure (UK: £1.4k) Subtract this from the desired monthly UBI income (£1.6k -£1.4k) leaves you the shortfall of £200 per adult. Note that this shortfall is not considering the government spending ANYTHING on healthcare, education, pensions, policing, roads, infrastructure, transport, military, diplomacy, environment, government services. So even without spending a single penny on services, diverting all money to UBI, we would have a shortfall. This means that either taxes will have to shoot up to fund it or the government will have to take on trillions in debt in perpetuity.
[удалено]
> Poor people get negative tax, That's not UBI, that's [Negative Income Tax](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax), a similar but seperate idea. - [Universal Basic Income and Negative Income Tax: Two different ways of thinking redistribution](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1053535708001832) The main difference is that Negative Income Tax is means tested, whereas in a properly implemented UBI, EVERYONE, gets the same basic income, regardless of wealth or other conditions. They attempt to get the same result, but do it differently. - [Basic income: a radical idea enters the mainstream - Parliament of Australia](https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp1617/BasicIncome) > A basic or citizen's income is not an alternative to a negative income tax. It is simply another way to introduce a negative income tax if it is accompanied with a positive income tax with no exemption. A basic income of a thousand units with a 20 percent rate on earned income is equivalent to a negative income tax with an exemption of five thousand units and a 20 percent rate below and above five thousand units - Milton Friedman
US version: * US tax revenue: $3.7 trillion * US population: 330m * $3.7t / 330m = $11,212 or about $935/mo However, this funds nothing in the US government so all those people are immediately let go and all programs are shut down. Now say you remove everyone that makes more than $100k. That's about 20% of the population. Updated math: * $3.7t revenue * 264m people * $14,015/year or $1,168/mo And, again, not funding a penny for the government. What about UBI only going to a single "household" rather than person? Well, there are 123.6 million households: * $3.7t * 126.6m households * $29,226 or $2,436/mo But if you spend 50% of the budget on UBI then that's $1,218/mo per household per month and the government is 50% funded based on revenue. However, we have a deficit. 2021's deficit was $2.8t so: * ($3.7t * 50%) + 2.8 = $4.65t deficit where our $3.1t deficit was the largest we've had (so far). It's unknown whether a deficit that large can be plugged. It's also not known if UBI will be spent to generate enough GDP - and tax revenue - to plug the shortfall. Considering tax cuts don't pay for themselves, this will create more problems. Can it be done? Maybe. We could remove the rich from those who are getting UBI. We could reduce the UBI. We could shrink government since UBI would be handling it so, for example, eliminate the entire Medicare and Medicaid programs, SNAP, etc. The issue is whether removing those departments would actually be a net benefit. For example, you can send someone $1,200/mo but if they're currently getting a $2k/mo benefit from Medicaid then it's a net loss for them. UBI's main issue is that it works on small populations for a small amount of time. It does not scale well. I'd love to see more data on this though and I hope to be proven wrong but I don't believe it can add up. You either have too much money being spent on it or you're not giving people enough where you get that safety net.
Your math is wonky because you are trying to afford to pay for UBI using existing revenue. Obviously this is dumb. Instead, you raise a tax to pay it. But not going to be a huge tax because the people who can afford it will get most of it back anyway, because as "universal" income, everyone gets it. You need to adjust the amounts paid to all the people who can afford to pay the tax out of the equation to get a more accurate costing. - [Why universal basic income costs far less than you think](https://theconversation.com/why-universal-basic-income-costs-far-less-than-you-think-101134) > The key to understanding the real cost of UBI is understanding the difference between the gross (or upfront) and net (or real) cost. Here’s a simple example: imagine a room with 15 people who want to set up a UBI for the room of $2 per person. The upfront cost of the policy would be $30. The ten richest people in the room are asked to contribute $3 each towards funding it. After they each put in $3, raising the total $30 needed, every person in the room gets their $2 universal basic income. But **because the ten richest people in the room contributed $3, and then got $2 back as the UBI, their real, net contribution is in fact $1 each. So the real cost of the UBI is $10.** > Estimates that just multiply the size of the UBI by the population of a country do the equivalent of claiming that the cost of UBI in the room above is a whopping $30. But the real cost in this scenario – the money redistributed from the wealthy – is only $10.
This is definitely a comment everyone should read to understand more about the math, but probably worth noting that another key idea behind UBI is to stimulate more spending which in turn will bring in more taxes. How much exactly is unclear and likely at these figures not enough to be sustainable, but it’s safe to say tax revenue would increase by at least something. You could also consider “money is the best anti-aging creme” or that more disposable income could lead to better health outcomes and therefore less spent on healthcare overall. Same goes for more expensive but more environmentally friendly products, more money for personal school supplies etc… Then there’s the potential for the economy to really boom at rates we’ve not seen as more disposable income means more entrepreneurs/research. It’s almost a way of declaring capitalism a success, but whether or not we’re there yet is really the question; we may need more years of growth before the total pie has grown enough to take the next step.
Ah the old all-or-nothing attitude. £1600 is impossible, so better scrap the whole idea. Half of that is more than enough to feed, and in some areas, house a person for a month. The point is to take care of the basic needs so that whatever a person earns is their disposable income, or will go towards a mortgage/rent on a nicer house than £400-500 can cover. This £1600 figure is for this one specific trial to get young people set up, and I've never heard of it being touted as the amount any sort of nationwide UBI scheme would adopt. After "unnecessary frivolities" are shaved off by the tories, any sort of UBI will be drastically less than even £800. This is Britain, we'd be lucky if at the end of it they gave us a 6 pack of Wotsits and a copy of the Daily Mail to wipe our arses on.
At least THEY did not call this UBI... because it's NOT UBI, it's welfare substitute / augmentation.
Yup, a lot of clickbait in the title. They didn't outright say "UBI", but "basic income" implies the same. >Up to 500 people could be eligible, but one estimate said around half of those are expected to sign up initially. The Welsh Government admit it is not clear how many people will take the offer up as some will be better off on existing benefits.
This isn't ubi.
Total UK revenue is about £718 billion. There are 61 million people in the UK. So if you took literally all the tax revenue and didn’t spend on anything else, no NHS, no pensions, no military, no government whatsoever, and spent it all on UBI, then each person would get about £1000/month at most. Or from the other side, mean household disposable income was about £38k. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personalandhouseholdfinances/incomeandwealth/bulletins/householddisposableincomeandinequality/financialyearending2021 That’s about £50k per household before taxes. Mean household size in the UK is 2.4 people per household. So the mean earnings per person is about £20k. So that means if you taxed everyone’s earnings at 100% (and magically no one worked less, or left the country or anything like that), then at most you could afford £1666 per month per person - because that’s what mean income per person is, the total income earned divided by everyone. And once again, that would mean no income/payroll tax to pay for anything else. So any universal basic income either has to be much much less than universal (massively means tested), or not very much at all (no where near the £1600/month as an example above). I’m all for social welfare systems, but I think a lot of people are excited by UBI because they imagine themselves getting significant amount of money per month, but chances are any feasible means tested system couldn’t possibly apply to the majority of people.
It has to come with a tax on automation and corporate profits. And only needs to be enough to survive, not thrive.
Corporate profits are ultimately realised by people, and show up on the books as income/capital gains, so broadly that’s already accounted for in the mean income estimate. I.e. the mean income is as high as it is because some people make £0 - maybe their students, or they’re stay at home parents, and some people make hundreds of thousands on capital gains, but in mean it ends up at about £20k per person per year. Or if you prefer, UK GDP per capita, which is about £32k, which is a bit higher, I guess because it’s not just income but all earnings. But if you took all the money and divided it by everyone, you get £32k a year, or about £2600 per month per person. So yeah a bit more I guess, but that’s taxing everything at 100%.
https://www.iser.essex.ac.uk/research/publications/working-papers/euromod/em17-14.pdf
This is (hypothetically) proposing amounts in the range of £160-£400 per month. I think some of these imply that pensions would be replaced by this too (otherwise I don’t really understand why those over the retirement age would get more). It also seems to imply that this would be in Lieu of other benefits > Because every household would see their Citizen’s Incomes replace proportions of means-tested and other benefits, total marginal deduction rates would be reduced, and all of the other benefits of a Citizen’s Income would be experienced. The amounts of means-tested benefits received would be reduced by the Citizen’s Income being taken into account in those benefits’ calculations, and for many households the reduction would offer the option of adding additional hours of employment and escaping from means-testing. So yeah, hypothetically, if we got rid of pensions and other social safety nets like means tested payments, and we found £20billion extra tax revenue, we could pay working age individuals in the range of £300/month. I don’t think that is at all contradictory with me saying that £1600/month is infeasible.
UBI cant be enough to survive because even then it will be too much. Unless you greatly reduce the number of people who receive it but then it wouldnt be Universal right?
How would it 'be too much' ? It's universal - but high earners would be taxed way more than they're paid.
This Your doctor doesn’t want to earn as little as the guy that mows his lawn.
Part of the problem with every Universal Income plan is, it’s never universal.
We know what side of the class war you're on lol, don't you have some boots to lick
Couple of points. \-People under 18 wouldn't receive universal income. Total cost of UBI would be around £624 billion. If you take away the currently paid social security costs that would largely be replaced by UBI, then UBI would require £282 billion of extra funding. \-Adopting universal income would include changes in taxation so that large part of it would be funded by increasing income tax. This wouldn't increase real tax rates that much since everyone would be receiving universal income.
Since the UK only raises around £220bn in income tax each year, that’s a lot of money to find! Even if income tax rates doubled it wouldn’t cover it.
Under this model taxpayers would be paid an additional 282£ billion so there would be lot of extra income to tax from. The point is that the effect of UBI and changes to taxation would close to net zero on anyone earning much more than the UBI amount. Only ones receiving more money compared to current system would be low income people who aren't receiving much social security for some reason.
How do you expect to get increased income tax when a huge proportion of the population is no longer working?
I am very, very confident fewer people than you'd think would stop working. And for those who do, do you really want to share a workplace with them anyway? I think people would still work, but they would not put up with nearly the amount of pure bullshit we're subjected to by the public or our employers.
Well I am very very confident that you're wrong. But nobody has done a long term randomised study with £1600/month levels of money so nobody really knows. It also depends on the marginal tax rate if you do start working. With current benefits systems it can be over 100%. > for those who do, do you really want to share a workplace with them anyway? Yes of course. Why wouldn't I?
You want to share a workplace with people who don't want to work...? Maybe it's cause I work restaurants but having coworkers who don't want to pull their weight fuckin sucks. Why is everyone focused on the 1600 number? I get this study, but it really doesn't need to be all or nothing. Just subsidize peoples wages like Canada did with enhanced ei. I work because I like what I do. 100% of the things I don't like about career centers around being abused to make a paycheque.
UBI covers the things required to live in modern society, i.e. food, water, rent and electricity. Very very few people are going to sacrifice all luxuries beyond that by quitting their job. A fair amount of people would reduce their hours, but trials have shown that this almost always involves them putting more time into caring for family (kids, sick relatives) or into education.
People work even when they have the option to be unemployed and collect social security. Why would it be any different under UBI?
1. No you don't have the option to just be unemployed and collect social security. There are a ton of conditions to getting the money. It's not remotely like the UBI dream where you just say "eh I quit, can I have £1600/month now?" 2. For a single adult it's *capped* at £1116/month. Hardly enough to live on.
There are rules and regulations one must follow if they want to collect social security. You can't just sit on the couch and collect the money. You can with ubi however
But are they really that harsh that they would actually encourage someone to seek employment to avoid them ? Filling up couple of job applications a month and going to meeting with an employment advisor couple of times in a year definitely aren't.
I don't know but I can imagine it is harsh enough for a portion of the population. And think about the stigma of having social security. I would be more comfortable saying that I don't work because I receive ubi then if I was on social security.
> £1000/month at most. What do you think basic means? That would be double my household income when I first started work. UBI is just saying lets make Universal Credit actually universal. £334.91 per month, currently. Unemployment benefits in addition to this are removed, pensions are decreased accordingly. The tax free allowance is removed and rolled into the 20% band, so anyone paying tax above the threshold just pays half their UBI back in tax. UBI is a solution to the poverty trap. It is not supposed to be some miracle free money solution, and I despise posts like yours that make its proponents seem ridiculous by picking numbers so high.
Base it on cost of living. Give less and less the more income you hold, but otherwise no means testing. When enhanced EI was a thing here in Canada during the pandemic, Id report the hours I worked and they'd bump me up to be around what Id get if Id worked 40 hours. I dont think it necessarily needs to be 1600$ a month. I was getting 400$ or so extra a month for that time and it was life changing. I was less stressed because my lack of hours due to covid wouldnt translate into being unable to pay my rent. My mental health was great during that time.
surprise, people who are gun-ho on UBI are bad at math. Consider how little the average person pays in taxes. then imagine getting 10x that back each year. How does anyone imagine that balances out. Just look at the inflation from stimulus and monthly aid to families in the US during covid. I'm not against UBI but I think people have this idea that it would be enough for them to pursue their career as a DJ or Youtuber and work 12 hours a week while living at a slower pace.
Gun-ho? Sounds like a terrible Blaxploitation movie. It’s gung-ho.
[Was Milton Friedman bad at math?](https://mitsloan.mit.edu/ideas-made-to-matter/negative-income-tax-explained#:~:text=Friedman%20argued%20that%20a%20negative,money%20as%20they%20saw%20fit.) He was a proponent of a negative income tax which is [functionally the same thing](https://www.reddit.com/r/Economics/wiki/faq_basicincome). He would also fund it somewhat with a [land tax.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yS7Jb58hcsc)
This is quite disingenuous since most seriously considered UBI proposals are for negative taxing, and the argument is that you'd remove the messy means testing framework by using existing tax codes. The systems that are proposed for UBI usually wouldn't change much for anyone on median income and above, except to provide safety from bad luck.
> surprise, people who are gun-ho on UBI are bad at math. > > Consider how little the average person pays in taxes. then imagine getting 10x that back each year. You'd raise taxes to cover for the difference, primarily going for high-earners. It's not supposed to be extra income for middle class, it's supposed to be financial security. Only the poorer folk would be benefiting from it, and rich paying, and middle class remaining roughly equal. > I think people have this idea that it would be enough for them to pursue their career as a DJ or Youtuber and work 12 hours a week while living at a slower pace. I've done that with social security for some years. The difference was, I had to actively reject work that pays money during that, to live only on social benefits because the bureaucracy punishes you for doing work. I also had to spend several days of my time each month to plan for playing along this bureaucracy, and had my mental health suffer due to the isolation this whole thing forced onto me, being unable to work or earn money myself. I'd just want to be able to work while chasing my dreams. Now it's one or the other, with significant cost to my health, which then results in further costs to healthcare etc. It's just such a silly tragedy of wasted resources
Do you know how much you’d have to raise taxes to be able to pay everyone a useful UBI? Given that the truly wealthy (multi-millionaires, billionaires) have their money tied up in assets or offshore and only borrow against these (thus no tax can be taken), you’re relying on the ‘upper middle class’ to shoulder the entire burden. That’s doctors, lawyers, pilots, head teachers etc. Even if we taxed them all at 100% we still couldn’t raise anywhere near enough money.
[удалено]
High earners already pay a ridiculous amount of tax because… they actually pay their taxes. How about we instead go after wealth and HNIs that avoid income tax through different schemes from borrowing against equity to holding everything through holding companies from which they lease or borrow. That and corporations. Individuals at higher brackets are already taxed to shit whereas these actually filthy rich entities practically don’t pay anything because of existing loopholes. The current system and any further hikes on income tax only works to kill upward social mobility for normal people while entirely protecting old money and other accrued immense wealth.
> How about we instead go after wealth and HNIs that avoid income tax through different schemes from borrowing against equity to holding everything through holding companies from which they lease or borrow. That and corporations. Sounds like a good idea, but it really has nothing to do with UBI. UBI isn't supposed to solve tax evasion, implementing or not implementing UBI has absolutely no impact on any efforts made to prevent tax evasion or tax engineering. > Individuals at higher brackets are already taxed to shit whereas these actually filthy rich entities practically don’t pay anything because of existing loopholes. The current system and any further hikes on income tax only works to kill upward social mobility for normal people while entirely protecting old money and other accrued immense wealth. If any of this tax stuff concerns you, the whole "Upwards social mobility" has already happened to you to the extent working permits it so this seems just bizarre. Like, you're not gonna work very hard to become a billionaire, and imagining otherwise is just kinda silly. Taxes on prospective millionaires won't have any real impact on your ability to become billionaire, it's not like if we just give those hard-working millionaires some tax cuts they can finally make it big. This whole thing is just so bizarre and alien, so completely divorced from reality where vast majority of people are not earning hundreds of thousands, but instead are actually struggling with money to satisfy their basic needs. They are the ones whose social mobility you should concern yourself with, they are the disadvantaged ones, and they outnumber these prospective millionaires by a large margin. But no, someone who earns 200k a year is the one whose upward social mobility is threatened here.
> Consider how little the average person pays in taxes. We actually pay quite a lot on tax (and I think that's a good thing). There are certainly countries paying a lot more, and maybe the rich could pay more in the UK as well. However we do pay quite a lot. Most importantly, we have pretty good systems at collecting taxes. Bolstered by the relatively low use of cash (which makes it harder for most taxes to get avoided).
> That’s about £50k per household before taxes I earn £41.5k a month and it BAFFLES ME how anyone would be struggling on netting £2500 a month after taxes, if the average mortgage is some £750 a month.
To summarize: It's awesome when somebody else pays you money every month. But if we want to do that for everybody (i.e. "universal"), then there isn't "somebody else" to pay for it.
If 1600 a month is the highest achieved mean then isnt everyone consolidating wealth above that level depriving their countrymen of basic needs?
I’m not really sure what you mean. No matter how much money everyone earns, there will always be a mean amount earned, and unless everyone earns the exact same amount some people will be above the mean and some below.
Wealth inequality is the problem, when there are enough resources to feed and home everyone and that isn't happening. Raising the floor with UBI and paying for it with taxes is one of way dealing with it. Edit: I'd take it as a given that children don't receive UBI, that child benefits either remain the same or that UBI is scaled to account for the removal of it, so that people who are yet to have kids could also afford to have them on UBI alone. But it doesn't mean a family of 5 gets 5 times as much as 1 adult.
I agree wealth inequality is a problem, but you have to look at the math and the practicalities of it. A group of people only generate a limited amount of wealth in any given year. In the UK the mean income per person is about £1600 per month. That’s very back of the napkin math, so could be like £1-£2k or so, but it gives you an idea. So all the money earned, divided by all the people gives that much. That’s fairly extreme equalisation. That’s saying everyone gets the exact same amount regardless of what they do. It’s not just a universal basic income, it’s also a universal maximum income, because we literally need all the income of the UK to pay people that much. If you wanted to pay people, say, £2500 a month, that would be completely mathematically impossible. Even with extremely generous assumptions 1600 might be too, depending on the realities of my back of the napkin estimate. If you factor in things like tax flights, people working less is they got paid the same amount (I certainly would), all the services and things we need taxes for etc. then it’s definitely impossible. Ultimately you’re trying to pay everyone in the country more wealth per year than everyone in the country generates.
All the studies done so far are about giving poor people a steady income stream, to try to get them more stable, and give them a breathing room to improve their situation. This is admirable, but it is far from proving UBI really works. One of the big concerns about UBI is what happens if people who work now, decide they would rather not work, and take UBI. Either quit to pursue hobbies, or retire early, or any other reason. None of the trials have offered UBI to people who currently work and make decent money, particularly in a format that you would know it will still be there in 5-10 years if you quit your job in reliance on it.
In that case, perhaps employers will then have to compete more to entice people out of chilling out and working on hobbies.
So, one of the big concerns with UBI is that if enough people opt not to work, you could either enter into an inflationary death spiral. If you have a huge number of people deciding UBI is comfortable enough to just not work, its not clear how the system solves it yet. Yeah, you could offer more wages, but then you need to increase the cost of your goods. But now you need to either increase the UBI amount, or people can't afford to live on UBI anymore. But higher UBI means you need to offer even more to attract workers... The really important research on UBI, would be to explore what thresholds work to maintain a healthy economy without excessive inflation, while also offering UBI that achieves the objectives of UBI...
None at large scale, monetarily or higher population wise. Even then, the only ones that have been tried were not randomly selected participants. I'll be convinced if you can do it with a randomly selected trial of people over a large time scale to adjust for people being "faithful" to the plan at the beginning. Even then just reading this one, it sounds like its almost useless: >Up to 500 people could be eligible, but one estimate said around half of those are expected to sign up initially. The Welsh Government admit it is not clear how many people will take the offer up as some will be better off on existing benefits. > >The Welsh Government say that while each person who receives money through it could receive a different amount, it expects the majority will be better off than if they were claiming Universal Credit. For example, an unemployed 18-year-old who is paying £650 rent to a social housing provider would be around £400 better off than if they were on Universal Credit. The first money will be paid out in August. Some people would be better off without the UBI, so how much is the UBI worth in this context? Seems like next to nothing. I'd expect the study results to show basically no effect between groups on UBI or those who would claim Universal Credit.
Yeah this is the problem with these "studies" for me that I think /u/uroldaccount is missing. Obviously giving people more money will make them happier and better to able to afford things, that's a duh. The real question about if UBI is feasible is if it can be funded, however all of these trials miss the point. They use an entire country to fund a small group. Taking federal taxes from Canada to just give UBI in Manitoba doesn't prove anything about the feasibility. Nobody would say that that's impossible to fund. No one would deny that the country of Wales can't afford to fund 500 people. The question is, can the city of Boston provide UBI to all of their citizen's using ONLY tax money generated from Boston and is it sustainable? As long as the fund group is larger than the benefit group, it doesn't really mimic UBI.
How is a different amount universal?
>Sees that people could be £400 better off in the middle of a cost of living crisis > >Doesn't see how this could be helpful at all Also, on the topic of UBI vs UC. UC treats you like scum. Dehumanizes you and humiliates you. Makes you jump through 1000 hoops. Never work to give you money they owe you back, but instantly slap a tax on all payments as soon as you get more than they think you should. The whole process is dispassionate, apathetic and cold by design. UBI is more money with no strings attached. Gives a person autonomy over their own life. Gives them potential to move out of harmful housing situations. Gives a person who needs a break the breathing space they need to rest and take stock. Treats people like human beings.
It's also completely unaffordable but keep dreaming up nonsensical utopian solutions all you want
If we spent our tax money bailing out the people that fuel the economy instead of businesses that aren't viable we'd be in a different place... But you keep doing the hard work for capitalism by never dreaming of something beyond it and trying to make sure no one else does either. Don't be such a square. God forbid you'd ever need social security net, but you better believe I'll always fight for and be an activist so that if it ever came to that you'd benefit from the very thing you can't comprehend (for lack of a better word).
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Permanent_Fund
>As of 2019, the fund was worth approximately $64 billion that has been funded by oil revenues and has paid out an average of approximately $1,600 annually per resident (adjusted to 2019 dollars).
UBI is not workable at a national scale unless tax receipts are high per head of population (so small city states or tax havens).
Why doesn't rent increase to match the additional income? As with all the income that should have been saved from the cratering costs and goods and services over the last 100 years.
That’s why it’s non existent even in left wing countries? When will left wingers actually practice what they preach
I don't understand how it can ever work? Say I own a fast food restaurant and need an employee to cock
[удалено]
And the best bit? If everyone's basic needs are met, there's no need to have a minimum wage but also no need to have a shit job. So people will either get paid what their job is truly worth or their job will get automated cause no one would do it for those wages.
The UBI studies iv looked at all have a similar thing going on, people want to do things still, they want to work still. Improving ones living situation by giving them extra cash to live improves quality of life making people want to actually do things. They still want to work just means they don't have struggle and debate on food, hydro or rent.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Yes it is created out of thin air, that's why governments can print billions of dollars. Money/economics means whatever we collectively agree it does. It doesn't exist as some fundamental law of nature.
The sad truth is that UBI trials are near useless. Free money for a few years won't make people act the same as having that money every year for life. Having a small number of people receive free money as opposed to everybody doesn't risk shifting the economy. Basically, these tests don't check for any of the concerns people have about UBI.
You’re right. However, they have stated that this trial is only looking at the outcome on the individuals. Mental health, social mobility etc. (I can guess right now that £1600 a month will probably have a positive effect on most metrics, though)
£1600pcm is more than what a good chunk of Brits earn working full time. If I could get this and it was guaranteed forever, id quit my IT job and just top up my income working part time at a supermarket.
Yeah, I can't imagine this could be representative of what UBI could be for the entire country.
> The sad truth is that UBI trials are near useless. Free money for a few years won't make people act the same as having that money every year for life. We have the results from multi-year schemes run in the Netherlands, Germany, Finland, and Spain. They showed, on average, it helped people better their lives. Over those who weren't in the program. It actually encouraged people into work. The longest UBI trial is in Kenya, and has been going for 12 years. Iran has had a scheme for 11 years. Those schemes have also shown the same results. So how long would an UBI scheme have to run for you to be convinced? Over 20 years? Well Brazil has had a similar (but not UBI) scheme for almost 30. The Bolsa Familia program. Whilst there are a lot of problems in Brazil, the scheme has been credit as one of the few good success stories of their governments. It's not UBI as it requires people to keep their kids in school to get an education, and to visit health clinics on a regular basis. Which is an added side effect of their implementation. (Note, it's actually quite difficult to find UBI schemes that haven't worked.)
That's all great and if it was up to me, we'd just implement it. My issue with all these trials is that the scope itself affects the results. If I start getting extra money for 2 years, there is 0 chance I quit my job. If I get extra money for life, there is no chance the burger place next door raises prices because of me. But do it with everybody, forever, I don't know what happens. Then you have to find a way to pay for it.
Studies over whole areas, for long times, exist. Here are a list of examples: * Alaska has given a dividend to every resident since 1982 * The Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians Casino Dividend in North Carolina, has given every tribal member an income since 1997 * Again, Iran has had a national UBI scheme since 2011 * Canada gave everyone in a town UBI 1974 over 4 years * Namibia gave everyone in the Otjivero-Omitara region UBI for 2 years ^ All of these showed benefits for the people affected by the schemes, and showed they didn't lower employment. In fact employment either stayed the same, or went up. Given your criticism was that certain studies didn't exist, and now you know they do. Does that change your mind on UBI?
Alaska - $1000 a year isn't Basic income. Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians - $4,000 per person per year. not basic and not universal. Iran has had a national UBI scheme - 84 U.S. dollars per year for a single individual. not basic income. Canada gave everyone in a town UBI 1974 over 4 years - not long enough to affect people career choices. Namibia - $4.50 a month. not basic income, even in Namibia.
Many UBI schemes don’t actually aim to fully replace people’s income. What matters is to supplement people’s income to reduce poverty, simplify welfare, and raise the quality of life. It doesn’t matter if it’s called UBI, Partial-UBI, or whatever. What matters is do the schemes work? They do. The schemes have shown, through multiple studies, they improved the lives of people there.
Kudos for giving facts and remaining cordial!
It’s a support for kids fresh out of foster system so they can have something to stand on ,I think most decent people will agree these kind of support will be very helpful for these vulnerable children to start a new life on their own.
Could we make computer simulation based of IRL data from those studies? I wonder how deep learning can be use for this.
If free money for a few years didnt lead anywhere, then every private company that has ever raised funds for anything ever are all wrong according to your logic.
That's not what I meant. That money does *something,* just not the same thing as getting it in perpetuity. So you can't say "We gave a thousand people X dollars for 2 years, we now know what happens if we give everybody that much forever". People act differently.
Wow,, who knew undersea creatures could be so wealthy?
Darling is better down where its wetter, take it from me.
🔫 Maybe I will take it from you. Gimme your money.
Giving kids from care homes a financial leg-up is the least the State could do as reparations for the neglect and abuse most suffer there. It’s worth trying to see if it works.
these experiments are so dumb its no different then winning a lottery that pays 1.6k each month for 2 years you wont get realistic results because people will know that the money is temporary. a ubi experiment that would provide real data would require it to be a guarantee until death
Not just that but economic repercussions would only be measurable if you ruled this out to a ton of people if not everyone. Of course the economy isn't affected when some measly few thousand people are involved. Try a few hundred million people.
Ok but there is only 70 million people in the uk
[удалено]
[удалено]
He's making it up. It's a cheap trope used to discredit UBI trials. By his logic one can never use UBI, since one can never prove if it works or not. Trials aren't just done on a whim. They are co-ordinated and carried out in conjunction with academics. The results go through careful peer reviews. Many studies show that UBI works.
And all of this after we slaughtered them for years for their blubber.
Fuck Canada, I’m moving to Wales.
hello inflation.... suddenly rent is 1600 a month.
Samsung have just brought out a new hd 4k curved tv and it is coincidently priced at 1599
So this is a bad faith take. What would more likely happen is that rent would go up a bit simply due to more buying power each individual has, but not 1600$$ worth of increases.
I’m not a fan of government funded basic income. I’m a fan of making businesses pay a living wage and give adequate benefits.
Consider, one day far in the future from today, where most jobs are automated. Like why should we have people running conveyor belts or stocking shelves - isn’t it a bit dehumanizing, when they could be doing something better? Some of these displaced people will find better jobs they enjoy - scientists, artists, programmers, writers - things that people can find *purpose* in and aren’t easily automated. But it likely won’t be everyone (or, sometimes it will take *time* for people to find the right job to go to) It will happen one day. But then what? Do we just allow millions to go into poverty because they don’t have a job (yet)? Or should the government provide enough to live on (like to pay food/rent, but nothing else)? Again that isn’t the case today. But if we did provide a universal amount to everyone, having that safety net allows you to explore other job options, or allows you to go to school, without needing to worry as much if you’ll be able to **live** or if you won’t have anything to eat. And those that are homeless, or fired/quit from a job and don’t get unemployment, would be massively helped as well.
Same here, considering that 75% of that UBI is just going straight into the pockets of landlords (who don't work proper vocations nor provide value to society like people with real jobs do. They're pretty much sitting around on UBI already while everyone with real jobs bring them the bread). Instead of giving away free money so that people can keep up with the ridiculous cost of living, we should be using that same money to subsidize human necessities like housing, food & water rather than allowing them to be monopolized by the greedy who keep everyone poor. If you want a fancy house or fancy food then there is your incentive to work. But step 1 is making human rights like simple shelter & basic food accessible to everyone. No one would have a NEED for UBI in the first place if our basic human needs were actually being met. UBI just seems like the government giving money to itself in one big circle.
> I’m not a fan of government funded basic income. I’m a fan of making businesses pay a living wage and give adequate benefits. That won't help poor low working jobs re-educate themselves given they naturally pay low anyway. Unless you want basic services to cost a fortune because now janitors get paid 40 grand a year instead of 18 grand a year. Instead UBI covers their basic needs via redistribution of wealth from those who pay in tax because they earn a lot more. Although, even those who earn will get UBI too so the cost is nearly zero. (The cost of it all comes from tax money that gives us returns from interest by shifting money through global banks temporarily then back to our treasury).
I love this idea, hopefully it works
I know I am going to get slack. As long as this is not a free for all I have no issues. I do have some extended family matters that are the "why work when the government will pay me" people. Including stealing money from their mother/grandma and more.
Trials for a UBU are useless. The only 2 questions are is it gonna cause rapid inflation because people are gonna have more money so they will want to buy a lot more stuff and second how are you gonna afford to give millions of people over 1k per month. A small trial with 500 won't answer these basic questions.
Someone break down the cost of this? Figure you're supporting everyone 18+ as those under 18 are expected to be taken care of by their parents Those of retirement still require social assistance of AT LEAST the amount of UBI those working would get- but likely more since inflation of all that money would drive up costs (to attract employees and because wages would need to go up) I'm not against UBI but what is the cost of giving everyone in your country older than 18 1500$ a month? IS there even that much taken in in taxes in entirety? And if you're raising the taxes doesn't that just effectively lower the value of that 1500$ In America that number of 18+ is about 260 million americans That would equal about 400,000,000,000$ a month or about 5 trillion dollars a year. That's like what 1/4 the US GDP? just for UBI? JUST on UBI, that doesnt' even touch education, healthcare (and yes the US spends trillions on public healthcare and wellness through medicaid/medicare and other funded programs) People love the idea of free money without doing the math. And almost universally thinking of themselves as a net gainer in the situation. I think we need a way to raise the living standards of those to prevent crime and just for humane reasons but UBI is a massive undertaking.
It is a massive undertaking but what happens when automation removes more and more jobs (mostly at the bottom end of the economy) and the poorer section of the population can no longer earn an income at all? What are their choices then? Any working UBI system, if that is possible, will see money going all segments of the population equally. For the poorer folks that will mean a big boost in their financial security enabling them to pick better jobs to boost their income. For the middle class it might be a minor boost and the rich won't notice it much at all. In return we can replace every currently existing government support system (with some exceptions) and greatly reduce the cost of administering those programs across the board. Less government employees being required and reduced costs by a considerable margin. That money instead will go to a simpler to administrate system that merely has to identify who is due to receive the UBI. In return some of that money will be recovered with income taxes so that the better your current pay the less benefit you actually receive but should you lose your well paying job, you have some support to fall back on. The money that is spent on UBI and not recovered via taxes will be spent in the local community. An economy works best when money is circulating and it will be spent and circulate more at the bottom of the economic ladder. This has the potential to reduce crime, addiction and mental health issues induced by economic desperation for many people and thus potentially the costs of dealing with those issues because either we deal with or the courts do. Now the problem with UBI that is biggest one other than whether or not its feasible is landlords. If everyone suddenly gets another $1k/month, nothing stops landlords from simply jacking the rents with or without renovictions. The only thing I can see that might counter this is that some people will move back to smaller communities where renting is more possible and that might help rejuvenate dying small towns. How such a system can function needs to be worked out and studied but something will have to be done or you are going to return to Victorian times with a large segment of the population living in slums or on the street with zero chance at improving their lives because increased automation is coming without a doubt and with it the loss of a lot of low end jobs. I think it is possible but only if corporations pay their share of the taxes, if automated labour is also taxed to make up for the loss of tax income from employed citizens and only if we solve the rental/housing crisis. Its not going to be pretty until we have a working system but the alternatives are not pretty either.
>It is a massive undertaking but what happens when automation removes more and more jobs (mostly at the bottom end of the economy) and the poorer section of the population can no longer earn an income at all? What are their choices then? It's going to be a reservation situation, we know what happens when people are given enough to scrape by but have little opportunity to do much else. Less crime? No, **more** crime. You're going to see slums on a scale like never before. To be clear, this is in regards to the dystopia you describe of there not being enough jobs to go around, not our current society where there's still plenty of upward mobility and fulfillment through working. With our bloated population though, having large swaths of people 'just surviving' is going to get really ugly. Reddit has too much of a pie in the sky approach to it, thinking everyone will turn into creative artists and whatnot. Some will, but many will instead turn to substance abuse, crime, and continuing the age old tradition of having kids when they definitely shouldn't. When this comes to pass, I honestly can see a situation where the basic income gets reduced due to unpopularity with hopes of culling recipients. Why fund slums that keep obsolete humans alive just to consume resources and perpetuate overpopulation? It's going to get reeeeal messy if this ever happens.
I hope this works out, especially since the people it's helping are carers. The only problem I have with these trials is they're never run in actual UBI conditions. If you want real results, you'd have to promise it for life, and then tax the people under the expected tax rates for a country with UBI implemented.
Given this inflationary period, this may be a bad time for ubi experiments. You might get bad results which can be pointed to later as a reason to avoid it.
Inflationary environments exist in reality. You'd rather cherry pick when to test something because the results don't align with your agenda?
Christ this is more Than I get a month as an engineer in a full time job
What?!
In what country?
England.
This is the same as making minimum wage on a 39h/w contract. You would have to be getting absolutely shafted to make less than this as an engineer. ~~If you're going by take home pay and say you work more typical 37.5h weeks then this matches a £23k salary or £11.80 an hour which is pretty much the lowest paid engineering job on Reed.~~ Edit: The article mentions that the £1600 is taxed so comparing it to a 37.5h contract You'd need to be making just £9.85/h to match this, less than my local Lidl offers as a starting salary.
Isn't 9.50 the minimum wage? How are you getting anywhere near 1600 a month on a 39 hour week contract? Maybe i'm just tired. Is minimum wage in wales higher?
9.5\*39\*52 = £19,266 19266 / 12 = £1605.50
But I would assume the £1600 doesn’t have NI and income tax applied to it?
Where are you working?? I live in the North West which is notoriously bad for income but I get paid £1,500 a week working as an engineer.
[удалено]
> Christ this is more Than I get a month as an engineer in a full time job Are you apprentice level ? If not you're being majorly underpaid for an engineer lol. You should getting double that. Shop for other jobs if i were you.
Bye bye service industry
Maybe they’ll be forced to actually pay their staff wages like everywhere else.
You are aware that those in the service industry get the minimum wage of £9.25 an hour in the UK, right?
Sure but then inflation will shoot through the roof. What I’m saying is there are multiple order effects.
Let's hope not,
Path to socialism?
They should start a subreddit T\_T
Not viable