[Closed] UK state should pay for housing, food, transport and internet

Would everything else basically run as it is now. Plenty on here seem to be suggesting they'd make do

I would carry on exactly as now. The UBI would not be there to enable me to give up work, it is there to protect everyone with at least the basics of what is needed. I, along with 95% of people like to have a bit more than the very basic amount to live on.
I would get the £10,000 UBI just as everyone else but I would also be taxed an extra £10,000 (or maybe more) which is fine.

kerley - Member
I would get the £10,000 UBI just as everyone else but I would also be taxed an extra £10,000 (or maybe more) which is fine.

But that means you're not netting any more money?

20,000 + 0 UBI = 20,000
20,000 - 10,000 tax + 10,000 UBI = 20,000

Unless, again - i'm missing something in this concept.

Unless, again - i'm missing something in this concept.

You get to take back control over your life knowing that you have the freedom to sit in your pants and watch Jeremy Kyle for months at a time and still get the UBI.
You can't put a price on control can you? ( see also Brexit 😀 )

If it does this:

it is there to protect everyone with at least the basics of what is needed

Then it also does this:

enable me to give up work,

...and that's the paradox of UBI:

If you set it at a level where people can have a tolerable life, then significant numbers of them have no need to work.

If you set it at a level where you can't have a decent life, then you need means tested extras, in which case the system is no different to any other means tested benefit system.

I would get the £10,000 UBI just as everyone else but I would also be taxed an extra £10,000 (or maybe more) which is fine.

Some people currently retire on a state pension of £6344pa so it *is* possible to stop work on 10k for sure. I certainly would.

I'm pretty sure only 50pc of people pay any tax at all. So under UBI you'd be paying 10k to offset your own UBI plus a minumum of an extra 10k to pay one other persons [1]. Which is all part of the viscious/virtuous circle of this policy. Loads of people give up work, which means the people in work are working for less and less takehome pay and therefore giving up. You can argue that's good (I certainly would!) but it would happen.

Incidently, I suspect that some oil rich nations are in a position to offer UBI to their citizens (or at least tax free living). If people don't want to work that's fine because they can just get foreign labour in. So it's not inherantly imposible. (I think in Iraq 90pc of the countries GDP comes from Oil and 10pc comes from people working, so it's pretty easy to do for some nations.)

[1] You need to lower that a bit because some/many non-tax payers will already be getting some state money.

You get to take back control over your life knowing that you have the freedom to sit in your pants and watch Jeremy Kyle for months at a time and still get the UBI.

haha, sure - sounds great.

But it's not very "universal" if some people net +£10,000 and some net +£0

it's the 100,000s of people who do neither that are the issue. Why should they be funded ?

Are there really that many politicians?!

If you set it at a level where people can have a tolerable life, then significant numbers of them have no need to work.

plyphon - Member

But it's not very "universal" if some people net +£10,000 and some net +£0

I've got some green cheese, do you want some?

And that means if you're lucky enough to have a job, you don't dare get fired because there are millions ready to replace you at a moments notice. That means you end up working every shift possible to avoid being let go for not being a "team player" and you stay late every day lest you be accused of "lack of culture fit"

So the employer ends up with even more power over you.

I'm confused do people want to work or not?

Unless, again - i'm missing something in this concept.

It allows the poor to say "No", and retain freedom of choice, you know; democracy. As opposed to forcing them to take 'worthless' and 'shit' jobs or otherwise their benefits are reduced or taken away, or choice as defined by the [s]mafia[/s] current government

That's what you're missing.

This system could work if we could rely on everyone not to be complete ****.

That would involve people just happily going about their own lives without working themselves up into a frenzy about what their neighbours are doing (or not doing)

Never gonna happen cos too many people are pathetic ****ing moaning ****stains, completely incapable of taking satisfaction in their own lives.

If you set it at a level where you can't have a decent life, then you need means tested extras, in which case the system is no different to any other means tested benefit system.

It is slightly different.

Disability/carer benefits for those who can't work - fair enough, they need more than UBI.

Currently, JSA is contingent on you looking for work and they take it away if you refuse jobs, no matter how shit (afaik). UBI would not be, which reduces the need for you to take shit jobs, and forces employers to make their jobs less shit.

In work benefits you only get if you are in work. UBI would top up a low paid or part time job, but also it would top up temporary jobs. You could work seasonally, quit when you want and still get money. You don't get JSA if you quit a job voluntarily, do you?

jobs less shit.

Yep. Crazy idea but maybe the jobs everyone wants should pay less and the essential jobs that we want someone else to do for us should pay more.

Economics 101

The government does not have it's own/any money.

Any money the government has is your money, it's collected in taxation.

No taxation and the government has no money.

Good luck with this plan as the massive wealth creating companies all scramble to relocate to more friendly economic countries.

Pure pie in the sky sixth formers thinking.

No taxation and the government has no money.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_creation#Money_creation_by_the_central_bank

Pure pie in the sky sixth formers thinking.

Dismissing something as pie in the sky thinking you know best - that's pretty much 6th form thinking right there 🙂

I'm not saying simply hand out ten grand a year to everyone. I think the idea needs to be explored - a lot - before doing it, because it's potentially world-changing, and maybe for the better. A lot of economists think it has legs too. Perhaps you'd better write in and tell them it's just 6th form thinking. That's sure to win the argument 🙂

Yep. Crazy idea but maybe the jobs everyone wants should pay less and the essential jobs that we want someone else to do for us should pay more.

Yeah. I earn quite a bit, but I don't work very hard. And when I do, it's fairly enjoyable. I also get lots of flexibility from my employer. Fair? No.

The government does not have it's own/any money.

[url= https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantitative_easing ]Quantative Easing[/url]

The government does not have it's own/any money.

Quantative Easing

That's one of several ways in which the government can create money. The main one I think is by regulating a fractional reserve banking system, which allows banks to increase money supply by lending far more than they hold in reserves.

Pure pie in the sky sixth formers thinking.

Still not sure whether they're dumb, communist, or dumb communists.