How would you police it for say people doing cash jobs etc so theres reduced tax revenue.

How is that different to now?

I also think a large portion of people would just leave their work.

A large portion? It's a popular belief, and very Daily Mail. But the same problem (real or otherwise) (small or large) applies to any support people receive, such as our current benefit system.

Some will enjoy being Consultant neuro surgeons .. some will enjoy cleaning sewers.

Oh, you're still here are you "chosen one"? Not opened another new account yet?

The incentives to do work will still be there, and money is one of them. I know people who work in that half of the water industry (you'll be unsurprised to hear there isn't much in the way of manual cleaning going on) and just like everyone else they earn to improve the lives of them and their families. That incentive would still be there with UBI, but the fear of penury would not.

Nonsense – thats the old ” starve them to work ” ethos. It works best when it set at a level that allows a basic decent standard of living and has a relatively slow taper.

A very valid criticism. My concern is that having seen the mess that Labour made of some of their well meaning benefit reforms that were about "empowering" people to make right the choices for the right reasons, a big chunk of the population don't have the right mindset to hold up their end of the bargain.

UBI only works if it’s an absolute base minimum for survival.

Nonsense – thats the old ” starve them to work ” ethos. It works best when it set at a level that allows a basic decent standard of living and has a relatively slow taper.

You make the same point. When I say 'base minimum' I mean a workable minimum which is what you mean by 'basic decent'.

a big chunk of the population don’t have the right mindset to hold up their end of the bargain.

A challenge that needs working on. The system needs to be created, kept and fine-tuned over many years. It'd take generations to change.

a big chunk of the population don’t have the right mindset to hold up their end of the bargain.

Perhaps, but for how many generations have workers been getting screwed over by employers and the governments acting in the interests of those employers. That kind of generational memory is going to take some time to shake off.

Some might take the piss (although you would have to define what taking the piss actually is), maybe even most would take the piss.

Believe it or not, I actually have faith in capitalism. Or rather, I have faith in capitalism where there is a level playing field. I believe the jobs that need to be done will be done even if everyone ends up having to pay more for certain things.

I think UBI is the key to making capitalism work. At the moment it is a very one sided system.

When I say ‘base minimum’ I mean a workable minimum which is what you mean by ‘basic decent’.

Ah - I thought you meant benefits levels

I think if I was able to pick and choose when I worked it would be better for everyone and I don’t think I’m alone

Hmm, not if too many people took up that option!

If UBI came in I would never work another day in my life

I also think a large portion of people would just leave their work.

Good! Whilst the main benefit of UBI is providing everyone with a basic liveable income and massively reducing bureaucracy, the other major side benefit is that it will free people from the shackles of jobs they hate, providing an enormous improvement in mental health problems across the country. It would also improve productivity as what's the point forcing people to do jobs they despise which results in them doing the bare minimum to avoid getting fired?

If we're going to solve problems like climate change and over-consumption then we need to abandon the religious myths we have built around the concept of work. My bet is that once we stop seeing work as something we must do and instead make it something we want to do, then the improvement in wellbeing and mental health would reduce the need to compensate by consuming stuff we don't need.

Ah – I thought you meant benefits levels

There has to be an incentive to work though otherwise half the country wouldn't do it and the economy would collapse leaving no money to pay for everyone's UBI. And people would resent paying for others' leisure even more than they do now.

It's not just a case of handing out the money, it needs to be very carefully planned and thought out. My big concern is that they'll try it badly, it'll be a disaster and it'll bury the idea forever and we'll be back to square 1 with the Tories having even more ammo in the fight to exploit everyone.

once we stop seeing work as something we must do and instead make it something we want to do

Unfortunately there are lots of jobs that need doing that not enough people actually want to do.

Unfortunately there are lots of jobs that need doing that not enough people actually want to do.

Lots of these jobs can be automated, the remaining ones that can't will have to pay people more to do them. The way we currently compensate people for the jobs they do is upside down. Why do sewage workers and refuse collectors get paid less than others who have nice easy office jobs?

Why do sewage workers and refuse collectors get paid less than others who have nice easy office jobs?

Workers are already paid according to how difficult it is to get people to do them. This is why UBI could well be eaten up by inflation because you'd need to pay more to get workers to the unpleasant jobs and then their costs would increase etc.

I'm going to make an assumption that collecting bins doesn't require a specialist skill, just hard work of course. A quick google suggests that a typical refuse collector salary is on a par with other office based jobs that don't require specialist skill. On the other hand, there are people who don't mind collecting bins and people who bitterly hate their office jobs. So who deserves more there? Who decides who gets more?

I don't support exploiting non-specialist/non professional etc workers, not at all, but this whole 'pay binmen more cos they work hard and it's unpleasant' thing is a much more difficult problem than it appears.

Why do sewage workers and refuse collectors get paid less than others who have nice easy office jobs?

I think you'll find the actual earnings for people in nice easy call centre office jobs don't compare well to what refuse collectors etc can earn. In some cases, not all, obviously.

There has to be an incentive to work though otherwise half the country wouldn’t do it and the economy would collapse leaving no money to pay for everyone’s UBI. And people would resent paying for others’ leisure even more than they do now.

That's the bit of the circle I struggle to square when trying to get my head around how it might actually work in the real world, and I don't have an answer.

Workers are already paid according to how difficult it is to get people to do them.

Not really. Barriers to entry play a huge role in the salary, whether that is requiring a university education when the job doesn't really require it or just having the right network of acquaintances.

And being a bin man involves working with heavy dangerous machinery. You need more 'skills' to do that job than to work in an office.

This is why UBI could well be eaten up by inflation because you’d need to pay more to get workers to the unpleasant jobs and then their costs would increase etc.

Which is why you'd have to combine UBI with a restructuring of the tax and monetary system using MMT to control inflation using fiscal policy and other economic tools. I'm not saying UBI doesn't create problems, of course it does, but the big question is whether the problems created by UBI or greater or less than the existing problems we have now created by our work-or-starve system which results in mass poverty, division and hopelessness and a few billionaires owning >50% of the wealth. It seems pretty clear to me what the bigger problem is.

On the other hand, there are people who don’t mind collecting bins and people who bitterly hate their office jobs.

This needs repeating. People need to remember that for everyone there are jobs they would hate to do (including very often the one they currently do), but which jobs those are varies from person to person. The security of UBI would lead to people moving about in the work force far more than they currently do... at first a nightmare for employers... while people take more chances, try new things, and can look to retrain or go back into education.

at first a nightmare for employers…

I don't see that being the case.

Or actually, 10 or 15 years ago that wouldn't be case. If it had been implemented at the same time as zero hours contracts became a thing it would have led to a flexible but financially secure workforce.

Now that employers have got zero hours contracts and employees don't have the financial security, implementing UBI will create a nightmare for employers because now the employees will be able to turn around and say no.

It's a nightmare I think they should have to deal with.

There has to be an incentive to work though otherwise half the country wouldn’t do it and the economy would collapse leaving no money to pay for everyone’s UBI.

Would it though? I see it as more of a balanced capitalism where workers and employers have equal power. If society decides that it's only willing to pay so much for a product or service and that product or service can't be provided because they would have to pay employees too much to provide it at that price then the product disappears.

Essential services and products are by definition essential and so they will be provided and people will just have to pay whatever price.

The other question you have to ask is if people aren't working are they just smoking weed and masturbating?

I think the answer is no. There are many ways to contribute to society that doesn't require a contract and money to change hands.

They have tried experiments with UBI (IIRC in parts of Canada/Switzerland) and it wasnt a great success.

3 Questions:
What monthly £ amount would you set UBI income at?
Who receives it?
How do you distribute it?

Depends on how you setup UBI. If you set it up in the extreme case of at medium income and heavy tax anyone who earn more than that then yes Accountant to bin man is possible. (also which medium income? for entire population, for age, if they have dependants etc.)

If not you would still need to have jobs paying different amounts to make the hassle of many jobs worth while (after tax and benefits) though and the part of you're income would now just be taken up by a more tax as it would be required to pay for the UBI so it wouldn't allow most people to changes to a different job. E.g. he Accountant to bin man.

You can easily end up in a situation where more of the population end up deeper into "the machine" and a elites just change with a narrower scope or maybe just a different scope of entry.

It may however make retaining slightly easier.

It’s a nightmare I think they should have to deal with.

I agree. And I said "at first"... there would be transitional problems, no point denying that even if you see it as the right path for us to go down.

3 Questions:
What monthly £ amount would you set UBI income at?
Who receives it?
How do you distribute it?

It's the same problems as taxation:
What rates should be set?
Who pays it?
How do you collect it?

They have tried experiments with UBI (IIRC in parts of Canada/Switzerland) and it wasnt a great success.

What are you basing that on? Everything I've read said it was either very successful or had no adverse effects.

I agree. And I said “at first”… there would be transitional problems, no point denying that even if you see it as the right path for us to go down.

Zero hour contracts haven't even been common for a generation. I remember being on one in 2005 and trying to explain to someone at the bank the concept of having a contract but only being contracted to work 0 hours. She couldn't get her head round it and eventually just said, 'Look, I don't understand what you're talking about so no, you can't have a loan.'

Transitioning from having zero hour contracts where the employer holds all the power to one where employee and employer share the power more equally may be less of a shock to the system than going from everyone being on full or part time contracts without UBI to more 0 hour contracts with UBI.

But yes, for employers losing the power they hold over employees it will be a nightmare. It'll be a dream for people on 0 hour contracts though.

The UBI is a good idea in principle IMO. It just needs to be set at the right rate to cover the basics. People can always earn more to pay for booze, buy a nice bike etc, etc. I don't believe for a second that hordes of people would just leave their job in order to stagnate on a sustenance UBI. And a lot of people just like working. I know a few retired people who still work. They don't do it for the money. The real benefits thieves are the landlords. UBI kind of already exists in the form of Housing Benefits. How are all these low paid workers paying their ££££ rent? They're not. Housing benefit is. A lot of people are trapped on benefits because if they took on work they'd be liable for the disgusting rental charges. The housing market is ****ed. More social housing needs to be built.

3 Questions:
What monthly £ amount would you set UBI income at?
Who receives it?
How do you distribute it?

1) The Living Wage
2) Everyone (hence Universal)
3) Weekly BACS transfer

nice easy call centre office jobs

As call centres are the modern "Dark Satanic Mills" (with similar employment practices) they could in no way be referred to as easy.

EDIT

a big chunk of the population don’t have the right mindset to hold up their end of the bargain.

Some of this cohort shouldn't be in the workplace at all as they are either unfit physically or would be detrimental to the team. We can afford to carry some people to improve the situation for the rest.

And a lot of people just like working.

Actually, I think everyone likes working.

Of course, if you define work as something you are contracted to do in order to get money then most people don't like it.

If you define it as using your time to contribute to society when you are under no obligation to do so then I think everyone likes it.

Some of this cohort shouldn’t be in the workplace at all as they are either unfit physically or would be detrimental to the team. We can afford to carry some people to improve the situation for the rest.

Definitely this. Some people have caused me to do so much extra work it would be better if they weren't there.

Sometimes I have been that person.

I don't need carried all the time but if I only worked when I was in the right mental state to make a positive contribution it would be better for everyone.

1) The Living Wage

So ~£1,500 per month?
£18k per year

£8.4bn a year

How does the treasury raise that additional amount?
What % of the population feels like £18k a year is plenty to live off, decides to leave the labour market and increases the issues caused by the OPs question?

2) Everyone (hence Universal)
3) Weekly BACS transfer

The issues with points 2&3 are the most vulnerable people in society are those who are outside of the system.
The Homeless guy or the Afghan refugee
Both of these groups wont have a NI number/bank account/passport, and so you end up excluding people we should be helping the most

How does the treasury raise that additional amount?

Taxation on businesses would be increased (and their wage bills would decrease).

The incentive to cut costs by reducing staffing would be reduced as a bonus.

you end up excluding people we should be helping the most

Is that a new problem that UBI would introduce?

The issues with points 2&3 are the most vulnerable people in society are those who are outside of the system.
The Homeless guy or the Afghan refugee
Both of these groups wont have a NI number/bank account/passport, and so you end up excluding people we should be helping the most

Are you really telling me you can't think of any potential solution to this problem?

I would imagine if UBI was on offer it wouldn't matter how you chose to register people most people would jump through the hoops whether they were Afghan refugees, homeless, or whatever.

The only people you might have trouble giving UBI to were the people who were actively trying to avoid it. So maybe the answer should be 'Everyone except people who actively refuse to accept it.'

It sounds like you are just grasping for reasons, tbh.

Did you have any luck finding anything to back up your claim that UBI experiments haven't been a success?

Actually, I think everyone likes working.

Of course, if you define work as something you are contracted to do in order to get money then most people don’t like it.

If you define it as using your time to contribute to society when you are under no obligation to do so then I think everyone likes it.

Which planet do you live on??
If I had the financial freedom i'd be out everyday riding my bike, in the pub with my mates and making sweet love to Fiona from HR all the time.

Some people love there jobs because its a vocation. Nurses - amazing people.
How many people would come and collect your bins because they enjoy it?
Or pick you up in a taxi after a night out, because it was a nice thing to do?

3 Questions:
What monthly £ amount would you set UBI income at?
Who receives it?
How do you distribute it?

1) The Living Wage
2) Everyone (hence Universal)
3) Weekly BACS transfer

while at first glance I agree, each one of these has its foibles.

1) There is a differnet rate for London (afaik), primarily tied to housing cost. Surely this needs to be vaguely expanded. I'd personally argue that it should provide a bedroom to yourself, and some living and cooking area, and the ability to purchase and prepare a varied diet purchased from supermarkets; and travel about your semi-local area, whether by private or public transport; and dress yourself in clean clothing appropriate for the days climate. None of these are easy to define.

2) Agreed or its not universal. However - kids, do they get it on their 18th birthday, or the day they leave compulsory education? Immigrants - I imagine we would need to rework the concept of working visas and all the other hoops people must jump through. How long and how many hours a week must you work to get your residency, and how do you acheive this if per-hour pay is very low because every other person in the country only uses it to top up their income

3) many people in society cope with monthly salary payments, others struggle with budgeting weekly. If you are going to help those thath struggle, consider their pattern of outgoings. Monthly rent? maybe its better that their UBI comes in a day before that is due.
Of course the "payday" blowout is going to be the day you will want the most leisure industry workers, and the day you are going to have the least being available for work.

Which planet do you live on??

It's not planet Daily Mail, that's for sure.

Maybe you don't like to contribute to society so you assume no one else does. If that's the case then I'm pretty sure you're in a minority so I'm not too worried.

I think there would be an initial period of severe disruption with people moving to jobs they like rather than just for the money, which will need to be budgeted for.

But at the same time you could scrap the entire benefits system, which must cost a fortune to administrate, with all the checks, advisors meetings, and paperwork across a bewildering array of different benefits and entitlement levels.

while at first glance I agree, each one of these has its foibles.

So we're all agreed it's a good thing and should be implemented as soon as possible and now we're down to thrashing out the details.

That's good.

Did you have any luck finding anything to back up your claim that UBI experiments haven’t been a success?

Reports from trails done in Canada and Finland.
https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20200624-canadas-forgotten-universal-basic-income-experiment
https://institutions.newscientist.com/article/2242937-universal-basic-income-seems-to-improve-employment-and-well-being/

Now check the small print as these were not Universal.
They were targeted at the poorer end of the social economic scale so in effect they were "means tested" (nothing universal about it)

Yes, it did provide benefits for those in the trial, but neither country decided to continue or roll it out for further studies/larger areas.

Which planet do you live on??
If I had the financial freedom i’d be out everyday riding my bike, in the pub with my mates and making sweet love to Fiona from HR all the time.

But what if your 'financial freedom' (ie UBI) did not extend so far as to allow you to buy a fancy mountain bike or spunk £25 a day in the pub? And it just covered your rent, basic foodstuffs and leccy?

We're not talking about giving everyone an IT manager salary here. It's a basic income, so that people are not at risk of homelessness or malnutrition if they lose their job.

Or pick you up in a taxi after a night out, because it was a nice thing to do?

Someone would probably do it for the money.

No one is suggesting Taxis become free to use and the drivers get paid nothing for their efforts.

But at the same time you could scrap the entire benefits system, which must cost a fortune to administrate, with all the checks, advisors meetings, and paperwork across a bewildering array of different benefits and entitlement levels.

We could combine all of these things into a simple single means tested payment.

Thats what I suggested about 5 years before universal credit was introduced...

If I had the financial freedom i’d be out everyday riding my bike, in the pub with my mates and making sweet love to Fiona from HR all the time.

If I had financial freedom I'd do the same.

However, UBI is not financial freedom in that it will be enough that you can continue to live your current lifestyle without having to work (you might have to choose between keeping your bike running and going to the pub). Presumably your special time with Fiona would be unaffected unless your relationship has financial demands.

If UBI were implemented I don't think I'd quit my job straight away.

However, I'd want a zero hours contract where both me and my work agreed when I was going to work. I'd also want to work remotely and move to a more rural location.

If they weren't interested in that I'd quit and move to the country anyway. I'd live quietly until I could find an employer willing to give me a 0 hour contract and let me work remotely.

All the time I'd keep working on my projects which may or may not lead to a business.

Reports from trails done in Canada and Finland.
https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20200624-canadas-forgotten-universal-basic-income-experiment
https://institutions.newscientist.com/article/2242937-universal-basic-income-seems-to-improve-employment-and-well-being/

You realise that neither one of those supports the case against UBI?

In fact, I haven't found a study yet that supports the case against UBI.

I don't think UBI should be at a level where you can live comfortably for the rest of your live. A basic income is just that, enough to eat, pay rent etc,. and nothing else. You could almost see it as everyone is provided with a basic place to live and basic food to eat.

Want a shiny new bike, get a job
Want a car, get a job
Want anything but a basic existence, get a job

Majority of people would get a job and not just for money but also for mental well being. It may sound great to sit on your arse getting the real basics covered but just try it for a while and see how bored you get, how your mental health ultimately declines and so on.

If someone gave me 18k a year and I didn't have to work I'd take that. Its not much less than I earn now. In fact its probably my net income

I'd probably volunteer somewhere doing gardening or outdoors stuff. Itd be lovely.

Or 18k n bugger off abroad somewhere cheap?

I think sometime on here people hold the general population in too higher regard than they deserve.

If work was fun they'd not pay you for it.

If work was fun they’d not pay you for it.

Believe it or not, there's is a huge amount of work done in the world no one gets paid for. The problem is that people only count it as work if you get paid for it.

That attitude needs to change.

I’d probably volunteer somewhere doing gardening or outdoors stuff.

I think many people would take this option, if they were prepared to live with limited means. Why would that be a bad thing?

If UBI were implemented I don’t think I’d quit my job straight away.

However, I’d want a zero hours contract where both me and my work agreed when I was going to work. I’d also want to work remotely and move to a more rural location.

If they weren’t interested in that I’d quit and move to the country anyway. I’d live quietly until I could find an employer willing to give me a 0 hour contract and let me work remotely.

All the time I’d keep working on my projects which may or may not lead to a business.

Doesnt this contradict what you said above?

Surely with all that spare time you would be doing positive community projects, such as cleaning hospitals, teaching orphans to read and researching the cure for cancer?

You realise that neither one of those supports the case against UBI?

Fully aware, but neither of these studies lead to UBI being implemented.

If it was such a great idea both Countries would have adopted it.
Why didnt they?

Why didnt they?

Because most voters are emotionally dead set against "others" getting "money for nothing". Showing that it can practically work is only a small part of the huge political change that would be required to get the public on side.

You need more ‘skills’ to do that job than to work in an office.

Depends on what one is doing in the office, doesn't it? Take much-derided jobs such as project mangers. There are useless PMs who give no value and just get paid; but there are PMs who carry entire projects and even businesses with high levels of skill, intelligence and hard work.

How many people would come and collect your bins because they enjoy it?
Or pick you up in a taxi after a night out, because it was a nice thing to do?

Automation is a huge part of this. Both those things could be automated, in the not-too-distant future.

Also - voluntary work. Decent UBI could result in loads more volunteering, which would be a roundabout way of funding the services people want without any of the politics. You'd see people offering actual jobs e.g. learning assistant for disadvantaged kids, but with no pay, and people might choose to do it because they want to help.

Ultimately it would mean that the less socially appreciated jobs continued to be difficult to fill.
Those fruit picking jobs and care home jobs are still going to be peoples last choices because they are very tough jobs to do well.

UBI is fantastic in theory, although implemented in what we understand society as working, its full of major flaws.

Surely with all that spare time you would be doing positive community projects, such as cleaning hospitals, teaching orphans to read and researching the cure for cancer?

Where did I say any of that?

You seem to think there are only two options, volunteer or work as it's currently defined.

If you take the definition of work as contributing to society without being obligated to do so then many things you probably don't think of as work become work.

Helping your friends out is work. Driving people to the airport, helping move furniture, doing their shopping if they're sick.

You can also contribute in more general ways. Even giving advice on how to fix someone's bike on an internet forum is a type of work.

Look at Linux and the army of volunteers who work together to make a pretty damn good operating system.

You need to look beyond the current definitions.

I think many people would take this option, if they were prepared to live with limited means. Why would that be a bad thing?

Cos some one needs to pay for it would be my 1st thought.

Yes I know 1000s of hours a week are given as volunteer hours. Which is great.

But I'd not be sitting here doing my job as a volunteer I'll tell you that.

If it was such a great idea both Countries would have adopted it.
Why didnt they?

It's a political mountain to climb. Those pilots are needed to help establish what would actually happen, how peopel would feel, and to build a case for doing larger studies and ultimately implementing it. As said, this absolutely cannot happen overnight, it'd take a generation at the very least. These pilots are the start of it happening.

Someone up there compared UBI with benefits - yes, in principle, but you have to fight for your benefits and someone is always trying to take them away from you; and the state needs to employ hundreds of thousands of people to administer it all. This is why it's popular with Tories as well as lefties - it's hassle-free and cheap, and effective since the people who really need it will get it without having to go through Kafkaesque bureaucracy.

If it was such a great idea both Countries would have adopted it.
Why didnt they?

Because there are still too many people like you, basically.

Well done.

But I’d not be sitting here doing my job as a volunteer I’ll tell you that.

What would you do then, if you could get say £15kpa without working. Sit around and watch telly all day?

How many people would come and collect your bins because they enjoy it?
Or pick you up in a taxi after a night out, because it was a nice thing to do?

Believe it or not, not everybody dreams of working in an office, or even dry-stone walling or 'outdoorsy' stuff which everyone seems to hold in such high regard around here. A taxi driver gets to sit on his ass, on his own, and has no supervisor breathing down his neck and can work when he wants to, to fit around other commitments. And it's pure guesswork here as I don't know anyone who works on the bins, but I imagine there's decent camaraderie between the crew. It's stress free, and when you're done, you're done. So let's say that the UBI covers your basic needs, if you want to get dressed up in expensive clothes and go drinking every week, or take lots of holidays, or send your offspring to Eaton, then you'd best start driving a cab or get on the bins.

But I’d not be sitting here doing my job as a volunteer I’ll tell you that.

The real question is how much would they have to pay you to do your current job if you were already getting UBI.

If your employer can't get people to do your job then they have to raise wages. If they have to raise wages then they may have to put their prices up.

If your employer can't bridge the gap between what customers are willing to pay and what they have to pay their staff then they need to automate your job or just accept that in a society where there is no 'work or starve' incentive their business is not viable.

Cab driving is an interesting one - or perhaps its just a more simple thought experiment.

If everyone's "extra" income is taxed very highly (which will be needed to afford everyones UBI) then how much are you charging for a taxi ride to make it even vaguely worth your time of day.

To end up with a net of £5/hour (which is pure "fun money" for you, as your existential needs are met by UBI) how much are you having to charge to take people home from the pub?

If person B's post night out taxi is suddenly so much more expensive, how much extra-extra work do they need to take on, given that their choice of recreational activity has suddenly leapt in price.

Of course, there will be loads of people happy to brew craft beer and fix high end bikes for basically free, so we'll all be okay...

The real question is how much would they have to pay you to do your current job if you were already getting UBI

UBI plus what i'm on now

You just end up going full circle and ending up where you started.

You'd have a short term benefit, but eventually increased inflation would erode UBI as increased disposable income would cause less pressure on increasing efficiency.

FYI i'm all for helping the vulnerable. I work for a charity...

Its just that UBI is such a bad idea.
Its so far to the left that even Soviet Russia didnt implement it.

Its just that UBI is such a bad idea.

That's like saying benefits are a bad idea, or tax is a bad idea. There are so many variations, so many things you could do.

It could be a simple safety net, to ensure that you don't starve if you are fired or need to quit. That would be just a better way of implementing benefits. You could raise employees NIC for employed staff by the same amount as UBI to cover it (perhaps). But you'd have to implement new rules that allowed people's mortgages/loans etc to be suspended if you were out of work otherwise it wouldn't be of any benefit for a lot of people just like unemployment benefit wouldn't really be for me as someone mortgaged and with car loans etc.

You are a good example of someone who doesn't understand UBI. The problem is you are in the majority and getting ti across to that majority is always going to be an uphill struggle.

I love here sometimes.

If your not a died red socialist your a ****.

I've volunteered my time with various groups including organisations and individual events.

I'm in the minority of the population that does this. Where all the people on part time jobs or unemployed or even the other full time employees when it comes to volunteering?

People are dicks and fundamentally self centred. Throwing a ubi at people isn't going to change that.

@molgrips no mate. I'd log on here and spend my time looking at your automotive paranoia@@😉

As I said I'd have to do something but I'd not be sat in front of a PC chasing sales figures

Its so far to the left that even Soviet Russia didnt implement it.

There was universal and mandatory employment in the USSR so it wasn't really an issue...

Its just that UBI is such a bad idea.

Ah yes, and you came to that conclusion by looking at the studies that showed it wasn't a bad idea but because it wasn't immediately implemented nation wide then obviously wasn't a good idea. Even though the studies showed it was a good idea.

Let's face it, you believe what you feel is true rather than what can be shown to be true by data.

There really is no point in arguing with people's feelings.

There was universal and mandatory employment in the USSR so it wasn’t really an issue…

so forced to work in order to recieve money by which to cover your basic living needs?

Where all the people on part time jobs or unemployed or even the other full time employees when it comes to volunteering?

Probably dealing with the mental health issues that are part and parcel of feeling like you are a 'drain' on society.

Many of the studies into UBI show that it reduces stress, improves mental health, reduces divorces, and just generally improves individual well being and society in general.

It's difficult to worry about others when you're worried about yourself.

If your not a died red socialist your a ****.

UBI has nothing to do with socialism. It's one of the few ideas that people on both the left and right have embraced. It's also one of the few ideas that people on both the left and right are strongly opposed to.

Or sat in their own little bubble in the pub or at an event not even realising people have volunteered to make an event happen?

UBI has nothing to do with socialism.

Indeed. A lot of traditional socialists oppose UBI because socialism is obsessed with the cult of work and hasn't got it's head around MMT. Without work there is no proletariat and class struggle. Where the right and left differ on UBI is the level of income, with the left wanting more, and the right wanting it to be low so that people are forced to work for bosses so they can get rich.

But what problem is UBI trying to solve?

We already have a system in place to help the vulnerable.
Ok, the benefits system isnt perfect (far from it), but its there to help people.
You could just increase the amounts paid via that process. eg. keep the £20 a week universal credit amount, or keep more people in that system (reverse disability benefit reforms).

The problem with UBI is it doesn't target the help where it is needed.

Depending which definition you use ~20% of the UK population live in poverty.

Wouldnt it make more sense to give 100% of the available funds to those in poverty?
Rather than giving it to everyone, when 80% of those people dont really need it?

Or sat in their own little bubble in the pub or at an event not even realising people have volunteered to make an event happen?

Maybe.

If you want me to say that the majority of people are ****s then it's not going to happen. I believe that there are some total ****s out there and I believe most people act selfishly sometimes.

However, I think circumstances and the way society is organised often has a large part to play in people acting selfishly. I also think UBI and the societal changes that would come with it would reduce that.

But if you think that UBI won't work because most people are fundamentally ****s I doubt there's much I or anyone else can do to change your mind.

But what problem is UBI trying to solve?

Most of us no longer have job security, no matter what work we do.

The employer/employee contact has long since changed for nearly everyone.

For that reason, and others, is it time to consider everyone having some degree of income security that isn't link to their employment?

If not, why not?

But what problem is UBI trying to solve?

Is that a joke? Have you had a look around you lately? Homelessness, food and fuel poverty, millions on anti-depressants, increasing inequality and division within society, and just general unhappiness and misery.

And then there's big stuff like climate change, ecological collapse and natural resources depletion. If we're ever going to live sustainably then we need to break the destructive cycle of consumerism and the assumption of infinite growth. UBI is one of the things that will help that.

For that reason, and others, is it time to consider everyone having some degree of income security that isn’t link to their employment?

You mean something like Universal Credit?

We already have that

That isn't what that is. In fact, that is deliberately designed to deny the recipient income for a period of time if they have just lost their job, and to scare people into jobs by threatening them with penury if they aren't compliant. I'm talking long term income security, not discretionary, or delayed, or temporary infilling of income.

The tax free threshold is approaching a universal benefit in that everyone gets it as long as you are working. Or an alternative could be remove it but any tax raised from this portion of income is used purley for those struggling the most.

Is that a joke? Have you had a look around you lately? Homelessness, food and fuel poverty, millions on anti-depressants, increasing inequality and division within society, and just general unhappiness and misery.

It would help if you actually read my post.

I'm all for helping the vulnerable.
But doesnt it make sense to target that help towards the people who need it?
That bottom 20% of society that is in poverty.

Instead of Universally giving everyone £20 a week
We could give that bottom 20% £100 a week

You wouldn't be "giving" high earners anything... the tax rates would ensure that the real benefit is felt by those who are currently worse off, without them having to jump through hoops for help.

My Mum used to work in the benefits system. She came from a poor family so having a secure job like that was a big deal. She had to leave because she couldn't handle seeing people who knew how to work the system getting everything they needed while people who didn't know or didn't want to 'game' the system weren't able to get what they needed.

The problem with only helping those who need it is you have to identify who needs it. It is impossible to make a fair system. There will always be those who need help but can't get it and those who don't need as much help getting more than they need.

On the other hand, UBI will make a far more flexible workforce which is something the world needs.

Take the current HGV driver shortage. I'm sure there are plenty who are miserable in their current jobs but they need the income to pay the mortgage. They can't change because it's a major commitment to change careers and there's no guarantee they'll like once they are doing it. Not to mention the fact it's unclear how long before driverless lorries become common. Could be 5 years, could be never.

UBI fulfills the needs of the left to ensure that no one is left behind while it fulfills the needs of the right to have a true capitalist system where businesses only survive if they can bridge the gap between what the customer is willing to pay with what people demand to do the job.

We already have a sort of UBI, with benefits & even minimum wage, it's just pitifully small, 40% of people on UC are in work.

Brexit worker shortages might help with a short term wage boost, but it's the failure and collapse of the union system that has led to such poor salaries & conditions

We could give that bottom 20% £100 a week

Because there are huge benefits beyond simply supporting those at the bottom. If we're going to live in a world with increasing automation, and more temporary and transitory work, then we need to give everyone the freedom to live independent from the need to work. Otherwise we'll end up with an even more stratified and polarised society of the employed, and permanently unemployed.