All of this comes from a cohesive society, I can’t buy that experience with money, being poor or rich would make no difference to that experience.

Which is one of the reasons the rich have to pay taxes. Taxes pay for the cohesive society that stops the poor murdering them in their beds. John Locke (among other) figured this out a few hundred years ago.

You can keep your Ayn Rand / Friedrich Hayek fantasies I’m happy to live in a society that will help me when I’m sick, educate my children and keep me safe as I walk the streets.

in order for capitalism to succeed, there must be winners and losers, otherwise it fails.

That’s true of all economic systems. The difference is under capitalism if you design a rubbish gearbox you lose your job and end up in a worse job, or on benefits. That motivates you to design better gearboxes. Whereas under Communism if you design a rubbish gearbox you get taken into the car park and excecuted. That motivates you to design better gearboxes.

Who’s arguing for communism? (see what I mean, obfuscation…)

So. Where is this £500 per month coming from?

I believe that it would be possible to fund UBI by abolishing the existing benefits system (and its inherent inefficiencies)and adding a modest rise in taxes. The idea that the rich would be taxed until the pips squeak is wide of the mark.

I like the idea of UBI, but if you don’t, then what should we do instead? An ageing population and automation isn’t doing the current arrangements any favours, and it’s only going to get worse.

It all hinges on the concept of having a high level of technology and robotic automation.

Until we are there, I don’t think it’s worth speculating. It certainly wouldn’t work with todays level of automation.

There are many minimum wage/sh!t jobs that people would drop in an instant the moment they receive enough money to live on without working. Society would grind to a halt.

You think the dude who goes round on a Saturday morning power washing all the vomit off the pavements does that simply for his love of removing vomit? To that person, it’s probably not worth having UBI + income as that job is so bad, he might as well just go on UBI alone. Probably would have the same standard of living.

remember that in order for capitalism to succeed, there must be winners and losers, otherwise it fails.

Yes of course, and I am not arguing against capitalism. The issue is what happens to you when you ‘lose’? And what happens to everyone in between? And what about the people who are just crap players?

There are many minimum wage/sh!t jobs that people would drop in an instant the moment they receive enough money to live on without working.

This is what I meant about inflation. People who need cleaners would be forced to pay higher wages to tempt people off basic. That would cost them more, so the prices of whatever they make would rise. But the cleaners, now richer, would be able to afford the stuff so could pay, and then we’d end up back at square 1. Inflation.

BUT on the other hand – is it right to be forcing people into shit jobs all their lives just to put a roof over their heads? What kind of a life is that?

You think the dude who goes round on a Saturday morning power washing all the vomit off the pavements does that simply for his love of removing vomit?

Maybe with UBI he can have every other Saturday morning off?

I like the idea of UBI, but if you don’t, then what should we do instead?

Well, the article in the OP is proposing targetted benefits, not UBI. So maybe that’s what Portes and Moore think?

Well, the article in the OP is proposing targetted benefits, not UBI. So maybe that’s what Portes and Moore think?

Targeted benefits is what we have now.

Maybe with UBI he can have every other Saturday morning off?

Yes. So he’s paying half as much into the the system and taking far more out. Which is why it doesn’t work.

Quibbling over whether perople will give up work all together or just do half as much doesn’t change the point which is the whole idea of using taxation to pay people enough to give up work can’t work.

Yes. So he’s paying half as much into the the system and taking far more out. Which is why it doesn’t work.

Well the point is that it’s a restructuring of benefits and perhaps some higher taxation for richer people. A lot of people suggest that it would in fact work when you do the sums.

You have to make UBI just enough to have your basic needs met (or just meet them directly as in the original article), but low enough so that people will still want to work. Paying everyone £50k a year clearly won’t work.

But in this specific example, he’s taking every other saturday off but someone else is covering him, since it still needs doing.

The difference is under capitalism if you design a rubbish gearbox you lose your job and end up in a worse job, or on benefits

I would suggest that the workers of the man who’s company designed the rubbish gearbox, lose their jobs and end up on benefits. The man the owns the company is protected under the law, has his debts written off, and gets to start again after he’s learnt how to make a slightly better gearbox (or at least one that does the job sufficiently well at the least cost), that may or may not succeed this time (repeat ad nausea)

I would suggest that the workers of the man who’s company designed the rubbish gearbox, lose their jobs and end up on benefits. The man the owns the company is protected under the law, has his debts written off, and gets to start again after he’s learnt how to make a slightly better gearbox (or at least one that does the job sufficiently well at the least cost), that may or may not succeed this time (repeat ad nausea)

Well, yeah, I’m not disputing that excecution is a stronger motivator than the Capitalist motivator. I’m merely saying that all economic systems require motivation to work.

You have to make UBI just enough to have your basic needs met (or just meet them directly as in the original article), but low enough so that people will still want to work.

Well yes, obviously UBI works fine if you keep it low enough that you can’t live on it or work significantly less. But if you do that, what’s the point in UBI? UBI just becomes people buying a small portion of their own food and houses via a middle man instead of direct.

But in this specific example, he’s taking every other saturday off but someone else is covering him, since it still needs doing.

Yes, so a job that used to support one person’s house and food, now has to support two people’s. With the extra money coming from other people. Who are also working far less.

There are many minimum wage/sh!t jobs that people would drop in an instant the moment they receive enough money to live on without working. Society would grind to a halt.

the problem here, is I suspect you’ve written that without a bit of irony, or self examination…

If, as a society (or an individual in your case) are able to admit that we are prepared to have an underclass of people doing our shit jobs (your expression) paying them as little as we can, while admitting in the same sentence that without them our society would fail, then I think grinding to a halt is probably what the system we’ve managed to develop deserves quite frankly.

What about positive motivation rather than negative? As in “If I go to work I can have a new bike” rather than “if I don’t go to work I’ll starve”.

If, as per the suggestion, the state simply met basic needs and gave you NO disposable income, people would soon get out to work. No Sky TV, no pub, no sport, nothing.

But would people work the same way, and would employers work the same way? The relationship would certainly change.

I’m merely saying that all economic systems require motivation to work.

so you agree that the motivation/reward/power should rest with those that work then, comrade? 😉

If, as per the suggestion, the state simply met basic needs and gave you NO disposable income, people would soon get out to work. No Sky TV, no pub, no sport, nothing.

You’ve just given an example of one job needing to support two people with UBI. So you’ve already conceded the point that people will work a lot less.

so you agree that the motivation/reward/power should rest with those that work then, comrade?

Withdraw the vote from people who don’t work? You might find support for that. What about retired people? Do they get a vote?

molgrips – Member
What about positive motivation rather than negative?

don’t be daft, the whip must be cracked!

You’ve just given an example of one job needing to support two people with UBI. So you’ve already conceded the point that people will work a lot less.

No, not needing. This is for people who want half a job.

The vast majority of people would still work, I reckon. The people who earn tons of money because they are driven to succeed, they will still work. Companies will still make and sell stuff and generate cash. The economy would still operate, I’m pretty sure of it.

The question is, could we make it work?

The question is, could we make it work?

With half the people on this thread, aye. With the other half, no. There in lies the problem.

nickc – Member
the problem here, is I suspect you’ve written that without a bit of irony, or self examination…

If, as a society (or an individual in your case) are able to admit that we are prepared to have an underclass of people doing our shit jobs (your expression) paying them as little as we can, while admitting in the same sentence that without them our society would fail, then I think grinding to a halt is probably what the system we’ve managed to develop deserves quite frankly.

Absolutely, I agree with that fully.

But the question is, how do you make the life of someone doing a shit job (my expression) better?

To me UBI seems to be a massive over engineering of the solution to that question. People want to introduce a blanket monthly income to all citizens, with an incredibly complex middle layer of money taxation and distribution all because we can’t admit we don’t pay street cleaners enough?

I don’t know what the answer is, but to me, the answer isn’t (yet) UBI. It might be, and I hope it will be, in another 50/100 years but I don’t think for the foreseeable future it would work.

pay them more money, but you aren’t willing to do that either.

molgrips – Member

The vast majority of people would still work, I reckon. The people who earn tons of money because they are driven to succeed, they will still work. Companies will still make and sell stuff and generate cash. The economy would still operate, I’m pretty sure of it.

But doesn’t this just encourage and accelerate wealth inequality? The very thing it is meant to solve.

Because then you have the middle class and up earning their already existing good wages, with those who choose not to work falling behind at an accelerated rate because they have less income than if they stuck with their 12k a year job they just jacked in.

seosamh77 – Member
pay them more money, but you aren’t willing to do that either.

Am I not?

Molgrips. Step back to the 70s/80s.

Increased Home owner ship had ulterior motives. What was that then. Sold to the layman the utopian dream .

Reality- get the working class out their cooncil houses so they cannot afford to strike….

plyphon – Member
seosamh77 – Member
pay them more money, but you aren’t willing to do that either.
Am I not?

I don’t see many cleaners on 30k.

But the question is, how do you make the life of someone doing a shit job (my expression) better?

By perhaps giving them a boost to their wages that is not based on welfare benefits as a punitive measure? (as they are currently), I dunno, maybe a universal payment given to everyone in society? And perhaps re-ordering society so that it is not directed solely towards the amassing of vast wealth by a tiny few. This is not beyond our imagination but it does mean a revolution. Along with revolutions in how we allocate resources, choose not pollute, and automate our production.

Missed this so far but probably a good thing. UBI is one of my favourite subjects though. The way I see it is that it’s a simple decision between whether we want to live in a society where everyone has the basics of life (food, water, shelter, sanitation, healthcare etc) provided, along with some other economically strategic luxuries (education, transport, internet etc), or whether we are ok with tripping over homeless people in our cities, being the victims of petty crime, observing the daily depressing sights of urban and social decay, and exposing our kids to horrors they shouldn’t have to see (ever had a child ask you why that homeless man is so dirty, covered in scabs and sitting in the street in the rain?). This stuff isn’t rocket science, we either abandon our jealous prejudices about people ‘getting something for nothing’, or we continue with the status quo. I know what I’d prefer.

But the question is, how do you make the life of someone doing a shit job (my expression) better?

Would it be entirely illogical to suggest that the shitter the job, the more someone should be paid for it? Why do people who clear fatbergs from sewers get paid less than computer programmers in a nice warm office? Who creates more value to the rest of society?

you why that homeless man is so dirty, covered in scabs and sitting in the street in the rain

Massive sweeping generalisation but an honest question.

Do you think basic needs met would stop petty crime or homelessness ?

Do you think basic needs met would stop petty crime or homelessness ?

Nope.

Would it reduce the cases where petty crime and homelessness are driven by poverty?

Probably.

Do you think basic needs met would stop petty crime or homelessness ?

No but I think it’s self-evident that it would massively reduce it. Been through one of our cities recently? I walk through Manchester Piccadilly gardens every day. It’s descent in the past few years from a reasonably pleasant public space to a horrific human zoo of open drug taking, defecation and all round squalor is not coincidental with who has been in government in that time.

I (mostly) agree with dazh.
Why can’t mankind, a civilization that has been around for this long, not come up with a system where EVERYONE has the basics for life provided and then work (whatever that work is) enough to get an amount of disposable income to spend on luxuries, but also not so much as to not have time to enjoy those luxuries? Where we all have somewhere safe to live with food/water to survive and then we all do the jobs that need doing to allow the luxury to happen??

Trail_Rat basic needs would CERTIANLY stop homelessness as somewhere to live is a basic need.

Do you think basic needs met would stop petty crime or homelessness ?

Reduce homelessness to 0.

Petty crime would go through the roof. Millions of people with no need to work but:

1) Disposable income of 0
2) ~60 extra free hours a week
3) No career so no need to avoid a criminal record
4) Higher truancy, because edcuation has little importance if you don’t need to work

It could be designed to get people to start stealing.

Really so giving someone a roof over their head would stop the mental issues caused by drug taking/fighting for our country etc etc that stops people functioning normally in a house enviroment (spoken as someone who spent a summer cleaning up and refurbing flats that were dss rented to these people who were trying to reform but would occasionally relapse….)

Faeces on the roof wasnt uncommon , burning the floor boards and selling the pipe work/boiler/rads for scrap were pretty normal ventures for them .

Basic needs doesnt cover these guys basic needs , houses and food are what we determine our basic needs to be but others have other basic needs

outofbreath – Member
Do you think basic needs met would stop petty crime or homelessness ?
Reduce homelessness to 0.

Petty crime would go through the roof. Millions of people with no need to work but:

1) Disposable income of 0
2) ~60 extra free hours a week
3) No career so no need to avoid a criminal record
4) Higher truancy, because edcuation has little importance if you don’t need to work

It could be designed to get people to start stealing.

there’s that low opinion of people again.

Why can’t mankind, a civilization that has been around for this long, not come up with a system where EVERYONE has the basics for life provided and then work (whatever that work is) enough to get an amount of disposable income to spend on luxuries, but also not so much as to not have time to enjoy those luxuries? Where we all have somewhere safe to live with food/water to survive and then we all do the jobs that need doing to allow the luxury to happen??

In some places it has worked. Back in the day there were Islands in the Pacific where food was plentiful and required almost no effort to gather plus the need for shelter could be rudimentary. With almost no work to be done they spent their entire lives doing whatever they felt like.

Compare that to the UK where gathering food and providing shelter is a permanant strgugle and (due to the seasonal nature of food growing here) requires organization.

Mind you one of the things the Pacific Islanders used to fill their spare time was warfare against each other.

There is no reason the state can’t innovate (It has and can massively), not everything should be left to the market economy, which has been on its knees plenty of times needing state intervention. We don’t call ourselves Socialists then.

The point is: is it better to have a market driven economy where profit is sent to other countries or worse other countries’ state utilities or have it go back to your own? Because we already do the former.

It’s time to figure out which stuff benefits the market economy and which should be swallowed by the state for the better of everyone.

And perhaps re-ordering society so that it is not directed solely towards the amassing of vast wealth by a tiny few.

Absolutely.

Really so giving someone a roof over their head would stop the mental issues caused by drug taking/fighting for our country etc etc

No, but no-one has suggested it would, I don’t think a universal payment would rid us of all mental health issues, but would it do so for those mental health issues that are caused by poverty? Certainly. wouldn’t you think?

If then that frees up a budget of money to help those people who’s mental health isn’t caused by poverty, then that’s a benefit as well, no?

outofbreath – Member
With almost no work to be done they spent their entire lives doing whatever they felt like.

Perish the thought that people aren’t put to work to make profit for others.