Universal Basic Income

I am staunch socialst so seems like eutopia to me however some people will always want more property and wealth than their fellow man how is that possible with zero jobs. Will automation and AI make capitalism a dead duck
I’m sure it will get a lot worse before it gets better but I don’t see any other outcome. Capitalism will wring every last penny out of the system until people demand change. Even if it’s legislated against or taxed to the point of making human labour competitive, why would you force somebody to do the work a machine can do just to earn a wage when you could tax the profits generated by the machine to pay the human instead? A happy human with lots of leisure time may be able to contribute to society in other ways.
 
Presently for people of pensionable age - there is a minimum income of at least £950/month, possibly worth over £1,000/month with added benefits e.g no TV licence to pay, help with council tax, energy bills etc.
 
UBI is fantastic in principle but, as with everything related to finance, it would need a massive amount of regulation to work properly.

You'd need all the infrastructure in place to cope with a national roll-out and that wouldn't be easy. Not impossible but it would need political will that isn't in evidence at the moment.

I don't understand the issue with low-paid jobs not getting done. The capitalist answer is surely to pay more until people are willing to do them. UBI gives people more freedom of choice if implemented correctly.

No-one is workshy by default. People just don't like being forced to do menial labour for a pittance. Not everything that is done is worthwhile but people should be able to try without leaving themselves destitute - whether that be opening a business or doing something artistically creative.
 
You think i have a similar view, why? I appreciate the previous acknowledgement btw, purely debate reasons, not stirring.
'It would attract all sorts of wrong attitudes' and 'the same place to support your stance I would guess' , suggests to me you have a similar view to facefuzz on UBI. I wasn't sure I knew enough about UBI hence my view that we should await the results of the study, before making definitive judgements. I've spent the last 20 minutes or so, reading a report about UBI by the Joseph Rowntree foundation and in my view admittedly with only that report to refer to, UBI has more benefits than drawbacks. Especially so, when on the same day there are reports of increases in child poverty, particularly in the North East. Still don't know if I should be upset by the eyes or not.
 
Look up CBDC's which are potentially linked to UBI

This could and I stress *could* be means of ensuring that spending is controlled from UBI which would be issued in a controlled currency which would not be FIAT (£) in its present form


Especially around:

"Decreasing sense of central banks as payments innovators. CBDCs offer central banks a new opportunity to lead strategic conversations on cash use cases in a public forum."

If the governments through banks can control how a digital currency is spent, or even scale back payments to those who disagree with their policies, in other words:

"A CBDC would give officials full control over the money going into–and coming out of–every person's account. This level of government control is not compatible with economic or political freedom"
 
There is a chapter (possibly more) dedicated to UBI in Rutger Bregmans ‘Utopia for Realists’. A number of experiments conducted previously and has many supporters.
 
Before minimum wage was introduced, I'm pretty sure that similar arguments were made against it as are being used against UBI.

My view is that perhaps the UBI payment would need to take account of where people live, a bit like some salary payments do.

1600 goes loads further in the North east than the south east due to cost of housing.

I think if we don't have UBI then in the long term there will be an incredible amount of civil unrest as people will not choose starving to death over looting a supermarket to get food.
 
Before minimum wage was introduced, I'm pretty sure that similar arguments were made against it as are being used against UBI.

My view is that perhaps the UBI payment would need to take account of where people live, a bit like some salary payments do.

1600 goes loads further in the North east than the south east due to cost of housing.

I think if we don't have UBI then in the long term there will be an incredible amount of civil unrest as people will not choose starving to death over looting a supermarket to get food.
If you compensate for regional variations which you seem to be suggesting then it just endorses regional disaparity we should be encouraging people to migrate north.
 
A universal basic income will have to be introduced at some point because very few people will work. Not in my lifetime, but probably my kids lifetime.

Ultimately if energy is free, almost everything becomes free.
Energy will never be free.
 
UBI is that. It’s basic income. The income to get by, food, clothes, roof and energy.
£1600 is not basic and is not much less than a lot of people’s take home pay for a full time job.
 
You'd have to limit the percentage of UBI that was allowed to be paid out towards rent and energy costs otherwise it'd be subject to profiteering.
It's a great idea to try and provide a basic level of living dignity, but as with anything else, the success will depend very much on the regulation that prevents it being abused, not only by those "workshy" individuals that are beloved of UBI opponents, but also those who'd try to exploit those receiving UBI.
Properly managed it could have huge impacts on the realms of volunteering, caring for the elderly and children and who knows what other sectors.
Despite the oft cited fears, people generally want to keep busy and I honestly think properly managed UBI would change things for the better given time.
 
UBI is that. It’s basic income. The income to get by, food, clothes, roof and energy.
£1600 is not basic and is not much less than a lot of people’s take home pay for a full time job.
No. It's a universal basic income. It's an amount everyone gets that allows them to mane life choices with a chunk less worry. If minimum wage is currently too low then maybe opponents off UBI shouldn't have also opposed minimum wage increases.


Look up CBDC's which are potentially linked to UBI
You're heading into conspiracy theory territory here. People already have their benefits frozen for spurious reasons.

How will a central bank prevent my employer from depositing pay into my account and what stops them doing it right now?
 
No. It's a universal basic income. It's an amount everyone gets that allows them to mane life choices with a chunk less worry. If minimum wage is currently too low then maybe opponents off UBI shouldn't have also opposed minimum wage

Exactly. £1600 is too much thought to make basic choices. It shouldn’t be paying for holidays, new iPhones, sky sports etc. the basic income should cover the basics. It should not be comparable to the wage of somebody who does 40 hours a week.
You want £1600. Get a job
 
In my opinion we will soon be able to grow clones of ourselves, and send them out to do the work. And also robots will be doing most of the jobs anyway.
I think this is the point isn't it?

There's some study saying that 5 million to 10 million manufacturing, driving and other jobs that will go in the US in the next 20 years due to automation and AI.

I'd be fine with 'the city' keeping me on £2k a month take home, to walk the dog three times a day, potter about an allotment and take my time doing nice cooking and photography stuff.
 
Back
Top