Could a Universal Basic Income (UBI) work?

[RT4038]

You are sure?

As sure as the sun coming up in the East in the morning!

 

[owidoe]

I don't think UBI would work: it'd end up turning into a pyramid scheme with a stratum of UBI-receiving citizens on top, who then need to import non-UBI-recipient migrants desperate for work to pay the taxes to keep it going, and so on. Like what's happening with the state pension with regards to the ageing population and low birth rates, but much more dystopian.

I would absolutely support "universal basic food", though. Everyone gets 2400 kcal/day in whatever staples have a surplus that year, distributed through supermarket vouchers, so even the poorest people on their worst day won't have to worry about actually starving: I think the Indian government does something very similar with rice. Better-off people could opt out of it and donate their allotment to foreign aid.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I don't think UBI would work: it'd end up turning into a pyramid scheme with a stratum of UBI-receiving citizens on top, who then need to import non-UBI-recipient migrants desperate for work to pay the taxes to keep it going, and so on. Like what's happening with the state pension with regards to the ageing population and low birth rates, but much more dystopian.

That forgets one thing - the potential to tax productivity by way of automation, which also reduces jobs. At the moment the main thing we tax is work. Could and should that change?

 

[najaB]

I don't think UBI would work: it'd end up turning into a pyramid scheme with a stratum of UBI-receiving citizens on top, who then need to import non-UBI-recipient migrants desperate for work to pay the taxes to keep it going, and so on.

Given that UBI wouldn't "bubble up" the pyramid, I don't see how that would be an issue. It would be a pyramid with a very wide base and only one layer on top.

I would absolutely support "universal basic food", though. Everyone gets 2400 kcal/day in whatever staples have a surplus that year, distributed through supermarket vouchers, so even the poorest people on their worst day won't have to worry about actually starving: I think the Indian government does something very similar with rice.

As above, for those who oppose guaranteed income how about a guaranteed living standard. Nobody starves or goes homeless - if you want more than that then you work for it.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Yes, it is only a small section because the current system makes it so unpleasant and difficult to do otherwise. However, the prospect of unconditional free money would uncork a genie I am sure.

As sure as the sun coming up in the East in the morning!

Agreed.

By way of analogy: Imagine if all the rail companies collectively decided that they would no longer do ticket checking because doing so is so expensive, and instead they'd just trust that passengers are buying the correct tickets. It doesn't take a genius to work out what would then happen: Fare evasion would become rampant overnight. It wouldn't be surprising if within a couple of months, only a minority of passengers are actually buying tickets.

Or another analogy: Imagine if, to help the cost of living crisis, Sainsburys decided that they'd give away their own brand bread to customers. Again, it's obvious what would happen: People would flock to Sainsburys, even people who are buying almost nothing else, just to get the free bread. Plus sales of other brands of bread would plummet as people swap to get the free loaves instead of the ones that you pay for.

Or imagine if the police decided that all the investigative work needed to solve crime is too expensive and instead they'll just trust everyone to behave and not break the law....

It's basically just the same logic with UBI. If you give people something for free and don't expect anything in return, then human nature being what it is, lots of people will take it. That's why some of us are very concerned that UBI would lead to people just deciding not to work because, why bother if you can get your income anyway. It's not that we're trying to be nasty or judgemental or anything... we're just being realistic about human nature!

 

[owidoe]

Agreed.

By way of analogy: Imagine if all the rail companies collectively decided that they would no longer do ticket checking because doing so is so expensive, and instead they'd just trust that passengers are buying the correct tickets. It doesn't take a genius to work out what would then happen: Fare evasion would become rampant overnight. It wouldn't be surprising if within a couple of months, only a minority of passengers are actually buying tickets.

Or another analogy: Imagine if, to help the cost of living crisis, Sainsburys decided that they'd give away their own brand bread to customers. Again, it's obvious what would happen: People would flock to Sainsburys, even people who are buying almost nothing else, just to get the free bread. Plus sales of other brands of bread would plummet as people swap to get the free loaves instead of the ones that you pay for.

Or imagine if the police decided that all the investigative work needed to solve crime is too expensive and instead they'll just trust everyone to behave and not break the law....

It's basically just the same logic with UBI. If you give people something for free and don't expect anything in return, then human nature being what it is, lots of people will take it. That's why some of us are very concerned that UBI would lead to people just deciding not to work because, why bother if you can get your income anyway. It's not that we're trying to be nasty or judgemental or anything... we're just being realistic about human nature!

No UBI advocate I've talked to argues for anything more than a very basic living standard's income. You _could_ live off the hypothetical UBI in most formulations, but most people want to do more than rent a single room and live on rice and beans. Starving artist types being able to do their thing without fear of starvation would be quite the shot in the arm for the arts.

 

[najaB]

It's basically just the same logic with UBI. If you give people something for free and don't expect anything in return, then human nature being what it is, lots of people will take it. That's why some of us are very concerned that UBI would lead to people just deciding not to work because, why bother if you can get your income anyway. It's not that we're trying to be nasty or judgemental or anything... we're just being realistic about human nature!

As others have pointed out, UBI would be set at a level that would allow someone receiving it to survive. Not thrive, just survive. It doesn't seem to be asking too much of society to ensure that nobody starves to death or goes homeless.

If someone has no greater desire than that, then it's questionable how much value they would bring to any job that they... "did" seems too strong... any job that they kept someone else from getting.

 

[Yew]

Agreed.

By way of analogy: Imagine if all the rail companies collectively decided that they would no longer do ticket checking because doing so is so expensive, and instead they'd just trust that passengers are buying the correct tickets. It doesn't take a genius to work out what would then happen: Fare evasion would become rampant overnight. It wouldn't be surprising if within a couple of months, only a minority of passengers are actually buying tickets.

Or another analogy: Imagine if, to help the cost of living crisis, Sainsburys decided that they'd give away their own brand bread to customers. Again, it's obvious what would happen: People would flock to Sainsburys, even people who are buying almost nothing else, just to get the free bread. Plus sales of other brands of bread would plummet as people swap to get the free loaves instead of the ones that you pay for.

Or imagine if the police decided that all the investigative work needed to solve crime is too expensive and instead they'll just trust everyone to behave and not break the law....

Those analogies are so fundamentally flawed that I don't know where to start...

It's basically just the same logic with UBI. If you give people something for free and don't expect anything in return, then human nature being what it is, lots of people will take it.

I don't really understand what point you're trying to make here? If we give people a basic income, they'll take it? That's sort of the point.

That's why some of us are very concerned that UBI would lead to people just deciding not to work because, why bother if you can get your income anyway.

Perhaps there could be a few people, but again, there are other things of value that are not selling your labour.

I personally would use it as a guarantee to help try and start a company; contributing to the economy and (hopefully) creating jobs in the longer term.

It's not that we're trying to be nasty or judgemental or anything... we're just being realistic about human nature!

And yet so many people willingly give up their free time to volunteer their time and skills for free. You don't seem to account for this; but seem absolutely obsessed with some sort of tiny minority.

 

[GusB]

Maybe I'm a bit naïve, but UBI may bring out the best in people who are ordinarily prevented from reaching their true potential, simply because the current system is so rigid and doesn't suit everyone.

No qualifications? You're written off as too stupid, didn't pay enough attention, didn't work hard enough etc. Took a wrong turn in life and perhaps you have a couple of minor convictions? Again, written off.

Throughout my life I've met a good number of people who have eventually found their way in life, having taken slightly longer to get there than most. The problem isn't the people who have inadvertently fallen through the cracks; it's "the system" and the people who look down and sneer at others because their rate of achievement isn't "up to standard".

The naysaying in this thread is simply down to prejudice and a refusal to believe that someone who refuses to conform to "the system" is capable of making a life for themselves. You don't get the best out of people by constantly looking down on them and telling them how much of a burden they are on society, which is exactly what the current benefits system does. As long as we continue to denigrate people for what they don't do, rather than encourage them to do what they can, we'll be no further forward.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Those analogies are so fundamentally flawed that I don't know where to start...

So you say. Yet I notice you make no attempt to explain why you think they are flawed.

I don't really understand what point you're trying to make here? If we give people a basic income, they'll take it? That's sort of the point.

The point is that, if you give people a basic income and make no expectation that they'll do anything in return, then lots of people will conform to your expectation and do nothing in return. That's a problem, both because people don't generally thrive or get fulfilled lives by doing nothing, and because we do actually need people to work in order to provide all the things we need for a decent life. If on the other hand you make available a basic income while making it clear that you expect people to contribute to the community in return (which is what my suggestion of a guaranteed job would do) then people are more likely to go along with the expectation and contribute to the community - which thereby benefits both themselves and the wider community, and helps to pay for the income you're giving them.

The examples I gave were all designed to show how in different contexts, if you allow people to take things and expect nothing in return, then that's exactly what lots of people will do. I was hoping that would become clear by showing contexts where it's obvious and not really controversial that that's what many people would do.

I personally would use it as a guarantee to help try and start a company; contributing to the economy and (hopefully) creating jobs in the longer term.

That's great for you. But not everyone would.

And yet so many people willingly give up their free time to volunteer their time and skills for free. You don't seem to account for this; but seem absolutely obsessed with some sort of tiny minority.

Because it may well be a tiny minority at present, but if you just hand out the money with no checks and with no expectations, then after a short time it will no longer be a tiny minority: Because most people, like it or not, invariably get influenced by what other people do and by the expectations that society puts on them.

 

[PsychoMouse]

Because it may well be a tiny minority at present, but if you just hand out the money with no checks and with no expectations, then after a short time it will no longer be a tiny minority: Because most people, like it or not, invariably get influenced by what other people do and by the expectations that society puts on them.

You're thinking that UBI will be enough to live on to more than the absolute minimum acceptable standard, I guarantee this will not be the case. Recipients of UBI alone will not be able to lead a life of anything other than basic necessity.

Nearly everybody receiving UBI who is able to work, will seek employment. Why would you not want to? You could have an easy work life, have enough money to live comfortably on, and have a safety net should your job disappear or you fall into ill health.

You seem to have a very poor opinion on people, which is unfortunately typical of you (I assume from reading your comments) political persuasion.

 

[najaB]

Nearly everybody receiving UBI who is able to work, will seek employment. Why would you not want to? You could have an easy work life, have enough money to live comfortably on, and have a safety net should your job disappear or you fall into ill health.

Indeed. Given the choice between working, say five hours a week and being able to afford to go to the movies or have a holiday, or not working and doing nothing enjoyable most people will work the five hours.

And given the choice between working five hours and having to choose between the two, and working ten hours and doing both...

 

[DynamicSpirit]

As others have pointed out, UBI would be set at a level that would allow someone receiving it to survive. Not thrive, just survive.

What kind of person are you considering when you say, a level that would allow someone to survive? If you consider a single parent renting from the private sector and set it at a level that would allow that person to just survive, then you have a level that would give a life of luxury to a single person without children who lives with their parents, or who owns their own home and has paid off their mortgage. Alternatively, if you set it to allow the latter person to just survive, then you haven't really achieved anything because you'll still need the benefits system with all its complexity to allow almost anyone else who has no other income to survive.

There is no level at which you could set UBI that would allow everyone (or even, allow most of the population) to just survive without either being insufficient or being too generous for everyone else, if that is your aim.

It doesn't seem to be asking too much of society to ensure that nobody starves to death or goes homeless.

Sure, it seems a noble aim. But I could throw that back at you, and say, what on Earth is the problem with saying to people, "Sure, we'll give you a home and enough to live on. And in return, we expect you to be available for a certain number of hours per week to do some useful work the benefits other people.", which is what my alternative proposal would amount to. I really don't understand why anyone would object to that.

btw on making sure, no-one goes homeless, I'm pretty sure the way to achieve that is to - ummm - build enough homes for everyone. As long as the UK does not have enough homes for everyone to live in, then it's inevitable that some people will end up homeless. That once again is basic laws of mathematics - and no level of UBI is going to prevent that. If you think you can prevent homelessness by handing out free money to everyone, while not dealing the the problem of, not enough houses, then you're looking at the wrong end of the problem!

 

[Falcon1200]

As others have pointed out, UBI would be set at a level that would allow someone receiving it to survive. Not thrive, just survive.

Would that level be the same throughout the UK, given that costs such as house prices foe example vary hugely across the UK?

 

[PsychoMouse]

But I could throw that back at you, and say, what on Earth is the problem with saying to people, "Sure, we'll give you a home and enough to live on. And in return, we expect you to be available for a certain number of hours per week to do some useful work the benefits other people.", which is what my alternative proposal would amount to. I really don't understand why anyone would object to that.

The trouble with this is, the State has you by the balls.

If you wanted a job that wasn't the one the government has given you but it wasn't paying you enough to afford to rent a home on then what? Are you forced to stay working for the government in a kind of quasi-slavery situation just so you have roof over your head, or will the government top up you pay with a similarly expensive and complicated benefits system like we have now rendering the whole thing pointless?

 

[Tetchytyke]

Most models of UBI follow the same principle as Universal Credit, where it tapers off as you earn more. The simplest way of bringing in UBI would
be to remove the conditionality from Universal Credit.

Of course most Universal Credit claimants actually *are* working, but their employers won’t pay a decent wage so the state tops it up. But these poverty wage employers are the ones “contributing to society”.

Or another analogy: Imagine if, to help the cost of living crisis, Sainsburys decided that they'd give away their own brand bread to customers. Again, it's obvious what would happen: People would flock to Sainsburys, even people who are buying almost nothing else, just to get the free bread. Plus sales of other brands of bread would plummet as people swap to get the free loaves instead of the ones that you pay for.

A loaf of Tesco own brand white bread is 80p and a loaf of Warburton is £1.50. By your logic nobody would buy Warburton now as they could save 70p- almost the entire cost of a loaf- by buying the own brand. Yet Warburton is the biggest selling brand of bread.

If your analogy were remotely true there wouldn’t be any luxury brands in the world. There’s a shop in town called Flannels that sells trainers for £500, and there’s clearly no shortage of takers otherwise that shop wouldn’t be there, but you can buy a pair in Primark for £5. Give them away for free and people who pay £500 for trainers wouldn’t suddenly switch.

 

[RT4038]

btw on making sure, no-one goes homeless, I'm pretty sure the way to achieve that is to - ummm - build enough homes for everyone. As long as the UK does not have enough homes for everyone to live in, then it's inevitable that some people will end up homeless. That once again is basic laws of mathematics - and no level of UBI is going to prevent that. If you think you can prevent homelessness by handing out free money to everyone, while not dealing the the problem of, not enough houses, then you're looking at the wrong end of the problem!

Are there lots of people homeless then - as in not having anywhere to live? Sure, there are lots of people who would like to own their own place, or would like better housing than they've currently got, but by the same measure there is a big shortage of RangeRovers also.

It doesn't seem to be asking too much of society to ensure that nobody starves to death or goes homeless.

We have this now. No need for UBI or its roulette consequences on the fabric of society.

You seem to have a very poor opinion on people, which is unfortunately typical of you (I assume from reading your comments) political persuasion.

This sort of shows where the line of thinking comes - individual responsibility and risk, versus State/society responsibility and risk. The proponents of UBI want there to be no responsibility of individuals financially contributing to society; only a responsibility of society to keep them. Work if you feel like it, rather than work because you have to 'keep a roof over your head'. I would suggest that UBI would change the fabric of society. Whether that would be for the good or bad depends on an individual point of view, but the possibility of bad is too great to take the risk. Maybe we could get the United Nations and World Bank to take the responsibility and risk?

The trouble with this is, the State has you by the balls.

If you wanted a job that wasn't the one the government has given you but it wasn't paying you enough to afford to rent a home on then what? Are you forced to stay working for the government in a kind of quasi-slavery situation just so you have roof over your head, or will the government top up you pay with a similarly expensive and complicated benefits system like we have now rendering the whole thing pointless?

The utopia of getting money unconditionally from society, without any responsibility towards that society, is just not going to happen!

 

[PsychoMouse]

The utopia of getting money unconditionally from society, without any responsibility towards that society, is just not going to happen!

So what's your proposal in 50-100 years when AI handles 80% of current jobs?

This is just Luddite thinking tbh.

 

[takno]

Would that level be the same throughout the UK, given that costs such as house prices foe example vary hugely across the UK?

You can make it equal across the UK or make it regional. Personally I'd be inclined to use it as a tool of regional policy and try to stop the demented rush for the southeast which is currently strangling us.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

The trouble with this is, the State has you by the balls.

If you wanted a job that wasn't the one the government has given you but it wasn't paying you enough to afford to rent a home on then what?

Obviously there'd be a lot of devil in the details of how a guaranteed job system would work. To be fair, you'd need to make sure that people are first consulted about their abilities and what kinds of work they would prefer to do, and then offered a choice of a few different kinds of work that take some account of their preferences.

Are you forced to stay working for the government in a kind of quasi-slavery situation just so you have roof over your head,

Wow, talk about unnecessary hyperbole. Would you regard any job as quasi-slavery on the basis that if you refuse to do the job then your employer will (not unreasonably) probably refuse to continue employing you and then you won't get a salary?

 

[RT4038]

Most models of UBI follow the same principle as Universal Credit, where it tapers off as you earn more. The simplest way of bringing in UBI would
be to remove the conditionality from Universal Credit.

The conditionality is to take into account different circumstances, and to keep the numbers who will not (as opposed to cannot) work to a minimum. No system covering tens of millions of individuals, with millions of permutations of circumstances is going to be perfect.

Most 'models' of UBI are purely theory and have never been applied in practice. Tapering is not unconditional.

 

[ainsworth74]

The conditionality is to take into account different circumstances, and to keep the numbers who will not (as opposed to cannot) work to a minimum.

Then why do those who are in work have conditionally if that's the purpose?

 

[PsychoMouse]

Wow, talk about unnecessary hyperbole. Would you regard any job as quasi-slavery on the basis that if you refuse to do the job then your employer will (not unreasonably) probably refuse to continue employing you and then you won't get a salary?

It's not hyperbolic at all, in your situation if you stopped working for the government you'd lose your current home. At least with other employers you'd be free to move without that hanging over your head.

I thought Tory's liked small government? This is pretty Soviet

 

[najaB]

There is no level at which you could set UBI that would allow everyone (or even, allow most of the population) to just survive without either being insufficient or being too generous for everyone else, if that is your aim.

Which is why, instead of a guaranteed income we could guarantee a minimum living standard: a roof over your head and enough food so that you don't go hungry.

Sure, it seems a noble aim. But I could throw that back at you, and say, what on Earth is the problem with saying to people, "Sure, we'll give you a home and enough to live on. And in return, we expect you to be available for a certain number of hours per week to do some useful work the benefits other people.", which is what my alternative proposal would amount to. I really don't understand why anyone would object to that.

When have I ever objected to that? I don't favour making survival conditional because it opens up the whole work fit testing issue and makes the system more complex to administer. But if you would get behind simplification of the benefits system to simply require people making themselves available to work then that would be an improvement at least.

 

[Tetchytyke]

The conditionality is to take into account different circumstances, and to keep the numbers who will not (as opposed to cannot) work to a minimum

Conditionality applies to in-work claimants too.

Most 'models' of UBI are purely theory and have never been applied in practice. Tapering is not unconditional.

The model that has been applied in practice- in Saudi Arabia, that famously socialist country- is tapering. Whether that’s tapering through the Universal Credit style or using the tax rate, it’s still tapering.

Obviously there'd be a lot of devil in the details of how a guaranteed job system would work. To be fair, you'd need to make sure that people are first consulted about their abilities and what kinds of work they would prefer to do, and then offered a choice of a few different kinds of work that take some account of their preferences.

Sounds very East German to me.

I thought I was the left-winger?

 

[DustyBin]

Maybe I'm a bit naïve, but UBI may bring out the best in people who are ordinarily prevented from reaching their true potential, simply because the current system is so rigid and doesn't suit everyone.

No qualifications? You're written off as too stupid, didn't pay enough attention, didn't work hard enough etc. Took a wrong turn in life and perhaps you have a couple of minor convictions? Again, written off.

Throughout my life I've met a good number of people who have eventually found their way in life, having taken slightly longer to get there than most.

Possibly, but I actually agree with much of what you say here, in principle anyway.

The problem isn't the people who have inadvertently fallen through the cracks; it's "the system" and the people who look down and sneer at others because their rate of achievement isn't "up to standard".

I think the problem (in this context) is more that some people achieve nothing by choice, and UBI has had the potential to exacerbate this.

The naysaying in this thread is simply down to prejudice and a refusal to believe that someone who refuses to conform to "the system" is capable of making a life for themselves. You don't get the best out of people by constantly looking down on them and telling them how much of a burden they are on society, which is exactly what the current benefits system does. As long as we continue to denigrate people for what they don't do, rather than encourage them to do what they can, we'll be no further forward.

I don’t think it is down to prejudice. We live in “the system” and the “rules” are clear. If someone refuses to conform I don’t see why the rest of society should subsidise that choice.

Of course the system isn’t perfect as I’ve acknowledged previously, and some people/sections of society are set up to fail. That needs to change. People do however need to take responsibility for their own lives rather than relying on the state safety net. Again, UBI may actually be the solution here (or not!).

You're thinking that UBI will be enough to live on to more than the absolute minimum acceptable standard, I guarantee this will not be the case. Recipients of UBI alone will not be able to lead a life of anything other than basic necessity.

The amount being paid in the trial is more or less equal to what someone in full time employment on minimum wage earns. This in my opinion is too much. Remember it’s paid per adult, so would represent a significant uplift in income for many households.

Nearly everybody receiving UBI who is able to work, will seek employment. Why would you not want to? You could have an easy work life, have enough money to live comfortably on, and have a safety net should your job disappear or you fall into ill health.

Again I suspect it will depend on how much is paid. Under the current system, are the majority of unemployed people actively seeking employment?

You seem to have a very poor opinion on people, which is unfortunately typical of you (I assume from reading your comments) political persuasion.

Whilst not directed at me I think this a little unfair.

Our opinions are often shaped by our lived experiences, which obviously vary greatly. My own “story” is an interesting one (not that interesting really!) in so far as I used the system to exceed what was expected of me. It wasn’t all plain sailing however. So whilst I believe in giving people a chance and helping people where possible, I have limited sympathy for those who won’t help themselves.

 

[ainsworth74]

Again I suspect it will depend on how much is paid. Under the current system, are the majority of unemployed people actively seeking employment?

That will depend on your definition of "unemployed"! I suspect across the whole spectrum of people of working age who don't have a job the answer to that is probably no the majority aren't. But chunks of those will be people who are too ill to work, who aren't expected to work due to caring for someone or who have a very young child to look after, etc. If the definition excludes them then I'd expect the majority, at least from a benefits perspective, are actively seeking work.

 

[najaB]

So whilst I believe in giving people a chance and helping people where possible, I have limited sympathy for those who won’t help themselves.

While I agree in principle, it is often difficult to distinguish between those who won't help themselves and those who can't. The idea behind UBI/MLS would be to make sure that everyone has their base needs taken care of - those who are happy to live with that are probably better off out of the workforce, all things considered.

 

[Bletchleyite]

What kind of person are you considering when you say, a level that would allow someone to survive? If you consider a single parent renting from the private sector and set it at a level that would allow that person to just survive, then you have a level that would give a life of luxury to a single person without children who lives with their parents, or who owns their own home and has paid off their mortgage. Alternatively, if you set it to allow the latter person to just survive, then you haven't really achieved anything because you'll still need the benefits system with all its complexity to allow almost anyone else who has no other income to survive.

One way to deal with that is for there to be a child rate, paid to the legal guardian of a child up to age 18.

 

[RT4038]

So what's your proposal in 50-100 years when AI handles 80% of current jobs?

This is just Luddite thinking tbh.

If this comes to pass, then we can cross that bridge. Society may look completely different by then, and debates about UBI (or equivalent) will be informed by the circumstances of the time. An identical number of jobs may still be available, one set maintaining UI and the others working on how to circumvent it! Whatever, this is mere conjecture, and I will probably not be around in 50 years to see it, but, judging by today's society, I think it unlikely that individuals will be able to opt out of contributing to society whilst being guaranteed support by that same society.

In the meantime, there are those who are debating UBI in the current societal circumstances, and that appears to be a practical non starter.

You seem to have a very poor opinion on people, which is unfortunately typical of you (I assume from reading your comments) political persuasion.

And you a myopic good opinion? I don't think it necessary to label posters' political persuasions ......... Surely we can just keep to the subject at hand?

The model that has been applied in practice- in Saudi Arabia, that famously socialist country- is tapering. Whether that’s tapering through the Universal Credit style or using the tax rate, it’s still tapering.

Saudi Arabia is in a very different financial and societal situation to the UK, with a small citizen and large contract worker population. hardly comparable to the UK.