Is the Universal Basic Income a good idea?

[bookhunter2007]

Here's an idea for stimulating the economy: Free money for everyone, all the time, with no exceptions or conditions. Really!

Writing in Wonkblog over the weekend, Mike Konczal explains the economics of a Universal Basic Income (UBI).  The idea is, every person gets a check from the government every year. If you're not working, you get a check. If you're working, you get a check.  This annual check would ensure some semblance of purchasing power for the populace. And by giving it to everyone, you ensure there's no penalty for going to work. You don't lose the check from working.

http://www.businessinsider.com/universal-basic-income-2013-5

And do you think this would be a workable or realistic policy for the UK?

[cee-dee]

How on Earth is that supposed to work?

Where will "The Money" come from?

[mustard-tree]

Where will "The Money" come from?

Stop sending aid overseas

Take back all the MPs fiddled expenses

That would be a start

[bookhunter2007]

How on Earth is that supposed to work?

Where will "The Money" come from?

Think the idea is the UBI would replace current allowances such as tax credits, state pension, child allowance, unemployment benefit, winter fuel allowance, as well as any other benefits. This in turn would cut down on bureaucracy. As well as create a "trickle-up" effect for economic stimulation.

The money would come from here:

http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/

So do you think it is workable or realistic?

[cee-dee]

Totally, completely unworkable and unrealistic. Completly crazy.

If the idea is that people who work still get paid by their employer and pay tax as they do now (to create "The Money"), why on earth would someone on £1000 a week get the UBI exactly the same as someone else who's on £300 a week or someone who's unemployed who only get the UBI?

I don't understand it at all.

[**caution**opinion_ahead]

I sort of see the logic behind it.  It would prevent people having children to create an income, for example, and would certainly make work pay because you would always be better off when in employment.

Not sure how workable it would be.  To be affordable, the basic income would have to be very low so those without work would struggle even more than now, I'd have thought.  It could work in a situation where there was full employment, so anyone could work if they were willing to.  But is that ever likely to be the situation?

[cee-dee]

If there was full employment, why would there be a need for a UBI payment to be given the everyone?

The only way a UBI could possibly work would be that if everyone was paid the same which will never happen.

We've seen the rise and fall of systems where everyone is supposed to be equal except those that were more equal than others......

It won't work, end of story.

[**caution**opinion_ahead]

But at the moment, CD, people who have more children get more out of the benefit system, which gives people the incentive to have children they cannot support from their own earnings.

This sort of system would mean there was no financial benefit to having children.  Indeed, there would be a financial drawback, as you would have to pay for them yourself.  Plus, there would be no benefit to staying at home if work were available for you.

So, for example, every adult is "given" £50 a week.  No other benefits are available.  You live on that ... or you work.  Work really pays, in this scenario.  Plus, no one thinks of anyone else as a scrounger.  Plus, those who want (or neglect to prevent themselves having) large families would have to take responsibility for the children produced.

Obviously, immigration would be a huge issue.  Who would qualify for the payment?

[ronnie-dog]

they do it in Alaska ................

.................. well , sort of.

[cee-dee]

#7,

That will never happen. We're living in a system where people are free, if you try to impose something as you describe, there'd be a revolution.

It won't work, can't work and will never happen.

[**caution**opinion_ahead]

I agree it will never happen.  🙂

Though I'm not sure it stops people being "free".  Everyone gets (or is entitled to) education.  Does that stop them being "free"?  This would just be an "entitlement".

It wouldn't be "imposing" anything, anymore than having a pension system imposes.

However, as you say, it will never happen.  Doesn't stop it being an interesting (if potentially unworkable, and possibly even undesirable) idea, worthy of discussion.

[malacandran]

Didn't they try it in the Roman Empire?  Free bread and circuses.

And historically,  that worked quite well for 300 years. Between about 100 to 400 AD.

Which was long enough for a politician's career. So you can see why such a long-term  policy appeals to  Call-Me-Dave.

But nowadays, history is speeding up.  In 2014, Romania and Bulgaria will unleash some fast problems.

[bookhunter2007]

We've seen the rise and fall of systems where everyone is supposed to be equal except those that were more equal than others...

Think there's a slight different between making a universal payment and re-enacting a totalitarian regime set in a farmyard.  Besides, the UBI schemes or similar has actually been proposed by some libertarian right-wingers:

"Milton Friedman, the libertarian Nobel laureate economist, proposed a version of this idea called a “negative income tax,” in which every household would be given a check for a set amount, such that some people actually had a negative tax burden."

[sir_arthur_strebe-grebling]

I think this is an interesting and thought-provoking idea.

Part of me doesn't like the suggestion that everyone gets something for nothing, and that everyone to some extent relies on the state.

But on the other hand, the American model in the OP proposes that everyone then has to pay for their own needs out of the UBI, instead of assuming that someone else will provide for them.

The latter part is similar to the newly-introduced Universal Credit, for instance encouraging and empowering people on welfare to budget for themselves and get used to living like everyone else does.

However, I agree that anything revolutionary like this is extremely unlikely to happen. The BBC would trawl the country to find people who would be worse off than on the present system, and endlessly parade them before us at every opportunity, and opposition politicians would complain that it is 'unfair'.

[Note that the American version suggests abolition of the nationalised healthcare, although the OP censored that bit of it - too sensible, perhaps? ;-)]

[cee-dee]

The content in the OP says that everyone will get a check (sic). Why?

Put some figures to this?

Unless everyone gets the same amount P/A, you're going to have people asking why the unemployed "only" get £xxxx so why should someone who's earning a huge amount already (and paying tax?) also get a check (sic) for £xxxx?

If everyone got the same total amount P/A, very quickly people would ask "Why bother working?"

If people got their wages AND a check (sic) for the UBI , the UBI would have to be at such a low level to "force" the unemployed to seek any sort of work. There'd be an uprising.....

If none of the above apply, expain how this works then? No-one has "explained" yet.

[lhasa.two]

"Milton Friedman, the libertarian Nobel laureate economist, proposed a version of this idea called a “negative income tax,” in which every household would be given a check for a set amount, such that some people actually had a negative tax burden."

Milton Friedman explains Negative Income Tax back in 1968.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtpgkX588nM&feature=player_detailpage

I read somewhere a long time ago that this idea was put to the US Government in 1972 but the concept was turned down and I can't remember why...

CD, I think everyone knows that the American way of spelling cheque is check so I don't think you need waste your time proof correcting it!

[**caution**opinion_ahead]

If people got their wages AND a check (sic) for the UBI , the UBI would have to be at such a low level to "force" the unemployed to seek any sort of work. There'd be an uprising.....

That is how I understand it would work.  And that is why I said you would need to be in a situation where there was work available for anyone who wanted to take it.  Which may never be the case.  (A way to accommodate those who cannot work because of illness or disability would need to be built into the system.)

It's a different sort of mind-set to the one we have at the moment, where you can do nothing and rely on the State to look after you.  It would require people to be responsible for themselves and their offspring. 

Still, as you say, it won't happen. 🙂

[cee-dee]

#15,

Thank you for your enlightened comment but if I hadn't added "(sic)" one of the gifted intellectuals would have corrected me.

#16,

But that still doesn't explain how someone on loadsa munny deserves the UBI as well?

There cannot now be full employment. There's far too many people in the World and the situation can only get worse.

The beginning of much less employment goes back a few years when, during a pay review at Rolls Royce (employees were after more money) there was a shop stewards meeting with management and one of the management team made a very prophetic statement:-

"You're pricing yourselves out of a job, we're going to automate you."

See where we're at today? Robots everywhere?

Again, many years ago an old man was leaning on a gate watching a JCB digging a trench. When the operator switched off and climbed down, the old man said to him "That thing is taking the work of six men with picks and shovels."

The driver replied "Aye, or 200 with teaspoons."

Full employment? Dream on..............

[upthecreekyetagain]

Full employment? Dream on..............

I see no logical reason why there can't be full employment ?:|

All the time people want/need more than they currently have then there will always be the opportunity for someone to work in order to fulfill that demand. 

The more people there are in employment fulfilling other people's demands then the more people there are with the means to purchase what they themselves need giving the opportunity for more people to work.

Natural resources can/will ultimately be a limiting factor but there certainly is no lack of demand.

[cee-dee]

If you casn't see a logical reason why there can't be full employment, you're not using logic.