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?

[**caution**opinion_ahead]

#16,

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

But someone with loadsa munny is entitled to have their children educated for free.  It would be much the same thing.  The UBI would be a general entitlement.

I think you are right there will never be full employment.  Not because it would not be possible, but because of the economics.  Unemployment benefit (... or whatever the current term is) is a cheaper way forward ... and cheap wins the day.  (Of course, if you factor in the "cost" of having swathes of the population with no vested interest or stake in society, the numbers might look different.) 

[cee-dee]

That still doesn't satisfy those who're unemployed. They get a UBI and the same's given to those who don't need it. WHY?

[**caution**opinion_ahead]

I'm not sure it is designed to "satisfy" the unemployed.  The argument for it is that if some people are given money for doing nothing, then everyone should be.  Then there is no vested interest in doing nothing.  Everyone is motivated to work.

I state again, unless there are then opportunities for work for all, it doesn't really stand up.  And the issue of those who cannot work would need sorting.  As would who was entitled to UBI, given it could encourage mass immigration from countries where no UBI was paid.

But I wouldn't alarm yourself about it, CD. 🙂  It ain't gonna happen. 

[cee-dee]

I know, the reason I bothered commenting at all was so that those who propose or favour these airy-fairy ideas could come out and put some meat on the bone.

What all these wafflers (!!!!) need to remember is that "The Government has no money."

They never did have, they never will have, what they DO have is only what they rob take from the taxpayer.

The money has to come from somewhere positive not some non-existent pie-in-the-sky place admired from afar by those with no idea of what exists in the real world.

[**caution**opinion_ahead]

Well ... of course.  But, as an idea, it is no different really to supplying any "service" to the whole population, regardless of prior wealth.   So, for example, health care or education or whatever.  Tax is paid to pay for these "facilities".

In the same way, if UBI was adopted, taxes would pay for it.  So, you would be taking with one hand and giving back with the other ... but that happens all the time.  Those who would benefit most would be those in low paid work.  Such jobs would be worth getting out of bed for, cos you would improve your personal circumstances by doing so.  The "benefit culture" would disappear.  No one would be able to have 10 children unless they had the capacity to earn enough to support them. 

[cee-dee]

You don't really think the liberalistic/socialist thinkers would allow those of excessive breeding persuasion to be economically suppressed?

It didn't stop them having loads kids before the days of the Welfare State and were there a UBI, it would more likely encourage them than stop them.

The work often done by the er, educationally challenged have gone. The docking, shipbuilding, labouring and diggin' 'oles are all done by the skilled machinery operators and there are not so many of those.

[**caution**opinion_ahead]

It didn't stop them having loads kids before the days of the Welfare State and were there a UBI, it would more likely encourage them than stop them.

It wouldn't encourage them.  The UBI would be payable to adults.  One adult gets one payment.  There would be no child benefit, etc.  There would be no financial gain from having children.  If you had them, you would have to pay for them out of your UBI.  Having more than a couple would be completely impractical, whereas at the moment you can have as many as you like and the state will pick up the tab for them and you.

Before the Welfare State people had a lot of children partly cos contraception was less fail-proof and partly cos infant mortality was high, so you needed to have more children to ensure any made it to adulthood (and were, therefore, able to provide for you in your old age).  Those without offspring would be in dire straights if they became too old and ill to work.  Times have moved on a lot since then.

[**caution**opinion_ahead]

dire straights

dire straits

:8}

[cee-dee]

I dunno about dire straits, seems to me to be all verbal dire ear ]:)

[**caution**opinion_ahead]

I suggest you put me on "ignore" then.  😉 

[cee-dee]

I didn't say what you said was all verbal dire ear............ but come to think of it.....

[stryver-1]

There cannot be a a set figure for UBI, that would be unworkable and unfair . Therefore you would need a vast army of state-paid workers to collate all the the different needs and circumstances of everyone who is working, unemployed, disabled but cannot work, disabled but working, on a pension. etc, etc.

A totally unworkable idea that would turn into a chaotic mess with many, many people suffering while they were trapped in a endless bureaucratic system.

A nice Utopian pipe dream; but that is all it is.

[Anonymous]

so if I am working I get the money, then if call me dave nice lad shame about the face puts me on the dole heap, I will get the money, why not while I am working just stop paying tax? or will my tax code reflect this extra cash I will receive..............as always so many questions not enough answers with wor dave. 

[bookhunter2007]

as always so many questions not enough answers with wor dave. 

This isn't a Tory policy. It's just an idea floated by economists - both lefties and righties. The only UK party who have proposed anything similar are the Greens:

http://policy.greenparty.org.uk/ec#EC730

[Anonymous]

so this credit would be £100 per week, still not enough to live on.

[**caution**opinion_ahead]

It isn't supposed to be enough to live on, as I understand it, anymore than child benefit is enough to bring up a child on.  The point of it would be as a starting base.  Everyone would have it ... and the rest is the responsibility of the individual.

It's a different mindset to the one we have now, for sure.  No one would be "entitled" to live for free, at the cost of the State, and people would have to think before having children "Can I afford them?" ... which, currently, they do not have to.  

It would be fraught with problems, however, unless there were jobs available for people to take.  Plus, what would happen if you were doing well, had a couple of children, and were then overtaken by misfortune?  Possibly insurance would need to be taken out for such eventualities.

[bookhunter2007]

It isn't supposed to be enough to live on

In the unlikely event it did become policy, I think the whole UBI idea would manifest itself differently at various junctures along the political spectrum.

e.g. Lefties would have it raised to quite a high level (say £150p/w or more) and would seek to pay for it via higher levels of taxation, Whereas righties would keep it at a low rate (say £75 p/w or less) and would seek to pay for it via introducing more paid services (e.g NHS, bus passes etc).

Business may be put off by high taxation, but they'd also be encouraged by raising a population's level of disposable income.

It may create more dossers, but it would also help small-businesses business to be less dependent on bank loans during quiet spells or due to seasonality.

Unemployment would probably initially rise (esp due to public sector administrative layoffs), but then business would also have to pay higher wages to attract workers.

If measures were taken to prevent Leftie stagflation and rightie negligence of welfare, I certainly think it's workable. Realistic no. Banks like trickle-down - there's no way they sit by and allow a trickle-up system.

[malacandran]

Ever since the 19th Century we've had steam engines, and petrol engines, and electric motors.

These machines are strong.  Capable of doing all the work formerly done by human muscles.

So why do humans need  to work nowadays? Can't the machines do the work?