DS Forums

 
 

Some labor party members want basic income introduced


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 02-09-2016, 14:26
UIR
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,048
Such a stupid comment.
Theres certainly some truth to it.
UIR is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 02-09-2016, 14:29
platelet
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: GL51 0EX
Posts: 14,090
Additionally, there is something very "Old Labour" ...
John McDonnell
platelet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2016, 14:41
paulschapman
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 24,735
Not so sure it would work like that. People have quite ingenious ways of making money stretch. Many live on £400 a month plus rent paid. A basic income would probably be higher, maybe £1000 a month. Not enough for most but plenty for others. especially when they can get cheap baccy and booze plus eat cheaply. As long as they don't need to work to live, success!

when has it been tried? A quick check shows social security schemes in various countries but no guaranteed basic income without any set conditions.

It was set according to cost of living.
See here

Meet Bernard Omandi. For years he worked in a quarry, somewhere in the inhabitable West of Kenya. Bernard made $2 a day, until one morning, he received a remarkable text message. 'When I saw the message, I jumped up', he later recalled. And with good reason: $500 had just been deposited into his account. For Bernard, the sum amounted to almost a year’s salary.

A couple of months later a New York Times reporter walked. around his village. It was like everyone had won the jackpot - but no one had wasted the money. People were repairing their homes and starting small businesses. Bernard was making $6 to $9 a day driving around on his new Bajai Boxer, an Indian motor cycle which he used to provide transportation for local residents. ‘This puts the choice in the hands of the poor, and not me,' Michael Faye, co-founder of GiveDirectly, the coordinating organization, said. ‘The truth is, I don’t think I have a very good sense of what the poor need.’ When Google had a look at his data, the company immediately decided to donate $2.5 million.

Bernard and his fellow villagers are not the only ones who got lucky. In 2008, the Ugandan government gave about $400 to almost 12,000 youths between the ages of 16 and 35. Just money – no questions asked. And guess what? The results were astounding. A mere four years later, the youths’ educational and entrepreneurial investments had caused their incomes to increase by almost 50%. Their chances of being employed had increased by 60%.
paulschapman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2016, 14:49
jmclaugh
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Devon
Posts: 47,995
The Fabian Society isn't in favour of a universal basic income, it warns such a plan would create too many losers and not reduce poverty or improve the incomes of those with the least. Instead it wants tax free allowances scrapped and a new flat rate benefit paid to all adults alongside existing benefits.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7216791.html
jmclaugh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2016, 14:50
The Brain
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 1,774
That's completely untrue.

Why would a company who's sole goal is to make as much profit as possible continue to hire people who have no 'economic value'?

I would describe middle management like this.

Imagine 100 people digging for gold with no organization and no idea where it is.

Now imagine 99 people digging and one guy with a map who tells everyone where to dig.

Which of those two scenarios is most likely to result in more gold? Which person is adding the highest amount of value?
The person who made the map?

Does it really matter? The guy reading the map is doing a job that most people could do. He's not working any harder than the rest either, probably the opposite.
The Brain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2016, 14:51
UIR
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,048
Unsure how that example helps support the need for it in a country where the average wage is £42000 a year.

Unless you think we should all have £40000 deposited into our accounts?

Also, success in Uganda eh? Looks like it...
UIR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2016, 14:51
SULLA
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Black Country lad in Yorkshire
Posts: 118,038
If very few have the incentive to work, how are they going to pay for this ?

Labour do have some daft ideas
SULLA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2016, 15:02
The Brain
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 1,774
Unsure how that example helps support the need for it in a country where the average wage is £42000 a year.

Unless you think we should all have £40000 deposited into our accounts?

Also, success in Uganda eh? Looks like it...
Where's that then? Switzerland? Average annual earnings in the UK are about £25K. And no one is suggesting that the basic income would be anywhere near that level. In which case, the vast majority of people would seek to add to it, so there would no problem with incentives to work.
The Brain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2016, 15:04
pmw_hewitt
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Somewhere that needs tidying
Posts: 1,189
This will happen one day in the somewhat distant future. As more and more jobs will be taken up by machinery, we will eventually reach a point where there aren't nearly enough jobs to go around.

When that happens, it makes sense that everyone receives an equal basic income. Of course, there will still be some jobs in existence, for which people can take in order to make money in addition to their basic income.

And it's also a fabrication that this is a strictly left-wing ideal. It's simple logic that this will probably be the way things are in 50-100 years time, and many right-wingers (especially libertarians) idealise it as it would be considerably more cost-efficient than any benefits system would be.
pmw_hewitt is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2016, 15:09
jmclaugh
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Devon
Posts: 47,995
This will happen one day in the somewhat distant future. As more and more jobs will be taken up by machinery, we will eventually reach a point where there aren't nearly enough jobs to go around.

When that happens, it makes sense that everyone receives an equal basic income. Of course, there will still be some jobs in existence, for which people can take in order to make money in addition to their basic income.

And it's also a fabrication that this is a strictly left-wing ideal. It's simple logic that this will probably be the way things are in 50-100 years time, and many right-wingers (especially libertarians) idealise it as it would be considerably more cost-efficient than any benefits system would be.
Well what you say may well come to pass but the issue being discussed is for the here and now not in 50-100 years time.
jmclaugh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2016, 15:09
UIR
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,048
Where's that then? Switzerland? Average annual earnings in the UK are about £25K. And no one is suggesting that the basic income would be anywhere near that level. In which case, the vast majority of people would seek to add to it, so there would no problem with incentives to work.
The figure was in dollars, my mistake.

You seem extremely naive in that people given free money will have an incentive to work. They absolutely wont. were not a third world country where such an idea might have merit.
UIR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2016, 15:15
The Brain
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 1,774
The figure was in dollars, my mistake.

You seem extremely naive in that people given free money will have an incentive to work. They absolutely wont. were not a third world country where such an idea might have merit.
I'm not even saying it does here right now. But in the future, wholesale automation of jobs may make it necessary.
The Brain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2016, 15:22
UIR
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,048
Will we have wholesale automation jobs across the board though? would insurance allow for it for example? Much like with driver-less cars, who is ultimately responsible?

Maybe in some industries we will but across the board, forcing millions out of work? Not so sure. The economic effects would be a disaster and then, who ultimately pays for these automated systems, if nobody buys the end product?

Full automation is a pipe dream imo. More of a nightmare tbh,
UIR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2016, 15:25
paulschapman
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 24,735
The figure was in dollars, my mistake.

You seem extremely naive in that people given free money will have an incentive to work. They absolutely wont. were not a third world country where such an idea might have merit.
It is a gross exaggeration to say that all who got the money would just remain satisfied and live off that - especially as I would expect it to be set nearer the minimum wage - a basic income is NOT a replacement for income.

Further as has been shown in the various experiments - despite concerns that it would mean people would sit back and do nothing - the opposite has been the case.
paulschapman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2016, 15:42
blueisthecolour
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: South
Posts: 10,847
Thinking about it further, I think that the 'basic income' system would work better if more and more things were just provided for free. So . . . .

Lets say that the current council tax system is scrapped.

A set level of gas, electric and water is provided for free.

Basic broadband is free.

All public transport is made free.

Road tax is abolished, as are the tv licence and all charges for government services (passport, driving licence etc).

VAT abolished on specific essential goods and services.
blueisthecolour is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2016, 15:43
UIR
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,048
It is a gross exaggeration to say that all who got the money would just remain satisfied and live off that - especially as I would expect it to be set nearer the minimum wage - a basic income is NOT a replacement for income.

Further as has been shown in the various experiments - despite concerns that it would mean people would sit back and do nothing - the opposite has been the case.
So, in your example you show how giving people a years salary worked. However, thats not what would happen in the UK. It would be a monthly payment likely around £1000 per month. Now, if 2 people both claimed in the same household (I would assume they could) then thats £2000 per month.

Many people have never earned anywhere near that amount and would be head over heels to get it given for doing nothing.

It may have worked in some African countries where $2 a day is the norm. Not so sure it would in a developed country though. We would be better off reforming the current system, creating an environment that encourages work. 9 years on and we're still cleaning up the mess made by Labour.
UIR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2016, 16:05
starry_rune
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 5,654
More and more people are on benefits, and machines are replacing jobs. People try to make extra money but people don't want to buy things from pyramid schemes, new startups at times.

Ee already have 200 billion + to throw at trident, I dont know how much on benefits etc.
starry_rune is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2016, 16:05
paulschapman
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 24,735
It is not just in third world or developing nations however;

Utrecht in the Netherlands set a level of 850 Euros for a single person and 1300 for couples

Paying for the GBI is achieved two ways;

The first in lower bureaucracy - it is very labour intensive to manage our current benefits system.

It gives people enough money to get start.

Canada also tried it as an experiment in the 1970's, as had the USA
paulschapman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2016, 16:38
Joe1500
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 578
The Fabian Society isn't in favour of a universal basic income, it warns such a plan would create too many losers and not reduce poverty or improve the incomes of those with the least. Instead it wants tax free allowances scrapped and a new flat rate benefit paid to all adults alongside existing benefits.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7216791.html
So they want to increase the merry-go-round of taking tax from people then paying it back to them in benefits. Jeez.
Joe1500 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2016, 16:44
BelfastGuy125
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 4,693
So, in your example you show how giving people a years salary worked. However, thats not what would happen in the UK. It would be a monthly payment likely around £1000 per month. Now, if 2 people both claimed in the same household (I would assume they could) then thats £2000 per month.

Many people have never earned anywhere near that amount and would be head over heels to get it given for doing nothing.

It may have worked in some African countries where $2 a day is the norm. Not so sure it would in a developed country though. We would be better off reforming the current system, creating an environment that encourages work. 9 years on and we're still cleaning up the mess made by Labour.
Encourages work? The point of life isn't to bloody work. My generation potentially has to work until we are 75. Imagine that. Knocking your pan in for the guts of 50 years straight all working. You finally get set free at 75 only to realise you can enjoy the freedom from your wheelchair while you suffer your crippled joints, cancer, diabetes and god knows what else.

Anything that gets people out of the shackles of work is a good thing in my book.
BelfastGuy125 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2016, 17:22
mossy2103
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 68,698
This will happen one day in the somewhat distant future. As more and more jobs will be taken up by machinery, we will eventually reach a point where there aren't nearly enough jobs to go around.
Except that I've been hearing this for the last 40 years or so, and it hasn't happened yet.

In fact, as manufacturing jobs are lost, some to automation, other jobs come in to replace them. The Service sector increases, with more jobs within IT/telecomms and associated industries. The key is re-skilling the workforce and ensuring that people leave education with the necessary skillsets for the modern (and changing) workplace.
mossy2103 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2016, 17:25
mossy2103
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 68,698
Thinking about it further, I think that the 'basic income' system would work better if more and more things were just provided for free. So . . . .

Lets say that the current council tax system is scrapped.

A set level of gas, electric and water is provided for free.

Basic broadband is free.

All public transport is made free.

Road tax is abolished, as are the tv licence and all charges for government services (passport, driving licence etc).

VAT abolished on specific essential goods and services.
So where does the money come from to support this extra spending and subsidisation, and where does the money come from to supplement the lost tax revenues?

And with energy costs continuing to rise over time, isn't providing such basic levels "for free" a ticking timebomb?
mossy2103 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2016, 17:26
Steve9214
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 6,547
Natalie Bennett trying, and failing, to explain to Andrew Neil their election manifesto policy of a £72 per week "Citizen's income".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5dFn8RIXOBE from 4.30

She has not the slightest idea how it would be paid for.
Steve9214 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2016, 17:29
paulschapman
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 24,735
Natalie Bennett trying, and failing, to explain to Andrew Neil their election manifesto policy of a £72 per week "Citizen's income".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5dFn8RIXOBE from 4.30

She has not the slightest idea how it would be paid for.
Natalie Bennett is hopeless and always has been. Off the top of my head I can think of a couple.

1. It is a lot cheaper to administer than a means tested benefit.
2. See other examples and experiments where a small stipend was enough to give people a start on something that will make them money - so the cease to be a drain.
paulschapman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2016, 17:31
Steve9214
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 6,547
Didn't realise there was an American "Labor" Party.

When did they get so big over here ??

Maybe THAT will be how they handle a split.

One side becomes "Labor" the other stays as "Labour"

Oh the delights of default US English spell checker !!
I once worked for a Colours and Flavours company - all my spellings got changed in Word to Color and Flavor, no matter how many times I changed them back
Steve9214 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 23:21.