That's a fair point, but it represents those people you present as an example. Many people like that will exist with this proposed system or not.
What about people in general?
What about all the people who want to get off benefits but the bridge between benefits and work is too steep and they lose money by working, so never have the drive to want to work?
What about the amount of people who really want to set up their own things but simply don't have the money?

It's true that some will inevitably abuse the system. But wouldn't it be cynical to think that represents most people? Maybe many people see this as an opportunity to get on and do something positive in life which they were unable to do so before?
Maybe the pros far outweigh the cons in the long run.
I'm not necessarily insisting that they will, but maybe.

But wouldn't this be a system where it would be people themselves who would either choose to bring everyone down to a common level or pull themselves up by the bootstraps?
Surely this is a system which provides opportunities for people who wish to bring themselves up to a higher level?

People always complain about the current system and elites ruling over us. But here may be an opportunity for people to consider whether this proposal perhaps provides a means for people to change the system for the betterment of average people.

I think that the main problem is that so many people complain against the orthodoxy, but when opportunities come along where they can perhaps change the system they will still support the orthodoxy.
You will get activists who will complain all their lives about the system but have absolutely no idea what to replace the system with. They will just continue to blame te system and the cycle continues.

Exactly my point.
I think that there currently prevails a cynicism towards each other in the UK. We assume that everyone only cares about money and doesn't want to work. And maybe there is a danger of that becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy.

That's why I suggested that people in other countries may be ready for something like this. But it may be possible that we are not because as a people we many not trust each other and maybe we are even aware of our own failings deep down as we look at ourselves and simply don't believe that we have the required value system to make something like this work.

Your example is perfect and I couldn't hope for somebody to link to a better one. In some countries who have nothing they would jump at the chance. Here in the UK we may be just a bit too cynical for our own good because we don't trust ourselves.
I'd like to think that isn't the case though and we at least give ourselves time to think this through rather than instantly dismissing it.

I've been an advocate of this idea for some time. It would go some way to eradicating homelessness, give people struggling a bit of breathing room but you'd also have people working because they wanted to rather than they had to. I don't think it's perfect, but with enough work I do genuinely think its viable and I hope it does begin to gain some traction.

This is basic generalisation but a quick google brought up welfare spending to approximately £170 billion, if you divide that by the UK population you end up with approximately £2500 per person in the UK. Obviously it wouldn't be anything close to that but even if you set it at around £1250 you'd have the UK's welfare bill and solve numerous social problems while you were at it. I really really like it.

The way you appear to be looking at it is as if all this money is extra money.
Not true. A lot of money we pay for goods and services with goes back to the government in other forms of tax.
In fact even with the current welfare system which pays some people benefits how much of that money do you think doesn't make its way back to the government in taxes?

With a more fluid economic system there will be more opportunities for those who wish to grab them who may never have had the opportunity before.
More people able to set up small businesses, more people with more spending power to keep those businesses afloat.

Wouldn't those who choose to work hard in the proposed system earn more than they do with the current one?

I think jealousy over someone getting benefits has been a major problem with the current system. The proposed system would ensure that everybody gets the same basic income.
People who 'work hard' would earn money on top of the basic income. They don't lose, they have more security which provides choices for themselves which they may never have had before.

To be fair they did say 'some', even if I don't agree with their general argument.

No it doesn't follow automatically, because you are judging a future system based on the current economy within the current system. The system itself will manifest an array of changes to accommodate the new system.
You can't measure a new system under the assumption that people will behave in exactly the same way under a different system.

For example there's an assumption that people will do nothing because it's free money for doing nothing.
What if the reason people behave as they currently do now is because the current system makes them unable to do what they would normally want to do under a different system?
There will be different variables to measure and react accordingly to.

Once such change may be that people don't judge other people harshly based on what they do, or what they earn or don't earn. Which is a scourge of the current system we live under. Maybe under this new system they couldn't care less because they or their family members are reaping the benefits of it themselves?

How sneering and dismissive of you. There's nothing "special snowflakey" about actually caring about large groups of people.

Some of us able to look at other human beings and judge and value them outside of what the earn. All this "dream world" talk...

Some of us also don't look at people who work their socks off and have little show for it except exhaustion, possibly poor mental health and often suffering physical health and think that's somehow a positive thing on any level. Oh, but they have their "dignity" and sense of "pride". What a comfort. I don't mean any disrespect to anyone who feels pride and dignity with little to show for it. I just look at people in that boat and think they deserve better.

Do we not see how irrational is is to wonder if it's a good thing for mass automation replacing certain jobs because of what will happen to people? it should be a great thing if we reduce tedious labour from human lives. More efficient too.

In the long term who knows what technology will replace? It won't necessarily just be low skilled positions. Of course there will still need to be man power for some things - but I imagine jobs like dentists or pharmacists could be easily reduced as well.

There isn't going to be enough employment for people, and whatever there might be probably won't be enough for a living anyway. What do others want to suggest we do? I'm sure there sociopaths out there who might love the idea of more and more "worthless" people unable to get work "proving" their unworthiness - but for the rest of us? What would happen? Should there be have half a dozen or more people living in a small flat all trying to get enough together to pay the rent? Should we open hundreds or thousands of more homeless shelters with some rich people donating some money for food and cots? A few police officers for every shelter should keep them from rioting? At least the people won't all die then, and that's OK isn't it? I'm sure the rich wouldn't mind, be cheaper than basic income probably.

This isn't just a UK problem, this is every country. Money already makes things less efficient. Here in Canada we have more trained teachers than teaching positions. It would make more sense to have more teaching positions wouldn't it? Splitting a class of 30 into 15 sounds far more efficient in terms of teacher - student ratio and therefore time for each student. Obviously they need to keep costs down. That's the efficiency that matters, not the true quality of the schools themselves.

Now, I'm sure some might say how ridiculous I sound when surely Canada would have better schools than most countries? Maybe, but that's not really the point here.

On another note, I know I don't really belong here in the politics section. Too...cold.

Should have happened decades ago.

Well Finland is currently trialing it, so let's see how they fund it.

I always find it odd when Corbyn proposes something that other countries are already doing, the right get dismissive and call him a loony and prattle on about funding.

In Scotland it will be trialled in the near future.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7505411.html

LakieLady's view: this will probably happen after 2021, when I get my state pension, just to make sure that I have to continue wage-slaving for the full extra 6 years I'm having to wait before I get my state pension.

You're assuming there'd be a huge increase in people being "bone idle". We just don't know that, and it seems unlikely that so many people would want to do absolutely nothing with their lives when the incentive to do something would be so much greater.

Those experiments that have been tried into a Guaranteed Basic Income have shown that it would (eventually) become self-financing, or at least bring in more money than it costs.

I have the following questions.
1. What happens to those who currently receive benefits based on need who currently get more than the UBI?
2. Will the UBI in effect just be extra money to fund the lifestyle choices of those already well off enough to choose not to work and those on high incomes who can afford to choose to work less hours. While leaving the masses still reliant on working full-time to make ends meet or to have an acceptable standard of living.

Given 1 and 2 above is this taking money of those in need to enable the middle class and wealth to indulge themselves?

If UBI costs more than the existing benefits then how is it paid for?
Which existing taxes will be increased or new taxes introduced and what effect on standard of living and UK competitiveness will the tax changes have?

What experiments?
The examples seem to be poor countries replacing no welfare with UBI with the money enabling people. Not wealth countries replacing welfare based on need with UBI for all.

The idea that it will become self-financing based on the idea that you are enabling poor people to use the money to help themselves become productive rather than subsidizing richer peoples lifestyle choices to be less productive.

Canada did it with Pensioners - the result was reduced poverty levels, longevity went up as did independence from the healthcare system and hence the need for long term healthcare went down.

In Manitoba another project run from 1974 saw Hospitalisations, accidents, injuries and mental health issues all declined when the stipend during the projects life. Data from the project also showed little decline in people's desire to work


Why do you have a problem with this?

The whole point of a UBI is that it sets a floor so that nobody's income goes below that level.

How fortunate we are that the Loony Left will never get elected thanks to Corbyn being leader - so we are safe from such obviously unworkable suggestions being implemented.

At what level of income would someone have to be worse off in order for this scheme to be self-financing?

Take someone currently on £30,000 a year which is £2500 a month gross or around £2000 net. Tax paid around £6000 a year.

I've seen lots of figures suggested for this "basic income" but let's assume it is £10,000 a year with all earned income above that taxed. The worker above suddenly has an annual income of £40,000 but £30,000 of that is taxed. To be revenue neutral you would have to tax all of that £30,000 at 20%. All you are effectively doing is replacing their tax free allowance with a £10k payment.

You do know they are trialing it in Finland, and it is being seriously considered by other, mainly scandinavian, countries as well.

Labour is not necessarily "the Loony Left", and we won't know it's unworkable until it's actually tried. Sounds like a great idea.

It does rather depend in that the savings are things like reduced healthcare costs.


Thing is I don't have a problem with that since now we are in a situation that nobody has an income below the level of the UBI. It is worth noting that we are going to see a drastic change in the employment practices. Increased self-employed, zero hour contracts and the so called gig economy. This means people are going to see either large changes in income or even low income. Rates in the gig economy are very low - which is why Uber drivers make such a poor wage. Very good if it is not your primary income, but not much good if it is. With such jobs replacing skilled and semi-skilled work our current tax and benefit system is just not going to be able to cope - which is why it will need reform to account for such things.

Pensioners are not expected to work for a living. So I fail to see the relevance to the points I was making.


The study on the effect on desire to work was ended half way through the experiment due to lack of funding with the researchers declaring the experiment a success and collecting no more data on the effect on desire to work.

As far as rate of use of medical services, hospital stays, hospital treatments for accidents, etc. During the experiment they fell. However they were higher than comparable areas to start with. This high starting point may have been due to the opening of a new hospital in the area. At the end of the study period rates were the same as comparable areas. As far as relevance to the points I was making I see none.


Because it would be unfair. To fund the lifestyle choices of those already well off enough to choose not to work and those on high incomes who can afford to choose to work less hours. While leaving the masses still reliant on working full-time to make ends meet or to have an acceptable standard of living.

It is also unfair to give money to those who do not need when instead the money could be given to those who do need it.


In Manitoba it was set at poverty level. The same as welfare for those with non income. So there was a strong incentive to work to not live in poverty and to have an acceptable standard of living.

In Manitoba UBI entitlement was reduced 50c for ever $1 of other income. So it was targeted at the poor. With at any time two thirds of people entitled to no UBI and the middle class and wealthy not entitled to it.

In effect Manitoba had what the UK is introducing universal credit but with a 50% taper rate, instead of Universal Credit's 63% taper rate.

Is your earlier example of pensioners in Canada the same type of thing. Something basically the same as what the UK already has with its pensioner income guarantee.

If everyone gets the same basic income as a right, what's unfair about that? People on high incomes who don't need it will presumably be paying it back through tax.