Has The Time Come To Replace The Welfare State With Universal Basic Income?

[Anna B]

I believe something like UBI needs to be in place as work becomes scarcer and more unreliable. Universal Credit is a nightmare and doesn't adapt itself to fast changing circumstances, nor is it enough to live on and leads to continuing cycle of debt. I doubt if UBI would be enough either. Forget what you read in the Daily Mail etc, far from being generous our benefits system is one of the least generous most punitive systems in the western world.

 

But the welfare state is about so much more than that. The NHS for example should not be replaced by Private healthcare as those with most need of it, (eg hereditary or long term illness,) will find it impossible to get affordable cover. Social care for older citizens/pensioners who have worked and paid taxes all their lives should be available, affordable and fair when they need it. 

 

As for means testing, ask all those middle class people, (especially those in their 50's and 60's) who have been unfortunate enough to have lost their jobs during covid, if they think means testing is fair.

 

We are living in changing times, we need to adapt.

Edited May 18, 2021 by Anna B

[Mr Allen]

If they put me on Universal Credit, instead of my nice Flat in S3, I'd probably end up in some dodgy hole on a rough estate in S2 because it'd be all I could afford!    

 

 

[apelike]

6 minutes ago, Mr Allen said:

If they put me on Universal Credit, instead of my nice Flat in S3, I'd probably end up in some dodgy hole on a rough estate in S2 because it'd be all I could afford!    

Those were the days......  

[El Cid]

2 hours ago, Anna B said:

As for means testing, ask all those middle class people, (especially those in their 50's and 60's) who have been unfortunate enough to have lost their jobs during covid, if they think means testing is fair.

Unemployment has gone from a very low 3.8% to a still low 4.8%

Its amazing how it has stayed so low.

[Ms Macbeth]

My understanding of UBI is that the tax system would kick in so the wealthiest would see no increase in their income, the middling workers would probably retain a bit extra, the lowest paid would see the biggest benefit, ie it would be financially worth while to take temporary, part time and zero hours jobs, leading to fewer people being completely benefit dependent. Those who didn't work wouldn't be sanctioned, but their living standards would be basic, as now.

 

There would have to be special allowances on top, enhanced for disability, for children etc.   Simpler than the current system, and much less reliant on means testing.

[ECCOnoob]

6 minutes ago, Ms Macbeth said:

My understanding of UBI is that the tax system would kick in so the wealthiest would see no increase in their income, the middling workers would probably retain a bit extra, the lowest paid would see the biggest benefit, ie it would be financially worth while to take temporary, part time and zero hours jobs, leading to fewer people being completely benefit dependent. Those who didn't work wouldn't be sanctioned, but their living standards would be basic, as now.

 

There would have to be special allowances on top, enhanced for disability, for children etc.   Simpler than the current system, and much less reliant on means testing.

That's fair enough. But at what point do the wealthiest start to think sod this and leave to go somewhere else where they can keep increasing their income.

 

Who then picks up the slack to keep up that high level of benefit to the lowest earners. Does the middle portion get squeezed even more (as usual).

 

At what point does it go full circle and we start having the inevitable conflict and resentment of those modest earners feeling they are funding the lifestyles of others who can but choose not to work.  That feeling is a hard thing to break.

[the_bloke]

A true Universal Basic Income system is when everybody, regardless of circumstance, gets a flat amount of money from the Government. So the unemployed get £100 a week (as an example figure), people in low paid jobs get that plus whatever they earn, as do high earners as do pensioners. Presumably disabled people who aren't in work get extra, and the system should take into account the requirements of existing benefits to make sure claimants aren't suffering a loss.

 

But no, there shouldn't be any means testing, that's the point. Everyone gets the same. I get it, you get it, people who don't want to work get it.

[trastrick]

16 hours ago, El Cid said:

Do tax credits take away the incentive to work?

No, tax credits reduce taxes for working taxpayers. That's an "incentive" to work.

 

A UBI  is a disincentive to work.

 

Business Insider, (https://www.businessinsider.com/yang-warren-universal-basic-income-idea-bad-2019-11)

 

"Unlike programs crafted to specifically help people with low income and those with disabilities, a UBI program would, by design, spread payments across the widest possible base.

This means that while the economically vulnerable would receive support, so too would middle- to upper-income families. Why give some money to everyone, rather than offer dedicated assistance to those who need it?"

 

It must be paid for! The UK National Debt (Borrowing from future generations) is already steeply rising and unsustainable, especially in an economic crisis.

 

You've seen recently what happens when the welfare state runs out of money, and can borrow no more. 

 

Rioting and burning on the streets.

 

There is no Free Lunch.

 

 

[the_bloke]

31 minutes ago, trastrick said:

No, tax credits reduce taxes for working taxpayers. That's an "incentive" to work.

 

A UBI  is a disincentive to work.

One of the studies actually discovered that; knowing there was an uninterrupted basic income instead of a time limited benefit equivalent to JSA meant that people were less stressed being out of work - because they didn't have to find work in a given timeframe - and also didn't change the unemployment rate. UBI was not a greater incentive to find work than the existing system.

 

The focus on UBI is also on the unemployed; I've not seen anything that investigated the long term effects of UBI on the employed. I'd predict an increase in zero hours contracts as a start and a stagnation of the minimum wage, yet an increase in the cost of living and inflation as everyone suddenly has more money.

[tinfoilhat]

41 minutes ago, the_bloke said:

One of the studies actually discovered that; knowing there was an uninterrupted basic income instead of a time limited benefit equivalent to JSA meant that people were less stressed being out of work - because they didn't have to find work in a given timeframe - and also didn't change the unemployment rate. UBI was not a greater incentive to find work than the existing system.

 

The focus on UBI is also on the unemployed; I've not seen anything that investigated the long term effects of UBI on the employed. I'd predict an increase in zero hours contracts as a start and a stagnation of the minimum wage, yet an increase in the cost of living and inflation as everyone suddenly has more money.

I think it would certainly encourage people to take work - as you say zero hours and temp contracts would go through the roof - because they can take a couple of weeks of work safe in the knowledge they won't have to fight for 6 weeks to get their benefits back. 

 

The current system doesn't encourage work.