Labour set to include pilot of radical basic income

BREAKING: ‘Labour set to include pilot of radical basic income policy in next manifesto, John McDonnell says’. Basic Income could reduce poverty, reduce bureaucracy and minimise risk for small business owners.

https://twitter.com/LabourUBI/status/1024384777166774272

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-universal-basic-income-john-mcdonnell-party-manifesto-corbyn-poverty-social-benefits-a8471616.html

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1

FreeMarketMeme

Another step down the road to serfdom. Delightful.

Reply 2

ChaoticButterfly

Original post by FreeMarketMeme

Another step down the road to serfdom. Delightful.

The guy in your avatar who was part of the "road to serfdom" croud supported it...

https://medium.com/basic-income/why-milton-friedman-supported-a-guaranteed-income-5-reasons-da6e628f6070

A citezens income is the exact opposite of being a serf. You have no obligation to anyone for your basic income. It's part of a set of liberal rights that ensure you are not tied to no lord, capitalist or soviet manager for your basic needs.

(edited 5 years ago)

Reply 3

username1738683

Original post by ChaoticButterfly

...set of liberal rights that ensure you are not tied to no lord nor capitalist for your basic needs.

You mean like not having to work in order to meet one's basic needs, universally speaking? Labour are probably on the money here, that may sound quite appealing to some. Hell, they'll end up tempting me. Free everything and now free money too, how can anyone resist?

(edited 5 years ago)

Reply 4

FreeMarketMeme

Original post by ChaoticButterfly

True, but many of his biggest fans regard his supporting of such a policy as his worst ever decision and besides I am not much of a Free Marketeer, I just enjoy the enthusiasm he infused into the presentation of his philosophy.

Also, I don't think liberal is the right word, not in the traditional use of the word at least, maybe in the American sense where everyone from a centrist to a democratic socialist can be thrown under that banner. I think the word progressive is a better term as such an idea is more Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez than John Stuart Mill.

Reply 5

Retired_Messiah

I'll reserve judgement until I see how much it is.

Reply 6

CoolCavy

Volunteer Team

Whats going to pay for that, the NHS is falling apart, there are cuts left right and centre and people think its a good idea to give a wage to people doing sweet FA.

Reply 7

FrankoJJameson

Original post by FreeMarketMeme

Another step down the road to serfdom. Delightful.

So dramatic, variants of UBI has been advocated by neoliberals particularly Milton Friedman in the 1970s. I’m not entirely convinced mainly because it opens the door for the privatisation of universal provision such as healthcare. This form part of ongoing debates concerning how UBI will be used to legitimise the retrenchment of the state

(edited 5 years ago)

Reply 8

poohat

Original post by ChaoticButterfly

Economists have supported basic income as an _alternative_ to means-tested benefits because it removes the perverse incentives where earning £1000 from work results in you getting £800 of your benefits removed, resulting in 80%+ effective tax rates. And in this context, its obviously a good idea.

That isnt what Labour want though. They arent talking about getting rid of child tax credit, housing beneift etc and replacing it all with a universal basic income (whihc would be a really good idea). They want it as well as those things - i.e. its just even more welfare and wealth transfer.

Dont confuse the current noises being made by Labour/etc with the basic income scheme that many economists have supported (including famous figures like Friedman). The latter were talking about removing all forms of benefits/welfare and replacing them with a basic income+flat rate income tax, because its more economically efficient (and less distortionary) than means-testing.

(edited 5 years ago)

Reply 9

poohat

Original post by CoolCavy

Whats going to pay for that, the NHS is falling apart, there are cuts left right and centre and people think its a good idea to give a wage to people doing sweet FA.

Done properly its revenue neutral, since it replaces current benefits. The idea is that it shouldnt cost much extra money, and will result in big improvements to the economy since it incentivises people to work hard and better themselves, which the current system does not.

In the current system, if you are working a minimum wage job (say £15k/year salary) and have a stay-at-home partner and 2 kids, then you get around £20k in tax-free government benefits (mostly child tax credit and housing benefit) every year, which brings your effective gross salary up to around £40k/year. If you then get a promotion at work and your salary increases to £40k, then most of your benefits get removed and you only end up with around £2000-3000 extra income after factoring everything in, compared to your minimum wage job. So going from minimum wage up to around £40k/year results in close to a 90% tax rate - people with kids who earn £40k/year dont really have more money than those on minimum wage due to how tax and benefits work.

This is obviously stupid and disincentvises any attempt to better yourself. Literally almost any other system would be better. The 'basic income' approach says that all of the above benefits should just be scrapped and instead we just give the person (say) £10k tax free for literally nothing. Then, any income they make from work will be taxed at some flat rate, say 30%. Now, the person has a strong incentive to get that promotion and increase their salary from minimum wage up to £40k/year because they will get to keep 70% of their salary increase, rather than 10% under the current system.

Its a good system and makes sense, regardless of whether you are left or right wing. Its not about increasing or reducing benefits, its about giving the same money to people in a less stupid and distortionary way. Unfortunately this isnt what Labour are proposing - they dont actually want to replace all benefits with UBI, they just want to keep the current benefits and give people even more, making the problem even worse.

(edited 5 years ago)

Reply 10

Napp

Political parties include many things in their manifestos. The only thing we should take away from that is that they will most definitely never ever put it into practice.

Reply 11

Underscore__

Original post by poohat

The key part of what you said is ‘when done right’; the government tends to be rather inefficient and get a lot of stuff wrong.

Reply 12

ChaoticButterfly

Original post by FreeMarketMeme

Also, I don't think liberal is the right word, not in the traditional use of the word at least, maybe in the American sense where everyone from a centrist to a democratic socialist can be thrown under that banner. I think the word progressive is a better term as such an idea is more Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez than John Stuart Mill.

I'm of the opinion you need stuff like a UBI to meet the aims of liberalism, well the humanist version anyway. Not the weird slavery is private property and therefore good liberalism.

John Stuart Mill died a socialist.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/019165999390136E
https://www.quora.com/Was-John-Stuart-Mill-a-socialist

(edited 5 years ago)

Reply 13

Drewski

They have to be elected first.

And despite the colossal shitshow that is the current Government, Labour are still a fairly distant second... Which is just embarrassing.

Reply 14

ChaoticButterfly

Original post by poohat

Yeah I know. I don't support the right wing version.

Reply 15

ChaoticButterfly

Original post by Drewski

They have to be elected first.

And despite the colossal shitshow that is the current Government, Labour are still a fairly distant second... Which is just embarrassing.

It's called polarisation. Both parties are on 40% of the vote, which would normally be an election winner. Also Labour are a close second.

Reply 16

ChaoticButterfly

Original post by CoolCavy

people think its a good idea to give a wage to people doing sweet FA.

Why not?

There is also a difference between not working and doing "f all". For example women often pick up the slack when it comes to child rearing. Either by not working at all, working part time, or taking a hit to thier career progression. A UBI is feminist in that is would, on average, redistribute towards women and thus recognising the important activity of making more humans.

Another example is students. You are not getting a wage but you are still doing something.

(edited 5 years ago)

Reply 17

akbar0123

And who’s going to pay for that?

Reply 18

ChaoticButterfly

Original post by akbar0123

And who’s going to pay for that?

Well it's a pilot. It might not be feasible right now, which is why you do small scale tests first.

Reply 19

mojojojo101

Original post by CoolCavy

Whats going to pay for that, the NHS is falling apart, there are cuts left right and centre and people think its a good idea to give a wage to people doing sweet FA.

What I find more interesting is people's belief that spending 40 hours a week doing utterly frivolous, unnecessary and unfulfilling activity should be the key to such extravagant luxuries as food, water and a dry place to sleep.

UBI's biggest hurdle in the west is puritanical protestant work ethic.