Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Community Assistant
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36454060

    In a victory for those of us who believe that income should be earnt and that universal welfare is a socialist concept the Swiss have overwhelmingly rejected the basic income though ironically Labour are looking at it.

    Thoughts?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Strange indeed
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Don't really care what the Swiss do, they've a very different culture to us and I don't know enough about their society to comment.
    But no way should it be introduced here imo, I don't trust Brits enough to not abuse it. Not working should not be insentivised.
    Not to mention the message it sends to those wanting to move here...
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    I don't get why the left even has such a hard on for universal income. It's essentially re-allocating the welfare budget, which is means-tested and for the very poorest, and instead also sharing it with the rest of the population as well. I don't see how giving half the welfare budget to middle class and rich people is in anyway shape or form progressive.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    I don't get why the left even has such a hard on for universal income. It's essentially re-allocating the welfare budget, which is means-tested and for the very poorest, and instead also sharing it with the rest of the population as well. I don't see how giving half the welfare budget to middle class and rich people is in anyway shape or form progressive.
    It's an answer to a problem that does not exist yet. The idea is that in the next 50 years we will see massive, endemic and constant unemployment due to automation. The only way of dealing with this will be to have a Base payment that will enable the majority of the populace to live. The issue is we can't be sure this situation will ever emerge, predictions of mass unemployment caused by modernisation has been around since the steam engine.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    I don't get why the left even has such a hard on for universal income. It's essentially re-allocating the welfare budget, which is means-tested and for the very poorest, and instead also sharing it with the rest of the population as well. I don't see how giving half the welfare budget to middle class and rich people is in anyway shape or form progressive.
    Because ideally it guarantees no one is below the poverty line, removes all the bureaucracy about calculating who deserves what and how much (with the goal being that Ui payments for everyone will be less than the welfare budget and the means testing costs) and ensures that if you work you are better off. That's the theory, whether it works in practise I don't know, it seems like one of those things you can't do little tests to see if it can be done increments, you either jump into the deep end or not, however I'm not an economist so I may well be wrong about that.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gwilym101)
    Because ideally it guarantees no one is below the poverty line, removes all the bureaucracy about calculating who deserves what and how much (with the goal being that Ui payments for everyone will be less than the welfare budget and the means testing costs) and ensures that if you work you are better off. That's the theory, whether it works in practise I don't know, it seems like one of those things you can't do little tests to see if it can be done increments, you either jump into the deep end or not, however I'm not an economist so I may well be wrong about that.
    It wouldn't eradicate poverty since UBI itself would push up the threshold and you'd still have long-term unemployed people. The amount of UBI required to wipe out 'poverty' would be catastrophic for the economy.
    I can't imagine efficiency savings would amount to much either, in the grand scheme of things, not enough to make up for the fact that you're taking welfare from the poorest and giving it to people who don't need it.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    You would run out of money.

    If you redistribute wealth, the rich will end up rich and the poor will end up poor within one year of the redistribution.

    The rich create the jobs and technology that fund it too. It just doesn't work. We already have benefits. UBI would be unecessary.

    edit : a Brit can already in theory claim 22,000 a year in benefits, and also get free health care.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    It's an answer to a problem that does not exist yet. The idea is that in the next 50 years we will see massive, endemic and constant unemployment due to automation. The only way of dealing with this will be to have a Base payment that will enable the majority of the populace to live. The issue is we can't be sure this situation will ever emerge, predictions of mass unemployment caused by modernisation has been around since the steam engine.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Just let nature take its course, and let the poor starve to death.

    Alternatively, restrict automation.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    I don't get why the left even has such a hard on for universal income. It's essentially re-allocating the welfare budget, which is means-tested and for the very poorest, and instead also sharing it with the rest of the population as well. I don't see how giving half the welfare budget to middle class and rich people is in anyway shape or form progressive.
    Because it gets rid of the welfare barrier. It remove the situation where someone would end up earning less by working, and would also allow more people to pursue part-time jobs or become self-employed.

    It would give each citizen more employment freedom, and make working always more profitable than not working. It would also potentially clear up a massive amount of bureaucracy.

    Granted, its not equality in outcome, but its equality in opportunity.
    • Community Assistant
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    The left need the universal income for the same reason that any sane right winger should oppose it. It is harder to take things away electorally than it is to give them.

    The left like the concept of universality because a government that removes a persons welfare is a government that is making them directly poorer (even if the resultant tax reductions may make them indirectly richer). Any fan of the small state should oppose the idea for the inverse reason.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Farm_Ecology)

    It would give each citizen more employment freedom,
    Which has a bad effect on work quality.
    The biggest problem with socialist ideas, is perhaps, that they ignore human psychology. Humans are naturally adapted to life in difficult, demanding environment. Building up a sort of heaven as their new environment, removes the element of motivation for large numbers of people, if not for most. There must me a balance beetwen reward and danger in human life, and if you remove the feeling of danger completely, and give them too much reward just for their existence, they will lack motivation to do anything.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PTMalewski)
    Which has a bad effect on work quality.
    The biggest problem with socialist ideas, is perhaps, that they ignore human psychology. Humans are naturally adapted to life in difficult, demanding environment. Building up a sort of heaven as their new environment, removes the element of motivation for large numbers of people, if not for most. There must me a balance beetwen reward and danger in human life, and if you remove the feeling of danger completely, and give them too much reward just for their existence, they will lack motivation to do anything.
    How does a basic income remove motivation?

    People who work to enhance their lives, rather than just to keep them, tend to work harder.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Farm_Ecology)
    Because it gets rid of the welfare barrier. It remove the situation where someone would end up earning less by working, and would also allow more people to pursue part-time jobs or become self-employed.

    It would give each citizen more employment freedom, and make working always more profitable than not working. It would also potentially clear up a massive amount of bureaucracy.

    Granted, its not equality in outcome, but its equality in opportunity.
    Yeah, I know the reasons people say when they are for it, I'm saying I don't get why the left are for UBI. 'Equality in opportunity rather than outcome' is the first quote in the Tory handbook of Thatcherite rhetoric. The left are meant to be for equal outcomes and wealth redistribution towards the poorest. UBI can not by nature be more progressive than means-tested welfare. (And I'm pretty sure no one is worse off in work rather than benefits. It might be marginal in some cases, but AFAIK you always technical make more. The issue is the 'effort' of working full-time to get only a little bit more than you might from doing nothing.)
    Extra free money is obviously nice but I personally don't need UBI. I'm not going to starve if I don't get it. The middle class and rich don't need UBI. A lot of working class families can survive without UBI. Welfare should be a safety net for those who genuinely need it, not an extra bonus just 'cos.
    The main advocates I see for UBI, in the UK atleast, are students, seemingly simply because it would make their standard of living better, which is laughably ironic.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    Yeah, I know the reasons people say when they are for it, I'm saying I don't get why the left are for UBI. 'Equality in opportunity rather than outcome' is the first quote in the Tory handbook of Thatcherite rhetoric. The left are meant to be for equal outcomes and wealth redistribution towards the poorest.
    .
    Well, the left has always historically been fractured, and not all people on the left see things the same way. The people who are most likely to benefit from a UBI are people in low end jobs who receive no welfare whatsoever.



    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    Extra free money is obviously nice but I personally don't need UBI. I'm not going to starve if I don't get it. The middle class and rich don't need UBI. A lot of working class families can survive without UBI. Welfare should be a safety net for those who genuinely need it, not an extra bonus just 'cos.
    I don't need it either, but I think the best way to see it is welfare for those who need it, and a small tax break for those that don't.


    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    The main advocates I see for UBI, in the UK atleast, are students, seemingly simply because it would make their standard of living better, which is laughably ironic.
    I've always seen the main proponents of UBI being futurists and transhumanists.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Farm_Ecology)
    Well, the left has always historically been fractured, and not all people on the left see things the same way. The people who are most likely to benefit from a UBI are people in low end jobs who receive no welfare whatsoever.

    I don't need it either, but I think the best way to see it is welfare for those who need it, and a small tax break for those that don't.
    Generally though, it's mainly the left pushing for UBI.

    But there are loads of people that get far more now in benefits than any UBI would pay out. So either the actual most vulnerable will see cuts in their welfare income for the sake of an un-needed small tax break, or UBI payouts would have to be increased to the point of breaking the economy in tax burden and inflation.

    (Original post by Farm_Ecology)
    I've always seen the main proponents of UBI being futurists and transhumanists.
    You must not follow LadBible and UniLad on Facebook then! Also, only students are pretentious enough to call themselves transhumanists.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    Generally though, it's mainly the left pushing for UBI.

    But there are loads of people that get far more now in benefits than any UBI would pay out. So either the actual most vulnerable will see cuts in their welfare income for the sake of an un-needed small tax break, or UBI payouts would have to be increased to the point of breaking the economy in tax burden and inflation.
    The people that would benefit would be people in low end jobs, or part time workers. So the poorest would lively see a reduction in welfare sure, but you would see an end to the trough that is low-end jobs.

    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    You must not follow LadBible and UniLad on Facebook then! Also, only students are pretentious enough to call themselves transhumanists.
    That's an interesting statement.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    I suspect that much of the opposition comes from open borders with the fear that the whole world will move to Switzerland if it adopts a UBI.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Farm_Ecology)
    How does a basic income remove motivation?

    People who work to enhance their lives, rather than just to keep them, tend to work harder.
    Lots of people will refuse to work at all, if they don't have to work to keep their lives. In first generation it may be something like 10%, but later on, these numbers are likely to increase. The fact that you have high personal ambitions, doesn't yet mean that everybody else do.

    Besides, who will do the boring, unpleasant or nasty jobs, if it won't be necessary to work for living?

    (Original post by Farm_Ecology)

    I don't need it either, but I think the best way to see it is welfare for those who need it, and a small tax break for those that don't.
    All jobs in UK are so well payed in comparision to countries to the east from Germany, that one must probably wish to be in difficult economical situation, to find himself in such. People who suffered from serious injuries and illnesses should be aided, but it is demoralising to give people money for doing nothing if they are okay, and can earn money for living on their own.

    (Original post by Arran90)
    I suspect that much of the opposition comes from open borders with the fear that the whole world will move to Switzerland if it adopts a UBI.
    I'm sure that this would happen if UBI was avaible to immigrants without any (long) working period.
    A Polish software developer with 5-8 years of experience earns less money than a German cleaner, and Ukrainians earn even FAR less than the Poles. What do you think, that a random factory worker that has to work at least 8 hours a day (actually they are often forced to work for 12 hours), and earns equivalent of 600 pounds a month tops, would not prefer to have a lifelong holidays in Switzerland at probably higher standard of living?
    I guess that many white collar workers who do boring jobs, earn even less and work up to 16 hours a day, would very much like this too.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    I don't get why the left even has such a hard on for universal income. It's essentially re-allocating the welfare budget, which is means-tested and for the very poorest, and instead also sharing it with the rest of the population as well. I don't see how giving half the welfare budget to middle class and rich people is in anyway shape or form progressive.
    You do realise that the libertarian right also strongly advocates it? At least parts of it anyway such as the Adam Smith insititue.

    It would be more a negative income tax, rather than welfare for middle and high earners.

    So those on low incomes get a boost and those on high incomes a slight tax break.

    It would also simplify our hugely complex benefits system.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.