Labour set to include pilot of radical basic income

Watch
ChaoticButterfly
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#1
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...84777166774272

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-a8471616.html
3
reply
FreeMarketMeme
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#2
Report 2 years ago
#2
Another step down the road to serfdom. Delightful.
1
reply
ChaoticButterfly
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#3
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#3
(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-...s-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.
1
reply
username1738683
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#4
Report 2 years ago
#4
(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?
0
reply
FreeMarketMeme
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#5
Report 2 years ago
#5
(Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
The guy in your avatar who was part of the "road to serfdom" croud supported it...

https://medium.com/basic-income/why-...s-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.
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.
0
reply
Retired_Messiah
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#6
Report 2 years ago
#6
I'll reserve judgement until I see how much it is.
0
reply
CoolCavy
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#7
Report 2 years ago
#7
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.
2
reply
FrankoJJameson
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#8
Report 2 years ago
#8
(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
0
reply
poohat
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#9
Report 2 years ago
#9
(Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
The guy in your avatar who was part of the "road to serfdom" croud supported it...

https://medium.com/basic-income/why-...s-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.
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.
0
reply
poohat
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#10
Report 2 years ago
#10
(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.
1
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#11
Report 2 years ago
#11
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.
0
reply
Underscore__
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#12
Report 2 years ago
#12
(Original post by poohat)
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.
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.
0
reply
ChaoticButterfly
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#13
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#13
(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/scienc...9165999390136E
https://www.quora.com/Was-John-Stuart-Mill-a-socialist
0
reply
Drewski
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#14
Report 2 years ago
#14
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.
0
reply
ChaoticButterfly
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#15
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#15
(Original post by poohat)
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.
Yeah I know. I don't support the right wing version.
0
reply
ChaoticButterfly
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#16
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#16
(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.
0
reply
ChaoticButterfly
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#17
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#17
(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.
1
reply
akbar0123
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#18
Report 2 years ago
#18
And who’s going to pay for that?
0
reply
ChaoticButterfly
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#19
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#19
(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.
0
reply
mojojojo101
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#20
Report 2 years ago
#20
(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.
3
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

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.

Personalise

Should there be a new university admissions system that ditches predicted grades?

No, I think predicted grades should still be used to make offers (626)
33.64%
Yes, I like the idea of applying to uni after I received my grades (PQA) (784)
42.13%
Yes, I like the idea of receiving offers only after I receive my grades (PQO) (368)
19.77%
I think there is a better option than the ones suggested (let us know in the thread!) (83)
4.46%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed