A universal basic income, regardless of salary, savings and no strings attached. No repayments. It is being discussed by the government in Wales, after they just rolled out a £1,600 a month basic income for young people leaving the care system.
The idea of it being available to everyone has been around for a while, but this new scheme has floated the idea of a basic income for everyone again. The exact figure on offer has not been decided.
But what a great idea for the whole of the UK? With depressed wages, a cost of living crisis, and the number of women in the workforce the lowest it’s been in 30 years – now would be the time.
The Conservatives aren’t keen. They argue that people will be less likely to find work. But it’s just not true. Having free money has never dampened anyones chances of making more of it, or being professionally successful. If that were true, we would worry more about the future of children of hedge funders, not council estate kids.
Having a reliable source of income doesn’t hinder anybody. Most of the rich list are the products of generational wealth. But no one is saying: “We better stop inheritances – it wouldn’t be helpful for someone to have all this free money. It wouldn’t be fair to them! What if it stopped them getting a job?”
Recommended
Finland ran a two-year pilot, where they gave unemployed people an unconditional €560 (£490) a month. The study showed that it didn’t make people lazier or less likely to work, and that health and wellbeing improved because people didn’t have to worry about their finances.
The benefits would be huge. It would relieve stress, have a positive effect on wellbeing, and essentially, relieve the financial pressures so many of us are facing. Having money and resources, and not worrying about whether to “heat or eat” would help people in terms of health, wellbeing and productivity. We don’t need people to be actually, physically hungry to make them hungry for the job. We really need to shake this Victorian idea that the only reason people work is if they need the money to survive.
I don’t think people have ever wanted jobs. But people do want to work. People want to be part of something, to belong to a community, and to work for it, to have purpose. It’s not just about money.
To keep up to speed with all the latest opinions and comment, sign up to our free weekly Voices Dispatches newsletter by clicking here
Social life today shouldn’t look like it did in Victorian England. People working full time shouldn’t need to be using foodbanks, and grants to afford school uniforms for their children. Mothers shouldn’t be asking cashiers to stop scanning groceries because they’ve reached £50 too soon, and can’t afford their regular shop because the price of food has gone up.
To sustain our current economic model, we need to start paying citizens. The biggest barrier is convincing working people that they deserve a basic income, and that no one should have to struggle.
And, let’s not forget, it costs money to make money and women are finding themselves priced out of the job market thanks to the unsustainable cost of childcare. Women can’t afford to work. It’s more expensive to be poor and the Future Generations commissioner’s report showed that a weekly payment to everyone could cut poverty in half.
A bit premature to say that it “worked” in Wales, given that they haven’t started yet… You can only really declare something a success once it’s been running a while.
[deleted]
> It is being discussed by the government in Wales, after they just rolled out a £1,600 a month basic income for young people leaving the care system.
So when they say “worked in Wales” they mean “not tried in Wales”
> Finland ran a two-year pilot, where they gave unemployed people an unconditional €560 (£490) a month
So not universal at all then.
> why not England?
England has far too many people who hate the idea of someone they see as undeserving (and beneath them) receiving anything from “their” taxes.
It simply has to work eventually, it’s not a question of if.
The end game of ever increasing automation has no other feasible outcome.
Because it’d cost 1.3 trillion a year in perpetuity. Unless I’ve stuffed up the calculation.
Because it didn’t “work” in either country. It’s not that simple.
It was so successful in Finland it was a time limited trial.
Daily Mail, Times and Telegraph won’t allow it.
because that’s communism smh
/s incase its not fucking obvious
So Wales has run a very small trial, and the reporter fails to mention that the tax rate in Finland is high, see below:
In Finland, the average single worker faced a net average tax rate of 30.8% in 2021, compared with the OECD average of 24.6%. In other words, in Finland the take-home pay of an average single worker, after tax and benefits, was 69.2% of their gross wage, compared with the OECD average of 75.4%.
Something I’ve noticed from the cost of living payments paid over the last few days- most people on universal credit qualified for it. Who didn’t? Any one who was sanctioned during the assessment period from april- may. These people didn’t get their usual pittance, and they didn’t get the cost of living payment either. They got nothing.
The point I’m making, is that if not structured very carefully, this is an opportunity for which ever government is in charge to completely control your income.
If we’re not very careful, we enter into a social contract where if we oppose the government in any way, they remove our income. This feels like quite dangerous ground to me.
I’m not in any way opposed to taking a little bit from the people who have the most, and giving it to the people who have the least. I’m just worried about the reliance on the government to provide for people and the system that could create.
> The Conservatives aren’t keen. They argue that people will be less likely to find work
The article seems to confuse the idea of a UBI stopping people from working by making that statement in the middle of a few paragraphs that include different amounts.
> Finland ran a two-year pilot, where they gave unemployed people an unconditional €560 (£490) a month. The study showed that it didn’t make people lazier or less likely to work
Of course it didn’t make them less likely to work. The amount given is tiny. Anyone on that amount of money would still want to look for a job, because that money would still barely cover their bills. Thanks to recent price rises in the energy sector, you would need that at a minimum to pay bills and still need housing and council tax benefits.
> It is being discussed by the government in Wales, after they just rolled out a £1,600 a month basic income for young people leaving the care system.
I would give up work for that amount right now. I already earn less than that. Why would I carry on working if I’m getting enough to pay my bills and live comfortably?
£1,600 a month might not be enough for most people living down south, or those with kids, but it’s enough for me.
So yes, there is a danger that setting the UBI too high would discourage people from working.
So why not set it as a negative income tax to £490 a month? Then at least only those people who earned less than £490 a month would get it, making it far more efficient and only giving the money to those who actually need it.
And no, it would **not** cost anything extra to means test it. Anyone with an income of less than £490 a month is already claiming some form of benefits, and the government know exactly who they are.
It would not cost anything extra to means test, it would have no affect on any other benefits, and we could scrap most of the job centre and stop people having to jump through hoops and sanctions to get their money.
The best simple explanation of UBI and it’s history is in Utopia for Realists by Rutger Bergman. It’s incredible how close the US came to UBI under Nixon.
There’s so many misconceptions about what it entails and the effect it will have. I have no doubts that it would be an incredible success. It would instantly kill so many stereotypes about the poor and create so many more opportunities in areas deprived of investment, while likely having huge effects on mental health, addiction and crime.
It’s a dividend from the country, to people who largely own nothing.
Errr, did it work in Finland?
It encourages laziness, it’s a waste of tax payers money.
Because why on earth would our government concede such a huge defeat in the class war when they’re win win winning it right now?
“Our Taxes” are for people who are already rich not for people that need a stability.
19 comments
A universal basic income, regardless of salary, savings and no strings attached. No repayments. It is being discussed by the government in Wales, after they just rolled out a £1,600 a month basic income for young people leaving the care system.
The idea of it being available to everyone has been around for a while, but this new scheme has floated the idea of a basic income for everyone again. The exact figure on offer has not been decided.
But what a great idea for the whole of the UK? With depressed wages, a cost of living crisis, and the number of women in the workforce the lowest it’s been in 30 years – now would be the time.
The Conservatives aren’t keen. They argue that people will be less likely to find work. But it’s just not true. Having free money has never dampened anyones chances of making more of it, or being professionally successful. If that were true, we would worry more about the future of children of hedge funders, not council estate kids.
Having a reliable source of income doesn’t hinder anybody. Most of the rich list are the products of generational wealth. But no one is saying: “We better stop inheritances – it wouldn’t be helpful for someone to have all this free money. It wouldn’t be fair to them! What if it stopped them getting a job?”
Recommended
Finland ran a two-year pilot, where they gave unemployed people an unconditional €560 (£490) a month. The study showed that it didn’t make people lazier or less likely to work, and that health and wellbeing improved because people didn’t have to worry about their finances.
The benefits would be huge. It would relieve stress, have a positive effect on wellbeing, and essentially, relieve the financial pressures so many of us are facing. Having money and resources, and not worrying about whether to “heat or eat” would help people in terms of health, wellbeing and productivity. We don’t need people to be actually, physically hungry to make them hungry for the job. We really need to shake this Victorian idea that the only reason people work is if they need the money to survive.
I don’t think people have ever wanted jobs. But people do want to work. People want to be part of something, to belong to a community, and to work for it, to have purpose. It’s not just about money.
To keep up to speed with all the latest opinions and comment, sign up to our free weekly Voices Dispatches newsletter by clicking here
Social life today shouldn’t look like it did in Victorian England. People working full time shouldn’t need to be using foodbanks, and grants to afford school uniforms for their children. Mothers shouldn’t be asking cashiers to stop scanning groceries because they’ve reached £50 too soon, and can’t afford their regular shop because the price of food has gone up.
To sustain our current economic model, we need to start paying citizens. The biggest barrier is convincing working people that they deserve a basic income, and that no one should have to struggle.
And, let’s not forget, it costs money to make money and women are finding themselves priced out of the job market thanks to the unsustainable cost of childcare. Women can’t afford to work. It’s more expensive to be poor and the Future Generations commissioner’s report showed that a weekly payment to everyone could cut poverty in half.
A bit premature to say that it “worked” in Wales, given that they haven’t started yet… You can only really declare something a success once it’s been running a while.
[deleted]
> It is being discussed by the government in Wales, after they just rolled out a £1,600 a month basic income for young people leaving the care system.
So when they say “worked in Wales” they mean “not tried in Wales”
> Finland ran a two-year pilot, where they gave unemployed people an unconditional €560 (£490) a month
So not universal at all then.
> why not England?
England has far too many people who hate the idea of someone they see as undeserving (and beneath them) receiving anything from “their” taxes.
It simply has to work eventually, it’s not a question of if.
The end game of ever increasing automation has no other feasible outcome.
Because it’d cost 1.3 trillion a year in perpetuity. Unless I’ve stuffed up the calculation.
Because it didn’t “work” in either country. It’s not that simple.
It was so successful in Finland it was a time limited trial.
Daily Mail, Times and Telegraph won’t allow it.
because that’s communism smh
/s incase its not fucking obvious
So Wales has run a very small trial, and the reporter fails to mention that the tax rate in Finland is high, see below:
In Finland, the average single worker faced a net average tax rate of 30.8% in 2021, compared with the OECD average of 24.6%. In other words, in Finland the take-home pay of an average single worker, after tax and benefits, was 69.2% of their gross wage, compared with the OECD average of 75.4%.
Something I’ve noticed from the cost of living payments paid over the last few days- most people on universal credit qualified for it. Who didn’t? Any one who was sanctioned during the assessment period from april- may. These people didn’t get their usual pittance, and they didn’t get the cost of living payment either. They got nothing.
The point I’m making, is that if not structured very carefully, this is an opportunity for which ever government is in charge to completely control your income.
If we’re not very careful, we enter into a social contract where if we oppose the government in any way, they remove our income. This feels like quite dangerous ground to me.
I’m not in any way opposed to taking a little bit from the people who have the most, and giving it to the people who have the least. I’m just worried about the reliance on the government to provide for people and the system that could create.
> The Conservatives aren’t keen. They argue that people will be less likely to find work
The article seems to confuse the idea of a UBI stopping people from working by making that statement in the middle of a few paragraphs that include different amounts.
> Finland ran a two-year pilot, where they gave unemployed people an unconditional €560 (£490) a month. The study showed that it didn’t make people lazier or less likely to work
Of course it didn’t make them less likely to work. The amount given is tiny. Anyone on that amount of money would still want to look for a job, because that money would still barely cover their bills. Thanks to recent price rises in the energy sector, you would need that at a minimum to pay bills and still need housing and council tax benefits.
> It is being discussed by the government in Wales, after they just rolled out a £1,600 a month basic income for young people leaving the care system.
I would give up work for that amount right now. I already earn less than that. Why would I carry on working if I’m getting enough to pay my bills and live comfortably?
£1,600 a month might not be enough for most people living down south, or those with kids, but it’s enough for me.
So yes, there is a danger that setting the UBI too high would discourage people from working.
So why not set it as a negative income tax to £490 a month? Then at least only those people who earned less than £490 a month would get it, making it far more efficient and only giving the money to those who actually need it.
And no, it would **not** cost anything extra to means test it. Anyone with an income of less than £490 a month is already claiming some form of benefits, and the government know exactly who they are.
It would not cost anything extra to means test, it would have no affect on any other benefits, and we could scrap most of the job centre and stop people having to jump through hoops and sanctions to get their money.
The best simple explanation of UBI and it’s history is in Utopia for Realists by Rutger Bergman. It’s incredible how close the US came to UBI under Nixon.
There’s so many misconceptions about what it entails and the effect it will have. I have no doubts that it would be an incredible success. It would instantly kill so many stereotypes about the poor and create so many more opportunities in areas deprived of investment, while likely having huge effects on mental health, addiction and crime.
It’s a dividend from the country, to people who largely own nothing.
Errr, did it work in Finland?
It encourages laziness, it’s a waste of tax payers money.
Because why on earth would our government concede such a huge defeat in the class war when they’re win win winning it right now?
“Our Taxes” are for people who are already rich not for people that need a stability.