Replacing social welfare with a basic income

Water John

Kyuss, I rate your first concern as a real one but would discount nos 2 & 3.
Totally disagree with flat rate. Discussion should not be interlinked. Not criticising you on this but if someone brings it up it should be killed off immediately.
No 3 could at present apply to unemployment benefit, disability benefit or old age pension. These were largely insulated in the recent recession. Thus the evidence is UBI would not be an easy target for cuts.

I accept their is a risk of employers attempting to lean on UBI.

KyussBeeshop

Water John wrote: »

Kyuss, I rate your first concern as a real one but would discount nos 2 & 3.
Totally disagree with flat rate. Discussion should not be interlinked. Not criticising you on this but if someone brings it up it should be killed off immediately.
No 3 could at present apply to unemployment benefit, disability benefit or old age pension. These were largely insulated in the recent recession. Thus the evidence is UBI would not be an easy target for cuts.

I accept their is a risk of employers attempting to lean on UBI.

On 2, I agree that a Flat Tax is not always paired with a UBI - but the problem of how to actually fund a UBI, is almost always left as an afterthought in these debates - and it does turn out, that proponents often try to tag on tax policies alongside the UBI, that would be very regressive compared to the current system - and that it is valid to say, that this is one of the dangers of the UBI.

On 3, I don't think unemployment/disability/old-age welfare payments are politically credible to attack, in the way that an indiscriminate UBI would be subject to attack - the UBI transforms all of the former, into a far easier to attack target - which can wipe them all out in one go, when a big enough economic crisis hits.

I would view it as a high probability, if not a complete certainty, that the UBI would be successfully attacked and either massively slashed or disbanded outright, once a big enough economic crisis hits - and that this is definitely not the case with the other individual welfare payments.

Jurgen Klopp

Just one thing I want to know from lads that have been reading up on it.

If everyone gets €200 per week what happens to those that are unemployed and those in low income jobs, assuming the employer will lower wages who rely on other benefits.

For instance rent allowance, medical cards and that?

Like take all the people relying on rent allowance currently which can be €300 plus a month, scrap it and essentially top up their €188 by €12

Sure all that's gonna happen is a large chuck of people end up worse off

segosego89

"Like take all the people relying on rent allowance currently which can be €300 plus a month, scrap it and essentially top up their €188 by €12

Sure all that's gonna happen is a large chuck of people end up worse off"


Rent allowance and medical cards wont be touched. Deputy Willie O' Dea nor Fr. Sean Healy of Social Justice Ireland who are proponents of UBI don't want anyone to be worse off if UBI was to be implemented in this country.

segosego89

By the way, a partial Basic Income has been proposed by Social Justice Ireland (who have done a lot of work researching the feasibility of implementing a UBI over the years).

I think the partial basic income idea that they proposed was that everyone over 18 gets 150 Euros per week for their UBI but if you show that you're looking for work you get a 38 Euro top up which would bring your income to 188 Euros per week.

I don't know how they would quantify whether someone is genuinely seeking work or not.

Jurgen Klopp

segosego89 wrote: »

"Like take all the people relying on rent allowance currently which can be €300 plus a month, scrap it and essentially top up their €188 by €12

Sure all that's gonna happen is a large chuck of people end up worse off"


Rent allowance and medical cards wont be touched. Deputy Willie O' Dea nor Fr. Sean Healy of Social Justice Ireland who are proponents of UBI don't want anyone to be worse off if UBI was to be implemented in this country.

Thanks.

Have they a list of things they plan not to touch?

I'm thinking into student grants and back to school allowances.

Actually I was trying to find an article on the Bundestag debate where they said it was a no go. One thing they had right was it would encourage non stop immigration so borders would need to be airtight.

Think other German politicians are floating a BI for working parents only from a brieft headline I saw.

Jurgen Klopp

segosego89 wrote: »

By the way, a partial Basic Income has been proposed by Social Justice Ireland (who have done a lot of work researching the feasibility of implementing a UBI over the years).

I think the partial basic income idea that they proposed was that everyone over 18 gets 150 Euros per week for their UBI but if you show that you're looking for work you get a 38 Euro top up which would bring your income to 188 Euros per week.

I don't know how they would quantify whether someone is genuinely seeking work or not.

I'd assume same as the forms you get once every few months when unemployed with a sheet where you list where you have applied for jobs, I was told by people working there it's only for red tape they wouldn't get any work done checking up.

Jurgen Klopp

segosego89 wrote: »

By the way, a partial Basic Income has been proposed by Social Justice Ireland (who have done a lot of work researching the feasibility of implementing a UBI over the years).

I think the partial basic income idea that they proposed was that everyone over 18 gets 150 Euros per week for their UBI but if you show that you're looking for work you get a 38 Euro top up which would bring your income to 188 Euros per week.

I don't know how they would quantify whether someone is genuinely seeking work or not.

If they get a job what rate €150 or €188?

segosego89

Jurgen Klopp wrote: »

Thanks.

Have they a list of things they plan not to touch?

I'm thinking into student grants and back to school allowances.

Actually I was trying to find an article on the Bundestag debate where they said it was a no go. One thing they had right was it would encourage non stop immigration so borders would need to be airtight.

Think other German politicians are floating a BI for working parents only from a brieft headline I saw.

I understand about your concern regarding ancillary benefits etc being axed to accommodate for a UBI.


You see, all of these questions could be answered in a UBI commission established by the government which would figure out all of the nuances of a prospective UBI system in Ireland. I've even contacted the Committee Of Social Protection to have a discussion on whether establishing a commission on UBI would be worthwhile. Fianna Fail have included such a thing in their manifesto but they're not able to establish such a commission because they don't have a majority in the Dail and Fine Gael have a low opinion on UBI traditionally but their opinions could change if presented with information on the benefits of UBI.

It would be great if you could find the link to that Bundestag article as I'd be interested to hear what they said.

One of the ways around the immigration issue would be a stipulation requiring a person be a resident of a country for 5 years before they could get a UBI. Until those 5 years are up they would have to avail of a particular form of means tested unemployment benefits.

segosego89

Jurgen Klopp wrote: »

If they get a job what rate €150 or €188?

It would be 188 Euros

segosego89

segosego89 wrote: »

It would be 188 Euros

And earned income from that job which would supplement the UBI would be subject to a tax of some kind based on how much is earned.

segosego89

segosego89 wrote: »

And earned income from that job which would supplement the UBI would be subject to a tax of some kind based on how much is earned.

But no one can touch your UBI. It can't be taxed.

i_surge

It's a great idea but a bag of crap as presented.

To do it, you have to do it right and bump it up to a minimum of 1500-2000 per month that reflects a real basic living wage. This gives everyone a viable option to pursue their interests, sit on their ass or invest their talents and boost their lifestyle in a way that suits them.

Then reorganise the world of work so people aren't chained to a cube 8-10 hrs a day doing busy work. Make it results based, a fair payment for a job well done. Tax this additional work at relatively high rate to make up the difference, no one has to work but many will choose to do a variant of what they love or are very good at and command a high fee for it that is still good value to the employer.

Simple steps to make Ireland a healthy and happy society, free from poverty and modern day serfdom (sitting in traffic in a car the bank owns while the house you can't afford lies empty 10 hrs/day) with an artistic and entrepreneurial spirit.

A little creativity and this can work but I can't see it happening here as Ireland is too backwards and lacks vision.

80000 hrs is the average career, think what can be done with that human potential when people aren't constrained and you'll see where the economic growth will come from.

segosego89

i_surge wrote: »

It's a great idea but a bag of crap as presented.

To do it, you have to do it right and bump it up to a minimum of 1500-2000 per month that reflects a real basic living wage. This gives everyone a viable option to pursue their interests, sit on their ass or invest their talents and boost their lifestyle in a way that suits them.

Then reorganise the world of work so people aren't chained to a cube 8-10 hrs a day doing busy work. Make it results based, a fair payment for a job well done. Tax this additional work at relatively high rate to make up the difference, no one has to work but many will choose to do a variant of what they love or are very good at and command a high fee for it that is still good value to the employer.

Simple steps to make Ireland a healthy and happy society, free from poverty and modern day serfdom (sitting in traffic in a car the bank owns while the house you can't afford lies empty 10 hrs/day) with an artistic and entrepreneurial spirit.

A little creativity and this can work but I can't see it happening here as Ireland is too backwards and lacks vision.

80000 hrs is the average career, think what can be done with that human potential when people aren't constrained and you'll see where the economic growth will come from.

I agree with most of what you say regarding humans pursuing their artistic and entrepreneurial spirit and your comment on some people doing mostly 'busy work' 8 hours a day.

But I disagree that UBI would never happen in Ireland. The more people I talk to about UBI in this country the more they warm up to the idea. Especially once a lot of the nuances of the system is explained to them(ie. it would replace tax credits etc) they seem to think it's the way to go. I strongly feel the current welfare system is outdated and a tad bit Dickensian. Do we really need people queuing up outside of a Welfare office like cattle every month in this day and age? Can't we have a bit more respect for people? Surely the system can be improved with a UBI and give people more dignity and respect especially from a mental health prospective.

The fact the Fianna Fail are so confident about UBI that they include it in their manifesto makes the concept of UBI more mainstream.

i_surge

My point is that if you make it 188/week you are just splitting hairs and making minor tweaks to an already poor social welfare setup which no one currently working will want or support it and it will fail politically.

Bring back the isle of saint and scholars, there's enough to go round and we can give people their lives on their terms, some will be total slackers the vast majority won't, parents will get to raise their own kids, people will start being nice to each other again when they aren't destroyed by the daily grind and the workend to catch up on chores....... so many options for a better way of doing things if we are creative.

Loafing Oaf

segosego89 wrote: »

The fact the Fianna Fail are so confident about UBI that they include it in their manifesto makes the concept of UBI more mainstream.

Not only that but make it a red line issue for entering government (well setting up the commission anyway). Now maybe it was easy to say that when it was unlikely they would be going into government. But Willie O'Dea has been talking up the idea again lately, so maybe it's his grand legacy project...

i_surge

Make it work for everyone or it will work for no one.

Get away from this tax the "evil" rich notion, they contribute the most and are also the most squeezed and not actually that well off after tax (we have one of the most proportionate systems in the world) despite what the whingers would have you believe.

It takes a ground up redesign of the tax system. Cut the loop hole, simplify, simplify, simplfy

Everyone gets 24k/year no strings

Everyone pays 50-60% tax on all additional earnings

SIMPLE....no loopholes that favour those in the know or those who can afford crafty accountants and equally no loopholes that favour the lazy at the expense of the hard working.

segosego89

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Not only that but make it a red line issue for entering government (well setting up the commission anyway). Now maybe it was easy to say that when it was unlikely they would be going into government. But Willie O'Dea has been talking up the idea again lately, so maybe it's his grand legacy project...

Yes, he was on Sean O' Rourke last week proselytizing about the concept again. One of the statements that he made was something along the lines that we give billions upon billions to the banks who destroyed the economy in 2008 in the form of quantitative easing via tax payers money so why is it so radical to replace the current welfare system with a basic income? "It's like quantitative easing for the people".

It may very well be his legacy project considering he's been working on it since 1997.

I sent a letter to Leo Varadkar's office recently trying to get him to set up a multiparty UBI commission based on the fact that the Finnish and Scottish have set up pilot programs this year. I got a response a few days ago saying that he was making inquiries and that he'd get back to me...

Loafing Oaf

segosego89 wrote: »

Yes, he was on Sean O' Rourke last week proselytizing about the concept again. One of the statements that he made was something along the lines that we give billions upon billions to the banks who destroyed the economy in 2008 in the form of quantitative easing via tax payers money so why is it so radical to replace the current welfare system with a basic income? "It's like quantitative easing for the people".

It may very well be his legacy project considering he's been working on it since 1997.

I sent a letter to Leo Varadkar's office recently trying to get him to set up a multiparty UBI commission based on the fact that the Finnish and Scottish have set up pilot programs this year. I got a response a few days ago saying that he was making inquiries and that he'd get back to me...

You have the sense with something like this that the establishment parties would rather someone else tried it successfully before we took the plunge but I reckon Wee Willie would actually revel in being the first social welfare anywhere to implement UBI. With a party like FF that's fairly flexible policy-wise, it's may not that hard for one true believer to get their pet project realised...

segosego89

Yeah, I agree with you.

I always knew deep down that Fianna Fail or Fine Gael wouldn't touch the UBI concept without another country such a Germany or the UK having existing UBI programs in place that FF/FG could use as real-world examples first before they take the plunge themselves.

But the fact that Finland,Scotland,The Netherlands etc have started or are soon starting "UBI pilot programs" makes me think that Fianna Fail or Fine Gael will have much more clout behind them to at the very least set up a UBI commission and eventually an isolated pilot program.

The UK parliament is starting to finally have some discussion on the concept recently.
A Parliamentary session on Universal Basic Income was held at the University of Birmingham on January 12, 2017.
Seven panelists took part in the session, selected by the committee on the basis of their background and interest in the basic income. During the event, each panelist was given time for opening and closing statements on basic income, with about an hour allotted for addressing questions and concerns from the MPs on the committee. Questions focused on general information about basic income, its relationship to the existing welfare state, and arguments for and against it.

The committee session was recorded and uploaded to Youtube and can be found under the title “Session on Citizen’s Income”.


The Scottish parliament have planned a similar UBI committee later this month also so it seems that people are becoming more and more interested in the concept.

Bass Reeves

I thing too many are trying to look at UBI as a social policy. Wicket Willie idea that there will be no looses is crap. In any any reorganisation there will be winners and losers. With a UBI to fund it all income earned over the BI needs to attract some form of tax. You also have to remember that all tax reliefs such as medical and mortgage relief would go and there would be a question over pension relief. It is highly unlikely it could be funded in the short term by increasing corporate tax. Setting tax rates above 50% to fund it will only encourage tax evasion.

The real advantage of a BI is that there would be no discouragement to work. But for that encouragement to remain in place things like income supplement will have to be abolished. College grants might also go. With Bi it would be quite easy for a worker to reach an income of 20 if UBI was at 188/ week. That would be equivalent to twenty hours at the minimum wage. Working full time at the minimum wage would bring a worker to an income of 30k. However everybody would have to pay tax on all income earned to both fund it and to prevent income traps.

Maybe rates could start low but they would have to rise fairly fast. But you would have to question why they should start low. At present one of the greatest inequality is the no tax( in the form of no PRSI and USC)sub 16k income that creates a situation where one pays a 50% rate between 16k and 20k. Yet 20k is the minimum wage. So if rates are set for lower part of income they need to be available to all workers. With UBI there had to be bit of you are on your own now and no hard luck stories.

Would tax rates as follows be possible

First 5K earned 20%tax
5-10 earned taxed at 30%
10-30K earned taxed at 40%
50%on all earning after that.

However Bi would create huge pressure on profession such as taxi drivers, self employed painters gardeners, maintenance men cleaners etc as people flood into this type of work to supplement income. It would not be a huge issue at present as we are standard full employment but in the case of a recession one would have huge upheavals in certain low paid sectors as people scramble for what ever extra income they can earn.

There would tend to be a huge black economy at the bottom end of the self employed labour market whether this would be larger than at present is hard to know. Because of this funding it would be a question to consider especially in the time of a recession rates may well have to be slashed just like tax reliefs were in the last recession

Sam Russell

Rather than a UBI, why not guarantee all who want a job, a meaningful one.

There are lots of things that need to be done but cannot be done because of the cost of labour. However, a local giddy-up can get a large number of the neighbours out there helping and quite happy to do so without payment. [I am thinking about Tidy Towns and the like].

There are many elderly people who could do with someone calling in for a chat - it would help both parties in many ways.

I have yet to see public buildings, like dole offices, having their windows cleaned and their floors polished.

There are many people who worked through the night last year during the floods, many just volunteers glad to help their distressed neighbours.

Many current jobs are simply people meaninglessly staring at computers all day - these are the jobs that automation will replace first, so there is a need to look to those people being re-educated and redeployed.

Maybe a start could be made to reduce the cost of some basic services like public transport. You can buy a lot of buses and employ a lot of drivers for the cost of one motorway. The Gort to Tuam motorway is costing €600m, the proposed Galway outer bypass will cost much the same. There are no proposals to improve public transport in Galway.

We need to think more broadly than just extending the dole to everyone.

troll_a_roll

It seems clear that this change would be so big that society would be completely transformed. Whether that's for good or for bad is hard to say. Overall I think it'd be good but there'd be negative aspects also.


An interesting point is that of manual labour jobs where unskilled people can give it a go, like gardening, house painting, window washing, lifts in cars to hospitals and shops, minding children etc.

The qualified professionals in those jobs would find it more difficult I'm sure.


The ultimate point is that our society must be capable of providing for everybody, without us having huge competations for dwindling resources like jobs.

People should be able to help one another in small ways, like the ones I've mentioned, and perhaps people can even receive a small payment for the help. That's community spirit and should be encouraged.
Instead we have a tax based society where the government want to tax every activity. That's great as far as it goes but it does push lots of small economic activity into the black market.

We should change the system to allow those small jobs to be done in the open, even if small payment changes hands.

KyussBeeshop

Sam Russell wrote: »

Rather than a UBI, why not guarantee all who want a job, a meaningful one.

There are lots of things that need to be done but cannot be done because of the cost of labour. However, a local giddy-up can get a large number of the neighbours out there helping and quite happy to do so without payment. [I am thinking about Tidy Towns and the like].

There are many elderly people who could do with someone calling in for a chat - it would help both parties in many ways.

I have yet to see public buildings, like dole offices, having their windows cleaned and their floors polished.

There are many people who worked through the night last year during the floods, many just volunteers glad to help their distressed neighbours.

Many current jobs are simply people meaninglessly staring at computers all day - these are the jobs that automation will replace first, so there is a need to look to those people being re-educated and redeployed.

Maybe a start could be made to reduce the cost of some basic services like public transport. You can buy a lot of buses and employ a lot of drivers for the cost of one motorway. The Gort to Tuam motorway is costing €600m, the proposed Galway outer bypass will cost much the same. There are no proposals to improve public transport in Galway.

We need to think more broadly than just extending the dole to everyone.

What you put forward is actually the main policy competitor with the Basic Income - the Job Guarantee:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Job_guarantee

It's even possible to have both combined - but I still disagree with the Basic Income, due to the issues I explained earlier.

troll_a_roll

Surely it must be the case that many jobs in a 'guaranteed jobs' type system would be fake and un-necessary.

Either there are real jobs and that's great, or there aren't.

How can jobs be guaranteed and yet still be necessary, economic and useful?

I agree that people could be paid to do pointless jobs but that seems silly to me.
Perhaps some people could cut hedges or pick up rubbish but there won't be enough real jobs in those sectors. In any event, robots could pick up our rubbish for us.

KyussBeeshop

There isn't really a lack of useful work that can be done in the world, it's fitting that work into the current economic system that's the problem.

johnnyskeleton

Sam Russell wrote: »

Rather than a UBI, why not guarantee all who want a job, a meaningful one.

There are lots of things that need to be done but cannot be done because of the cost of labour.

Another problem is our history and how it can be used for political capital.

Supposing you found a way to ensure that anyone who lost their job could get a guaranteed minimum wage job as an alternative. Some people with skills would get more than minimum wage through this government scheme and it would be very much a stop gap between other jobs. If this was brought in as the safety net instead of social welfare, even though everyone benefits (the taxpayer from the product of the work, the employee being given more than welfare and a sense of pride and purpose, the overall economic benefits), it would still be denounced as a new workhouse forcing the poor into slavery etc.

Sam Russell

The big problem with the 'guaranteed job' idea is that it requires management and supervision. I think it is that that creates the real problem if you have reluctant employees trying to skive off with a less than adequate level of supervision.

If everyone on the dole (€188 per week) had to give 16 hours of 'work' in order to qualify, then after that they could return to bed or go and get better paid work elsewhere without losing their meager guaranteed hours - perhaps that might work.

There is a great need for charity work, but no charity can afford to pay for it. We are going into a time when the elderly require a little help to remain in their own home because the nation cannot afford to warehouse them in nursing homes. I am talking about the need for shopping, social interaction, and tiny jobs like changing light bulbs and so on. This used to be done by neighbours but now is not done at all - as new communities are not built on neighbourliness.

I think this approach has more value that the constant drive for 'economic growth' which is a euphemism for taking in each others washing.

troll_a_roll

Universal Income allows for those small jobs to be done either for free, or for small payment, with no issues. For example, changing light bulbs for elderly neighbours, or putting out their bins, or cutting their grass or hedges etc..

It is the insistance in the modern world that every activity be an economic activity which can be taxed which is the problem.

Grandmothers are not allowed to mind their own grand children under the current system, IF the grandmother is claiming social welfare. She has to be available for work and SW say that minding children is not consistent with that requirement.


The current system treats Irish citizens as economic units rather than as real people with real lives.

segosego89

Here's a video that's getting popular on Reddit at the moment involving Elon Musk speaking at the 'World Government Summit 2017' in Dubai in which he states that Universal Basic Income is “going to be necessary.”

I've included the link below if anyone's interested:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6HPdNBicM8