Replacing social welfare with a basic income

Bob24 · 15-02-2017 05:08PM

@troll_a_roll The number are difficult to verify, but I would point out that the proposal you listed there assumes employment level and average salaries will remain the same so that the proposed taxation level of 40% will not need to be increased when a growing part of the population becomes employed or move to partial employment. I think you mentioned before that to you UBI is an answer to the fact that robots will be taking jobs away from people, so how would that model help in that case as robots don't pay tax?

troll_a_roll · 15-02-2017 05:22PM

It's the corporations that have to pay the tax. Like you say, in the future there aren't enough workers to keep the country afloat by themselves.

There is sufficient wealth and production in the future, but not enough workers to pay tax.

That's the whole point. The only people who can afford to keep our society going are the rich corporations who own the technology and the robots.

Bob24 wrote: »

...
So yes, I think if we don't either manage to maintain employment levels or come up with a completely new model of society, yes our current model is doomed (with UBI or without).

Maintaining employment levels only works if the jobs are real, and the most economic way to perform the task is to use humans. Otherwise it is simply a subsidy in another name.

There's no point in fake jobs or inefficient practices. If it's cheaper and better to use a robot then the rational thing to do is to pay the worker to do nothing and use the robot to do the task.
Everyone should be happy that the worker now no longer has to work. The only problem is taxation, and the fact that the owners of robots don't want to pay tax.

You said robots don't pay tax. Perhaps they should!
That is unworkable as what is a robot? But the point is sound; the owners of robots who displace human employment need to pay taxes.

I fully accept your point that this needs global changes that seem unlikely.
It is possible that corporations could abandon certain countries, and it's very likely that some countries will simply fail.

I want to ensure that Ireland isn't one of the countries that is abandoned and which descends into civil war and violence.

Widdershins · 15-02-2017 05:24PM

Those figures all represent a serious reduction in income for any social welfare recipients, many of whom cannot cope with that. I find it a very bad idea on that basis.

troll_a_roll · 15-02-2017 05:28PM

How is that the case Widdershins?

The rates are the same as the current social welfare rates and 3,600 million in additional benefits is also paid out.

Who's losing out?

from post above

What's offered?
We could pay a UBI at the same rates as current social welfare rates.
188 to all adults, except people aged 18 to 24 who get 102 per week as currently.
We'd pay 230 per week to those over 66, and 240 per week to those over 80, and we'd pay child benefit.

We'd also pay approx 3,600 million in additional benefits as listed on Slide 5, of SJI presentation.

Bob24 · 15-02-2017 05:34PM

I'm definitely not talking "fake" jobs made-up just for the sake of keeping people at work. I am saying either we need to think our economic model through so that it keeps providing real jobs or we need a completely new model of society (UBI is just a patch on the current one).

Human labour (USC and income tax) or consumption (VAT or excise) is easy to do as those taxpayers can't evade taxation easily (if you work and buy things in Ireland you can't funnel that through other countries to avoid taxation). If you tax companies or their robots enough to feed a growing unemployed class decently at a national level, they will however increase tax avoidance mechanisms and eventually move to another country which doesn't do that. And the only way to retain them will be hardcore protectionism which would not benefit a country like Ireland whose economy is so dependent on foreign investment.

Since I think we agree the only option to make it work is international governance which imposes global rules to those companies (which I think cannot be democratic, cannot fit the specificities of each country, and be subject to intense lobbying from large corporations), and that it is unlikely to happen, this is why I don't see UBI as the way forward.

starlit · 15-02-2017 05:40PM

Minimum wage is €9.25 an hour as of this year. It could help the economy more by having basic wage than the current SW payments but they need requirements and conditions such as find work even if part time as there is an exception you can earn a small amount on top of sw. Some are means tested if having a disability but not sure about those on job seekers but it be worth doing so for those on sw. It can only get you so far when it comes to bills, car and food and the just the basics!

Minimum wage is still very basic based on yearly income even though looks better than sw payments a week/per month.

Elemonator · 15-02-2017 05:43PM

Maybe do it but only for 6 months. That way there is plenty of window for unemployed people seeking work to get back on their feet. After that, back to the basic rate. We shouldn't give dole scroungers nearly 3 times their current rate, it will be abused.

I'm not even sure something like this in Ireland could take off. Finland's national mentality is different to our "ah sure thats grand" attitude to everything.

noodler · 15-02-2017 05:43PM

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

It would prove to be very expensive.

As an example:
The 2016 social welfare bill is budgeted at €19.6bn.

Excluding the approx 600,000 pensioners & the 1.1 million u18's in Ireland, there are about 2.9 million adults of working age.

A payment of €800 per month for this number of people equates to €27.8 billion.
€8 billion more than is currently expended.

For the model to match current expenditure, the "basic income" paid to everyone would be €570pm.
Now this frankly would very strongly encourage job take-up at any level, however, it would be all but politically impossible as it equates to a 30% reduction in income for those currently on the top rate of JSA/JSB.

In your scenario, why are you applying the basic income to all people of wokring age?

2m people work and wouldn't need this.

Bob24 · 15-02-2017 05:45PM

Widdershins wrote: »

Those figures all represent a serious reduction in income for any social welfare recipients, many of whom cannot cope with that. I find it a very bad idea on that basis.

And it also has to be said that if UBI is meant to compensate for a gradual decrease in employment levels, this model assume that we will have more and more people living on the equivalent of today's social benefits which are considered the bare minimum but nothing to provide a great life (and at an ever rising cost for those who are still working - even if you limit tax increases to corporations, they will eventually pass-on the bill to their employees which will have no choice but accepting it as they will already feel lucky to have a job in a world where less and less people do).

Bob24 · 15-02-2017 05:47PM

noodler wrote: »

In your scenario, why are you applying the basic income to all people of wokring age?

2m people work and wouldn't need this.

Universal in UBI means that everyone gets it including those who have a job. If it is restricted only to some people it is not universal any-more and not very different from our traditional welfare system.

starlit · 15-02-2017 05:51PM

Its a bit of a laize faire attitude here alright! I can't see it happening people probably protest! It boost the economy. Short term probably work on a trial run but with the way the Government is now could there be a re-election? Things are picking up in the economy mainly in the cities very slow in the smaller towns and villages. Cost of rent has already gone up again! Is that because wages increased in Dublin but may only apply to certain people in certain jobs not all people. I mean to say what have they done for those that lost their jobs!? Especially those having be oust by Clearys!

troll_a_roll · 15-02-2017 05:55PM

Keeping full employment seems very unlikely. In the future there will be general purpose robots which are better than humans at many tasks.

If new tasks are developed the problem is that robots will also be better at those tasks.

Humans could become obselete in respect of most tasks.

Mid level professional jobs are the ones most at risk, although all jobs are in trouble. A gardener is hard to replace, as is a house painter, but an insurance estimator, or a legal assistant is much easier.

An insurance office in Japan recently replaced a staff of several hundred with a single IBM Watson computer. Watson can read and understand and reply to plain text messages. Watson is now deciding on the claims.

I fully expect a dystopian future, where some countries descend into civil war and chaos. The rich will leave and will be welcomed somewhere else. All countries will want inward migration of rich people.

I wouldn't be surprised at all if we had a WW III, which obviously would be very violent and destructive. The survivors could perhaps introduce a basic income.

I think a world war is more likely than the world coming together to solve these problems.
I would suggest the process has started in Greece, which appears to be being abandoned to its fate. Greece will be outside the new European border, and so Greece could become like a third world country. Pensioners in Greece are scavenging through bins for food at the moment, in Europe.

noodler · 15-02-2017 06:15PM

Bob24 wrote: »

Universal in UBI means that everyone gets it including those who have a job. If it is restricted only to some people it is not universal any-more and not very different from our traditional welfare system.

My understanding of a minimum basic income was just that, a minimum.

This is stupid in principle, regardless of being unaffordable without the tax raised from. The aforementioned employment.

Suryavarman · 15-02-2017 09:18PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Who's going to buy these corporate's products if most of the population is out of work due to robots taking the jobs?

Basic Income answers that.

There's no evidence to suggest that most of the population will be out of work at some point in the future. Saying that most people will be out of work at some point in the future is just a bunch of baseless, dystopian nonsense.

segosego89 · 15-02-2017 09:58PM

Suryavarman wrote: »

There's no evidence to suggest that most of the population will be out of work at some point in the future. Saying that most people will be out of work at some point in the future is just a bunch of baseless, dystopian nonsense.

Please watch the following video on UBI by Robert Reich(former advisor to Gerald Ford and Bill Clinton) :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UqESogRgrYw

In the video he cites how jobs will be affected greatly in the future due to technology. He cites a study carried out by Carl Benedikt and Michael Osbourne of the University of Oxford which states that almost half of US jobs are at risk within the next two decades.

Here's a link to the study that you could peruse: http://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/downloads/academic/The_Future_of_Employment.pdf

Water John · 15-02-2017 10:00PM

I would certainly see UBI triggering a massive renaissance in things like the arts. I would also see a major benefit in mental health. Overall, a much better quality of life.
Never thought I'd see Willie O'Dea being an instrument of radical thinking.

segosego89 · 15-02-2017 10:06PM

I was surprised as well when I found out that he's been proselytizing about UBI since the mid 90's even going as far as getting the government at the time to compose a green paper on the issue back in 1997.

Water John · 15-02-2017 10:09PM

Well it's a conservative is the main promoter in Canada TMK.

segosego89 · 15-02-2017 10:13PM

Water John wrote: »

I would certainly see UBI triggering a massive renaissance in things like the arts. I would also see a major benefit in mental health. Overall, a much better quality of life.
Never thought I'd see Willie O'Dea being an instrument of radical thinking.

The Beatles, The Smiths, The Clash and a plethora of other great bands had there beginnings on the dole queue. The dole enabled them to practice their craft 24/7. There's even a video online of an interview of Paul and John during an early tour joking how they were still on the dole.

I've come across so many talented Irish musicians and artists who spend 24 hours a day practicing their craft whilst being on the dole, contributing to society in a very meaningful way but their contribution isn't respected.

segosego89 · 15-02-2017 10:18PM

Water John wrote: »

Well it's a conservative is the main promoter in Canada TMK.

The current Finish government who have established a trailblazing UBI pilot scheme last month is a conservative government as far as I know also.

Some conservatives find UBI appealing because it removes the welfare trap and gets rid of a lot of the bureaucracy.

gctest50 · 15-02-2017 10:18PM

Suryavarman wrote: »

There's no evidence to suggest that most of the population will be out of work at some point in the future. Saying that most people will be out of work at some point in the future is just a bunch of baseless, dystopian nonsense.

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-36376966

Foxconn replaces '60,000 factory workers with robots'

and things like this little robot are just drop-in replacements for humans

- watch it for a few minutes working :

segosego89 · 15-02-2017 10:28PM

Imagine how more advanced that robot will become in two or three decades time.

I don't understand how some people can nonchalantly ask their smart phones(ie. Siri) a simple concise question out loud with the result most of the time being a coherent answer either via verbal communication from Siri or by Siri directing you to a Google link related to your question but they almost scoff at the notion that robots will replace most jobs in the next few decades due to improvements in technology.

Bob24 · 15-02-2017 10:43PM

segosego89 wrote: »

I don't understand how some people can nonchalantly ask their smart phones(ie. Siri) a simple concise question with the result most of the time being a coherent answer but they almost scoff at the notion that robots will replace most jobs in the next few decades.

That technology will make many of today's jobs irrelevant in the next few decades is obvious. Previous industrial revolutions have done that and we are living another one.

The question is: will that revolution end up creating at least as many new types of jobs as it is destroying, as previous ones have done in the past, or will it be different this time?

I don't think anyone has a definite and well-argumented answer to that question today.

KyussBeeshop · 15-02-2017 10:46PM

Suryavarman wrote: »

There's no evidence to suggest that most of the population will be out of work at some point in the future. Saying that most people will be out of work at some point in the future is just a bunch of baseless, dystopian nonsense.

It's a rare event, but I fully agree with you there - the automation/AI leading to mass job losses argument, is a rather weak/unsupported one in my view - there's a lot of hype to that effect right now, but it's just that: hype.

A good way to gauge when automation/AI might begin to obsolete humans, is when AI becomes capable of near-completely replicating the human mind - since at that point, robotics will pretty much be capable of replacing humans in any job.

At present, we don't even have a full understanding of the human mind, nevermind a well enough developed AI for replicating the human mind - we're making some advances, but we're probably still a century or more away, from fully understanding and replicating the human mind.

Even then, at that point, there will still be useful work for humans to do, in my view - as there would be nothing to stop humans doing work alongside AI/robotics, as there are many fields of work where the breadth of work is wide enough, to accompany both human and robotic efforts.

So this undermines the automation/AI argument in favour of the UBI - I'll attack the UBI more directly in a subsequent post.

KyussBeeshop · 15-02-2017 10:59PM

So, the UBI itself has some potentially very significant drawbacks in my view, and there are three general areas where I view it as being problematic and even outright dangerous - I view the UBI as being a kind of 'trojan horse' policy, which may achieve the opposite of what it promises.

1: UBI as a business subsidy: For people who are working, the benefits of the UBI can be transformed from a worker income subsidy, into a business subsidy, by businesses slashing wages in line with the UBI payout, over time - so there is a danger that the UBI can actually end up indirectly subsidizing businesses, instead of benefiting workers.

2: UBI for destroying progressive taxation: A lot of supporters of the UBI, pair the UBI with tax policies that are very regressive compared to our current tax system - for example, the UBI is commonly paired with the idea of a Flat Tax - and these people count on the redistributive effect of the UBI, for providing an overall progressive effect.

However, if the UBI ever gets slashed, abandoned, or absorbed as a business subsidy (as described above), then the progressive/redistributive effects of the UBI will be eroded/stripped-away, and we will be left with a more regressive tax system - this is quite dangerous.

3: UBI for destroying welfare: Supporters of the UBI often argue that it should be used to replace a wide range of other welfare payments, with one single payment - the UBI - effectively replacing the welfare system with the UBI as one of the sole welfare payouts.

Except, when a big enough economic crisis hits, the biggest sources of government deficits tend to be put on the chopping block - and this means the UBI is likely to be slashed or even disbanded altogether, when a big enough economic crisis hits, as its taxation/spending demands are enormous.

However, when the UBI gets slashed/disbanded like this, this could be done without restoring the previous welfare system - thus achieving the near-complete destruction of the entire welfare system, which would be one of the primary goals of extreme economic conservatives - this also, is extremely dangerous.

noodler · 15-02-2017 11:00PM

Bob24 wrote: »

That technology will make many of today's jobs irrelevant in the next few decades is obvious. Previous industrial revolutions have done that and we are living another one.

The question is: will that revolution end up creating at least as many new types of jobs as it is destroying, as previous ones have done in the past, or will it be different this time?

I don't think anyone has a definite and well-argumented answer to that question today.

Excellent post.

You'd swear there has never been an industrial revolution before.

segosego89 · 15-02-2017 11:11PM

noodler wrote: »

Excellent post.

You'd swear there has never been an industrial revolution before.

I think it's different this time.

Even in the event that jobs would be lost in a certain sector due to technological innovation and would be replaced with 'new jobs' based in a newly created sector - you're assuming that the kinds of people that would usually work in manual labour type factory jobs etc could just 'upskill' and take up one of these 'new jobs' which actually require skills that these kinds of people just aren't cut out for.

It's kind of like a taxi driver being replaced with an "automated Uber car". It's a bit facile to say to that newly unemployed hard working taxi driver who's spent 30 years in that job to just go back to college and become a software developer of automated automobiles or something along those lines.

Bob24 · 15-02-2017 11:21PM

segosego89 wrote: »

I think it's different this time.

Even in the event that jobs would be lost in a certain sector due to technological innovation and would be replaced with 'new jobs' based in a newly created sector - you're assuming that the kinds of people that would usually work in manual labour type factory jobs etc could just 'upskill' and take up one of these 'new jobs' which actually require skills that these kinds of people just aren't cut out for.

It's kind of like a taxi driver being replaced with an "automated Uber car". It's a bit facile to say to that newly unemployed hard working taxi driver who's spent 30 years in that job to just go back to college and become a software developer of automated automobiles or something along those lines.

This is a real issue but is not new compared to previous industrial revolutions. People who are a bit too old and whose jobs are being replaced will be a bit left behind and have a hard time moving on (turning factory workers with 30 years into the job into typists or bank clerks didn't really happen either). But if new type of jobs are being created (which again is the only real and unanswered question), skill misalignment will only be a temporary issue with older generations and will fix itself as time goes by.

segosego89 · 15-02-2017 11:24PM

222233 wrote: »

It's a ridiculous idea, someone who currently gets €100 euro on jobseekers a week would get €200. It would basically be more on an incentive to never get a job for some people. Plus in the Finnish model it says all other payments would be retained, I'm assuming you would get rent allowance etc. on top of it. I just think it incentivises the idea of doing nothing for the rest of your days. On the other hand I would welcome it for people who need it through no fault of their own as a good means of living.

That's not necessarily true. UBI would be basically the same as current welfare rates based on a persons age.

So if a person is currently getting 100 Euros on JSA in this country that would mean that they're under the age of 26.

If a UBI was implemented tomorrow - that same person would be getting the same amount per week but also they would be able to take up work to supplement that income rather than lose their 100 Euros from the state entirely.

Although you come across people who are on JSA long term who have no intention of contributing to society either in a monetary sense or another sense(eg. through artistic contribution or spending their time caring for old people) they are in the minority and we shouldn't paint everyone who is in receipt of JSA with the same brush.

segosego89 · 15-02-2017 11:35PM

Bob24 wrote: »

This is a real issue but is not new compared to previous industrial revolutions. People who are a bit too old and whose jobs are being replaced will be a bit left behind and have a hard time to moving (turning factory workers with 30 years into the job into typists or bank clerks didn't really happen either). But if new type of jobs are being created (which again is the only real and unanswered question), skill misalignment will only be a temporary issue with older generations and will fix itself as time goes by.

You make a good point.

I really hate the idea of that taxi driver losing his job and being forced into an anachronistic welfare system which forces him to queue up and scrutinize him unfairly for not being able to find work within a particular time frame(either through sanctions or verbal warnings) especially when that man(or woman) is in their 60's, had worked for 30 years and has no realistic hope of finding good quality work.

I hate the idea of these people being scrutinized unfairly especially from a mental health perspective.

Replacing social welfare with a basic income

Comments