nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Replacing social welfare with a basic income

OleRodrigo

The Finns are piloting it, the Swiss are considering and it has been proposed by the Green Party in the UK. Some economists are arguing it will save the taxpayer in the long run. Would there be any merit to replacing social welfare payments with a basic income in Ireland? The Finns are looking at a figure of €800 per month for everyone.

http://yle.fi/uutiset/kela_to_prepare_basic_income_proposal/8422295

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

troll_a_roll

It does seem like a universal income, or a massive war, famine or disease, is the only way forward. Those are the only things that can help with over-population and with artificial intelligence and automation.

There are problems though.

The over population in the world is largely in countries which won't be able to afford to pay a universal income. People from these countries want to migrate to rich countries.

The process of migration is already underway and we in the west have proven ourselves incapable of dealing with it.

Wanting to control migration is incorrectly described as racism and this is paralysing our societies. This leads to polarisation, and polarisation could easily destroy Europe.

If we want a society that works in Ireland we need a universal income. But then we also need closed borders. If we cannot close our borders then we cannot secure our society, or provide for our own people as we need to.

This bout of automation is new and isn't the same as previous industrial revolutions.
This time, it is intelligence itself which has been automated. Humans have always been the most intelligent things on the planet. We are now going to lose that title to machines of our own making.

That's new. Humans who have access to artifical super intelligent machines will have a huge advantage over those humans who do not have such access. There will be winners and losers.

Humans have no way to control the machines. This is like Skynet, but for real. It's extremely difficult, and probably impossible, to construct these machines so that we remain in full control of them.

I find it impossible to predict what the world will be like in 2100. It could be a post apocalyptic mess or it could be a futuristic wonderland.

Water John

Hope this is not dumping a link but this article is quite good at easing out various pro and anti reasons.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/feb/19/basic-income-finland-low-wages-fewer-jobs

Unions in one country against it. Unions in UK very much in favour and possibly seeing it as the big thing for the Labour Party. A sort of 2nd gen welfare state movement.
The info that some workers in the UK are getting about half the min wage is disturbing.
That door to employer abuse should be firmly shut. Serious fines and possible jail should be applied vigourously.

Bob24

Water John wrote: »

Unions in UK very much in favour and possibly seeing it as the big thing for the Labour Party.

It is quite telling about the confusion our world is in if unions (who's mission statement is to defend workers rights) and a party called labour are in favour of a measure which is largely seen as a patch for reduced employment opportunities for the masses going forward, i.e. a gradual disappearance of workers and labour.

Loafing Oaf

Bob24 wrote: »

It is quite telling about the confusion our world is in if unions (who's mission statement is to defend workers rights) and a party called labour are in favour of a measure which is largely seen as a patch for reduced employment opportunities for the masses going forward, i.e. a gradual disappearance of workers and labour.

Maybe they recognise traditional left-wing policies can do little about technology destroying jobs and UBI is the least worst way of tackling the resulting mass un- and under-employment...

Bob24

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Maybe they recognise traditional left-wing policies can do little about technology destroying jobs and UBI is the least worst way of tackling the resulting mass un- and under-employment...

You are saying they recognise they will be irrelevant going forward? (no workers = no unions)

Mind you, I am not a hardcore socialist. But I find it quite strange that organisations which where built for the sole purpose of defending workers rights follow a path of accepting that work or full time work are disappearing and just look for a social patch to the disappearance of the class of people they were built to protect.

Water John

Not sure anyone is saying there wont be any workers.
But more people doing part time rather than less doing full time is actually good forward thinking by a Union. Unemployed are not paying members of a Union.

Loafing Oaf

Bob24 wrote: »

You are saying they recognise they will be irrelevant going forward? (no workers = no unions)

Mind you, I am not a hardcore socialist. But I find it quite strange that organisations which where built for the sole purpose of defending workers rights follow a path of accepting that work or full time work are disappearing and just look for a social patch to the disappearance of the class of people they were built to protect.

Not no workers obviously, some professions like nurses are going to carry on much as they've always done. But if/when automated vehicles come in and taxi drivers, truckers etc. are rendered obsolete, what can any union or socialist party do about that? If ensuring these guys have a basic wage is all the traditional left can do for these guys, well that's better than doing nothing.

Bob24

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Not no workers obviously, some professions like nurses are going to carry on much as they've always done. But if/when automated vehicles come in and taxi drivers, truckers etc. are rendered obsolete, what can any union or socialist party do about that? If ensuring these guys have a basic wage is all the traditional left can do for these guys, well that's better than doing nothing.

Not sure about nurses, I'd imagine soon enough there will be automated devices which monitor patient's vital signs and can provide some basic treatment or administer drugs ... with a fraction of the number of nurses we currently require who will just monitor the system remotely and go to the patient when there is an issue which can't be dealt with by the machine.

But the fact that jobs we know today will obviously disappear doesn't mean others won't be created or that UBI is the best answer. At the very least worker's unions should think carefully about the future of work (which requires a mix of philosophical, sociological, economic, and technological knowledge) and see if the picture of what we think it will look like in the coming decades seems acceptable, or could be politically influenced. Just pushing for UBI which really is an imperfect patch for what some think will happen seems a bit weak (I have an open mind about this and don't make any assumption either way, but I haven't seen anyone explain why this industrial revolution will be different from the previous ones which destroyed some jobs but also created others in similar quantities).

Water John

Another good article to add to the knowledge of the feasiblity and potential of UBI.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/mar/06/utopian-thinking-poverty-universal-basic-income

This is especially good on how poverty limits people.
It also shows, as in Dauphin, people don't stop working. It improves learning and society.

Loafing Oaf

Water John wrote: »

Another good article to add to the knowledge of the feasiblity and potential of UBI.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/mar/06/utopian-thinking-poverty-universal-basic-income

This is especially good on how poverty limits people.
It also shows, as in Dauphin, people don't stop working. It improves learning and society.

Puts the case well. What's needed now are successful large-scale contemporary trials

professore

Water John wrote: »

I think the 'moral hazard' lights are being flashed here.

We did not apply it to the banks, but we sure as hell applied it to their unfortunate customers.

When we had the 'celtic tiger' we effectively achieved full employment.
People choose to work at that time over unemployment.
There is always a residual 3/4%.

Perhaps one should look at positive aspects of what BI might trigger.
A lot of artistic and creative people might use the opportunity of having a BI, to develop their talents.
A lot of people may become more involved in voluntary activity.

You are missing the biggest advantage IMO . A lot of people would start businesses that otherwise wouldn't.

Suryavarman

Water John wrote: »

Another good article to add to the knowledge of the feasiblity and potential of UBI.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/mar/06/utopian-thinking-poverty-universal-basic-income

This is especially good on how poverty limits people.
It also shows, as in Dauphin, people don't stop working. It improves learning and society.

Poverty limits people so you propose reducing the incomes of the poorest in society?

professore wrote: »

You are missing the biggest advantage IMO . A lot of people would start businesses that otherwise wouldn't.

Can you back that up with evidence and can you also show that a UBI would be more cost effective than other more common programmes?

Water John

This trial is evidence.
Who would have assured, with evidence, that the NHS, would be a success in 1948?

On your basis, no progress would ever happen.

Suryavarman

Water John wrote: »

This trial is evidence.
Who would have assured, with evidence, that the NHS, would be a success in 1948?

On your basis, no progress would ever happen.

What trial?

The NHS hasn't been a success. It's the only healthcare system in Western Europe that might actually be worse than Ireland's own system.

Also, why are you proposing reducing the incomes of the worst off in society if poverty limits people as you yourself admit?

Loafing Oaf

Suryavarman wrote: »

why are you proposing reducing the incomes of the worst off in society

Who says UBI would do that?

Suryavarman

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Who says UBI would do that?

Either UBI reduces the incomes of the worst off in society or it is completely unaffordable. Choose one.

johnnyskeleton

Mod note:

Loafing oaf, posting memes is not serious debate.

Water John

Don't get the points you are making that UBI would make the poor worse off.

It's the whole purpose is the reverse.
Maybe its the possibility of higher taxes on high incomes is your real concern?

El Tarangu

Water John wrote: »

Don't get the points you are making that UBI would make the poor worse off.

It's the whole purpose is the reverse.
Maybe its the possibility of higher taxes on high incomes is your real concern?

I think the idea with UBI is that is replaces all social welfare payments with a single payment that is paid to everyone. If someone was in receipt of JSB, rent supplement, children's allowance, free medical card, etc., they would probably be worse off on just the UBI payment.

In order for them not to be worse off on the UBI payment, you would need to make UBI so high as to be unaffordable.

Water John

Don't think any of the UBI options have suggested that an unemployed person would be worse off.
This is a red herring.
I think my prior post is more the issue and this is throwing shadows.

Loafing Oaf

El Tarangu wrote: »

I think the idea with UBI is that is replaces all social welfare payments with a single payment that is paid to everyone.

Not necessarily
http://www.irishtimes.com/business/personal-finance/should-everyone-in-ireland-be-paid-752-a-month-for-doing-nothing-1.2683030

Some argue that a basic income for all could leave those most in need less well off. However, Ryan says such a system would have to allow for special payments for those with special needs, disabilities etc. Allowances such as rent allowance would continue to be paid. “No one should be worse off than they are now,” she says.

OleRodrigo

Its a good point that there are some who are completely supported by social welfare payments who might be worse off. But I can imagine they would be a minority. A supplementary scheme to ensure they aren't penalized by a UBI would be easy to apply, so isn't of itself a strong argument against the UBI.

One powerful enabler of the UBI will be automation within public administration. Currently, the amount of people employed in public admin and the civil service doing work which is highly susceptible to better automated processes, is high - up to 2/3 of all staff in the HSE for example, and a large percentage of any other public admin department that you care to mention.

What will all those people do and what can be done with the money saved ?

[Deleted User]

El Tarangu wrote: »

I think the idea with UBI is that is replaces all social welfare payments with a single payment that is paid to everyone. If someone was in receipt of JSB, rent supplement, children's allowance, free medical card, etc., they would probably be worse off on just the UBI payment.

In order for them not to be worse off on the UBI payment, you would need to make UBI so high as to be unaffordable.

No. UBI would replace JSB.

Rent allowance stays the same
Childrens allowance stays the same
Free medical card, etc, remain the same.

UBI would allow people to work, whilst retaining the safety net of a basic income. If they work, of course, the other benefits will be stopped.

Bass Reeves

I think some people are associating UBI with a kind of social welfare utopia. IMO rent allowance is not compatible with UBI. A UBI system is supposed to be an enabler for those at the bottom of the ladder. For it to work people must accept that there lives are decided by there own choices. The state government them a basic income that is supposed to prevent starvation but not poverty. A UBI is supposed to give you the choice of making a decision on what lifestyle you choose.

Medical care is possible with UBI and there would be a children's allowance as all would be entitled to a basic level of support. Education would be free up to the end of second level and you would make your own choices when you reach 18 years of age(adulthood). The issue with rent supplement is that people could or would choose to live in area's where accommodation is expensive even though there income is limited. In an ideal UBI if you could not afford accommodation in an area you would move to a less expensive area. Also rent supplement could be a discouragement to some to advance themselves or even encourage some to work in a black economy so as not to lose the benefit of rent supplement.

UBI is supposed to be an enabler in that it gives one the choice to work and improve your lifestyle without the risk of startvation. There are risks where maybe drug addict's might fall through the cracks on the system. As well how to deal with disabilities, and how do you support such people without allowing the system to be abused and creating ways for some to get a higher level of support.

There is a radical difference in the proposal of UBI between the right and left in society. Some on the left see it as an utopia state by giving people the choice to do what ever is there choice. But this type of UBi is not affordable. Those on the right of the spectrum see it as giving people the choice to make of life what they will

blanch152

Deleted User wrote: »

No. UBI would replace JSB.

Rent allowance stays the same
Childrens allowance stays the same
Free medical card, etc, remain the same.

UBI would allow people to work, whilst retaining the safety net of a basic income. If they work, of course, the other benefits will be stopped.

but surely if we all get UBI, then we all should get rent allowance?

Otherwise UBI isn't UBI.

Water John

I think some see the parralel to UBI as the Minimum Wage. I would see it in terms of a Living Wage.

I would be disturbed at any view that sees poverty as ok as long as it isn't absolute poverty.
Are the poor to be so grateful we, as social beings, would try to ensure all are lifted above absolute poverty?
Absolute poverty, needs to be left behind by humanity as this point.

Bass Reeves

Water John wrote: »

I think some see the parralel to UBI as the Minimum Wage. I would see it in terms of a Living Wage.

I would be disturbed at any view that sees poverty as ok as long as it isn't absolute poverty.
Are the poor to be so grateful we, as social beings, would try to ensure all are lifted above absolute poverty?
Absolute poverty, needs to be left behind by humanity as this point.

I think you fail to understand the theory of a basic income. If it was set at the minimum wage it would be at a level of 20k/ year or an income of nearly 400/week. That might be possible in a future society which is dominated by robotic technology but in present times it is not even remotely possible. A UBI in present day society is more of an enabling payment. It's purpose is to give people the choice to leave poverty by using the UBI as a building block to achieve an income that is substantially above poverty level living.

Let's assume that UBI is set at a low level of 150/ adult/ week and tax is flat rated at 40%. What effect will this have on a person Social welfare. At present they have an income of 188 euro. In the new senario they have a UBI of 150 euro. But lets assume that they work 30 hours at 10 euro/ hour. Now this 300 euro is taxed at 40% leaving them with 180 euro and 150 UBI. Now if we transfer this to a family situation it leaves such a family with earning of 360/ week after tax, a UBI of300/ week as well as CA for each child.

If UBI was set at present welfare rate of 188/ week this family would be another 76 euro/ week better off. If tax rate was graduated with maybe first 6k of earnings/ individual were taxed at 20% they be 45 euro/ family better off. This would bring a family with two children ( assuming a CA of 50/ week for each child) with a disposable I income of over 45k.

blanch152

Water John wrote: »

I think some see the parralel to UBI as the Minimum Wage. I would see it in terms of a Living Wage.

I would be disturbed at any view that sees poverty as ok as long as it isn't absolute poverty.
Are the poor to be so grateful we, as social beings, would try to ensure all are lifted above absolute poverty?
Absolute poverty, needs to be left behind by humanity as this point.

The Irish social welfare system ensures that there is nobody in Ireland who suffers from absolute poverty unless they choose to.

If they are not choosing it, and they are experiencing absolute poverty, given the amount of supports available, there is little else, short of institutionalisation, that society can do.

segosego89

Suryavarman wrote: »

Either UBI reduces the incomes of the worst off in society or it is completely unaffordable. Choose one.

What makes you so sure? What evidence do you have to support the notion that it is unaffordable?

Suryavarman

Water John wrote: »

Don't think any of the UBI options have suggested that an unemployed person would be worse off.
This is a red herring.
I think my prior post is more the issue and this is throwing shadows.

UBI proposals don't tend to be based in reality which would explain why this is the case.

Water John wrote: »

Don't get the points you are making that UBI would make the poor worse off.

It's the whole purpose is the reverse.
Maybe its the possibility of higher taxes on high incomes is your real concern?

It fails in its purpose.

LOL if you think a UBI can be paid for with higher taxes on higher incomes.

segosego89 wrote: »

What makes you so sure? What evidence do you have to support the notion that it is unaffordable?

Give a UBI of €10k per year to everyone in employment. That would cost €20bn per year alone. That doesn't include the massive increase in spending that would be needed to absorb all the immigrants from across the EU that will move for a free €10k per year. Show me that we can raise taxes enough to fund that.