Could Universal Basic Income save money?
By GB
@GoldenBlock (35)
United Kingdom
May 12, 2019 10:25am CST
If you are in the UK right now, and not living in some remote part of Scotland without any electricity or Internet; you can't fail to notice how much criticism the Government gets over the farce that is Universal Credit.
I am currently looking at my application for Universal Credit myself, although to be fair I hope to have a job within the 5 weeks it takes them to actually bother to sort it out.
One trail that they are thinking about doing is a form of Universal Basic Income. Every person in the country (I am sure eligibility criteria will apply) will get a payment which they suggest will be:
* £100 per adult, per week
* £50 per child, per week
[Note: they are planning it for 48 weeks, bizarrely]
Now, I have been thinking. If this replaces unemployment benefits, which it takes forever to claim and I'm sure a large amount of time spent on weeding out the frauds; surely this means:
* An end to basic, means tested benefits - which means;
* A loss of a LOT of Social Security staff, paperwork trails, huge buildings, management costs - which means;
* Huge savings in costs - which means;
* This whole scheme could actually be self-sufficient.
What are your thoughts?
1 person likes this
2 responses
@Svidrigaylov (390)
• Guadeloupe
12 May 19
@goldenblock So a lot of social security staff would lose their jobs? That’s certainly a big saving for govt on one level, but significant damage to a lot of people. Also artificially inflates the income of both poor and well-off. Major shift for society but those at the bottom of the pile would remain at the bottom. However I think I could get on board with the idea, especially if it got rid of unsightly social security buildings. Didn’t one of the Scandinavian countries experiment with this with no proven benefit?
@GoldenBlock (35)
• United Kingdom
12 May 19
You are right that there was a small scale experiment in Finland and I believe the experiment is either concluding or coming towards it's final reports. The experiment there was much less than what I think Scotland are proposing; because they only included a sub-set of a community in the experiment... someone may correct me, but I think it was just the unemployed.
I would suspect that any artificial inflation of those in work would be shorter lived though. If a phased introduction was planned, employers would simply say "No Payrises" and most workers, especially in the more unionised industries, would end up looking bad.
Thinking about it though, I wonder if there would be any artificial inflation if the Government went about it the right way. I wonder if using existing payroll and tax arrangements that are already in use with most jobs, could be modified....
@Svidrigaylov (390)
• Guadeloupe
12 May 19
@GoldenBlock Yes, the Finnish experiment was a bit small and unadventurous. And no doubt a lot of employers would be quick to take advantage - even if they themselves were creaming in an extra £100 a week.
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
13 May 19
There is another word for Universal Basic Income.. Universal Basic Inflation. The only thing UBI would do is make money worth less, so everything will cost more. Universal Basic Income is what the American Indians were promised life on the Reservations would be like. It's what people were promised life would be like in Government Projects all over the world. So far I haven't seen any benefit to it, only misery.
@GoldenBlock (35)
• United Kingdom
13 May 19
I have been saying the same thing for the last few years about the National Minimum Wage that was introduced here in the UK.
The fact that the Government puts it up, usually by 2% to 4%, means that the impact on manufacturing and distribution will push prices up further. When you consider that supermarket staff, warehouse staff, delivery drivers are all on minimum or close to minimum wage, that's a lot of profit to lose.
1 person likes this
