Universal Basic Income - Who Pays?


#41

Here we go folks

Universal basic income: Next government commits to a pilot programme to trial it

THE NEXT GOVERNMENT has committed to trialing Universal Basic Income (UBI) in Ireland at some stage over the next five years, according to the programme for government published yesterday.

The idea behind UBI is to give adults an automatic payment from the State that isn’t means tested and is given regardless of whether you have a job or not, as an alternative to in-work tax credits and core social welfare payments.

A lobby group in favour of the move towards UBI welcomed the measure in the programme for government and said that the Covid-19 pandemic has shown the need for “bold, innovative thinking” to support all members of society.

There is more


#42

Pilot trial they say, 5 year plan they say… :thinking:


#43

I’m not sure what the big deal here is. Ireland already has a de-facto Universal basic income.

  • If you are unemployed, you get 1k a month social welfare.
  • If you are old aged, you get 1k a month pension.
  • If you are working you get a bunch of tax credits.

Get rid of all of the above and replace with a flat amount each month and you will have something which is called a UBI but most people will not notice any difference.


#44

Exactly… hardly a Pilot trial. :whistle:

This is but a jettisoning of the political, social and structural pretences that brought us to this moment.


#45

So why bother?

The game changer here is the means test. The dole is means tested to keep people off it. UBI is not means tested, and given the benchmark set by the 350 a week Covid dole, why would the masses bother with their 25-35k a year job if they can get 18 grand a year into the laimh no questions asked.

This would build massive dependency on the state, where most people were encouraged to stand on their own two feet and try to be independent up to now.

It undoubtedly has the potential to become an economic prison, with state agents acting as gaolers


#46

The dole is not means tested. In principle it might be. In reality it is not. The number of loop holes and ways of side stepping the means testing element of it mean it is available to everyone except those that absolutely do not need it.

This is exactly the scenario we have at the minute. Dole plus a bunch of extra benefits that come with it if you know to look for them.

I don’t see how this is different than the current scenario.

It is simpler. You get what ever X amount per month plus you are free to work to get more.


#47

@The_Curious_One is broadly correct, Ireland like so many former sovereign states, has enjoyed a a sustained ramp up into a reality where the welfare system in all but name, behaves and acts like a defacto UBI for a rather sizeable portion of the population, think of the surge in “disability allowance” as noted by David McWilliams some years ago post Bank Bailout isn one example of one method, among the strategy of disabling welfare interventions.

Who pays and with what should be clearer with each passing day.


#48

UBI always means significantly higher personal taxes for a squeezed in the middle hard-working middle class, while we’re already heavily overtaxed.

UBI suits only the lefties with their pro-welfare agenda.


#49

Someone here worked out that one fifth is paying for four fifths if you add up welfare, coronavirus and public sector. An Inverse 80:20 pareto rule.


#50

In reality, UBI should work out cheaper to administer as there are no forms for applying no testing for eligibility, except for citizenship, a huge reduction in staff at the social welfare departments and paid automatically into bank accounts.

The only checking needed will be to avoid “double dipping”.

It also avoids the jeopardy of getting a job, losing benefit and ending up worse off.


#51

More welfare, more inflation, more crazy expensive shitholes paid by foreign cheap labour… Dublin 2030 plan its all planned to finally reach 2007 prices :smile:


#52

I like the concept of a UBI, but it wouldn’t work.

Would a UBI be cheaper and easier to administer? Yes. In many ways it would be better than the mess of overlapping benefits that there are currently. About two minutes after a UBI was brought in, if not earlier, there would be some special interest group that would, probably rightfully, justify extra benefits. The political system would promise A,B & C to groups X, Y & Z to get extra support. It wouldn’t take too long before there would be a UBI plus a bunch of social welfare departments to administer the extra benefits that come on top of the UBI.


#53

I don’t like pseudo robin hood bullshit under any name. UBI will create more shit underclass and create even more distance between rich and middle. Who is pushing for the UBI a lot? likes of Elon, guy who don’t really like to pay subcontractors or employees a lot.

Moreover UBI will simply create huge inflation, but after “covid rescue pack” FED craziness… I don’t believe economy is a real thing any more. It’s all bollocks, where super rich can tell others to F off and manipulate everything without even hiding it. No one cares.


#54

There already is a de-facto UBI in Ireland. Almost everyone in the country already gets money in one form or another from the government. Whether that be social welfare/tax credits/pension or other.

How is it really that different? If there was a UBI set at 1k a month, then abolish all tax credits/social welfare. It would cost the same amount. Sure, most people will get a little bit more or a little bit less per month but not that much different.
It would be a lot simpler to administrate.

The advantage that I’d see in it is that it would eliminate scenarios where people are better off on the dole than working.


#55

These points alone would make UBI viable, more resources would need to be made available to prevent people from claiming it twice, as some social welfare claimants do currently. I do believe that it will benefit most people as it reduces the “wage slave” entrapment that some people find themselves in where they have to work extremely long hours for low pay to avoid the “benefit trap”.
These people can now work sensible hours and still be better off than doing nothing, in fact everyone who earns an income on top of the UBI will be better off than those who choose or can’t work.

It should also be clear to many now that money is considered more of an economic lubricant rather than as a store of wealth (even though it is doing both). If it was only a store of wealth, there would be no social welfare payments.


#56

The advantage that I’d see in it is that it would eliminate scenarios where people are better off on the dole than working.

Elimination of punishment for getting full time job sounds good. On the other hand:

Whether that be social welfare/tax credits/pension or other.

How can you compare paying for not working vs paying a pension which in principle is paid from your whole life PRSI…
Tax credits are something funny as hell, we take this then we will actually take less… yuck.

UBI would significantly increase welfare immigration and it would never fund itself without significant increase of tax burden of the average joe and jane. The far left lunatics did a white paper on this around 10 years ago.
Actually there are few new ones, but can’t find the original one where they proposed to tax 50%

btw… there will be never ANY cost reduction as no one will dare to fire a single person from welfare.ie

I agree that in Ireland there is UBI for those who want it and they are “punished” for seeking full time employment. Changing name of stupid idea does not making it better. I am happy I am not paying for this nonsense any more.


#57

100%
What enforceable criteria could be used here, I recall a few news articles around 2012-14 about Irish people who emigrated to the UK after the 2008 crash and wouldn’t qualify for any social welfare when / if they returned.


#58

That is the plan.


#59

You can enforce criteria on certain people than you cannot on others, why?
ask your local SJW.


#60

Scientists be all experimenting n’stuff.