Basic Income for everyone - Utopian idea or reality?

[Eenuh]

So I saw an article today that says that the city of Utrecht in the Netherlands is going to start an experiment/research on basic income, to see how it will affect people, how they will spend their money and time etc.

 

I showed it to Jim and he hadn't heard of basic income before, so I briefly explained it to him: basic income does exactly what the name implies, it gives a basic income to everyone, regardless of gender, age, disabilities, etc. Everyone will get the same kind of money on a monthly basis, no rules applied, no strings attached. They can spend it on whatever they want, they can work if they want to earn more, or they can decide not to work (for example stay home and take care of the children).

 

Jim was very much against this idea, thought it sounded ridiculous and would never work. Then I showed him the following documentary and he completely changed his mind about it.

 

The documentary is Belgian so most of it is in Dutch or French (some English parts too though), but has been subtitled in English. It's a very interesting watch and explains the idea pretty well.

 

 

It has already been tried on a small scale in a Canadian city between 1974 and 1979, and Switzerland will have a referendum on basic income in one of the following years (possibly 2016).

 

I think the idea of a basic income sounds great, and think it would really improve people's lives. You wouldn't have to stay stuck in a meaningless job just to pay the bills. Unattractive jobs would have to be made more attractive for people to want to do them, pointless jobs would probably disappear, people can spend more time doing the things they enjoy, finding a job they would enjoy, less worries about being able to pay the bills and get food on the table...

 

For example if this was implemented, I could finally start freelancing as an illustrator, without having to worry about getting in enough money to pay the bills, rather than holding onto an insecure job just because that will pay for my basic needs.

 

 

Less stress and more time to spend with family or to do something you enjoy, people have money they can spend so it will help the economy of the country, feeling less like a slave to the system... There might be some issues that would need to be looked into (how to pay for it all, though it would replace all current benefits and pensions and a lot of administration would disappear; how will it affect immigration; will it affect prices in general etc.).

 

But I think it is a great idea and would love to see it come into live and prove that it is working and worth it.

 

What are your thoughts on this? Do you think it would be a good idea or a bad one? Why? Share your thoughts please.

[Grazza]

I haven't got time to watch the full video yet, but to quickly sum up my thoughts on the matter:

 

I'm not a huge fan of schemes like this, as they keep the markets how they are. It's like government schemes to help young people buy houses - all that's doing is using public money to feed the existing market. The real problem with housing is that private individuals are allowed to buy up anything that gets built and make a living off the rent. It's a huge problem. The solution is surely to have much, much stronger government regulation - I'd actually make it illegal to buy-to-let - but unfortunately they show a complete reluctance to do that.

 

Regarding Basic Income in particular, it is still handing out money to fuel the existing market. I'd rather governments actually took care of people - food, water, roof over your head etc - and made these things exist outside of market forces.

[Will]

I think the general idea behind this is great, give people the money they need to survive and if they want to do more or less then they can without worrying about it.

 

The reality is that the implementation of this completely changes our economic structure and applied to our current economic policy just shifts all costs and income by whatever the amount the pay out is.

 

Fundamentally I support this idea, but it needs a complete change in our economic policy to actually achieve the results it wants to. It's a great idea, but without wider policy moves it's basically a waste of time.

[jayseven]

I believe it's essentially a non-means tested form of welfare that anyone can apply to have, rather than something that will automatically just given.. I think?

 

Singapore have an interesting model where there is forced savings. Everyone has to save something like 50% of their income.

 

But both economic ideas are possible because the country/city is in a vastly different place to the uk. The city in holland (not sure if it applies to the whole of holland) has something like 40% of its workforce being part-time. Possible that this means a lot of people hold two part-time jobs rather than one full-time - or that the cost of living is lower or average income is higher so families can rely on one income... But I do personally think that in an ideal world you would indeed have both of these concepts. Force 25% savings, reduce tax, restructure pensions so that people's savings are responsible for pensions, and have a £500-monthly free income for anyone who wants it (paid out weekly to prevent vulnerable idiots from spending their money at the start of the month and having nothing for the rest of the month)...

 

People who moan that they are working hard so that 'scrounger scum' get the easy life are missing the point. They are working hard so that they don't have ONLY £500 a month, and so that they can have a nicer life with access to nicer things. We should raise our acceptable minimum standard of life for everyone across the board because it's a nice thing as a human to do for their fellow humans, and not be so bitter about it.

 

But realistically the argument is "but where does the money to pay for it come from?" and that is the £32.5bn/month question :P

[bob]

I haven't watched the video either, but does it say roughly how much each person would get as their basic income? Are we talking minimum wage? Or minimum benefits level?

 

I quite like the idea, and would love to live in a country that had been built from the ground up with this in mind, but as will' said, it would be a bit of a ballache to try and impliment it to an already existing country.

[Supergrunch]

The UK Green party were advocating a policy along these lines in their manifesto for the last elections, and not as an opt-in thing, but an across the board payment:

EC730 A Citizen's Income sufficient to cover an individual's basic needs will be introduced, which will replace tax-free allowances and most social security benefits (see EC711). A Citizen's Income is an unconditional, non-withdrawable income payable to each individual as a right of citizenship. It will not be subject to means testing and there will be no requirement to be either working or actively seeking work.

(see the full economic policy for more information)

 

The main argument for the financial viability of this was that it saved lots of money by eliminating all the bureaucracy surronding means testing. However, I think this would create just as much bureaucracy elsewhere, as taxes would have to be significantly adjusted to make up for the citizen's income paid out to all those who don't need it. While I'm in favour of a significantly more egalitarian welfare system, I don't think there are ways to do it without additional financial cost, so I think it's better just to advocate raising taxes, unpopular as it might be.

[pratty]

Intersting idea. Whether it works or not I welcome this kind of out of the box thinking. Whenever there is an issue within economics such as the 2008 crash, the solutions on the table are always how to prop up and paint over the cracks of the current fragile economic system, the idea that it might need drastic change, if not completely replacing, is never on the table for consideration. Of course it's easier said than done, but surely all the clever economists out there could put their heads together and think of a mutually beneficial alternative system, instead of simply thinking about new ways to exploit the current one. Things like this are at least a start in the right direction.

[jayseven]

@Supergrunch I am definitely not an expert, but I'd assume that changing of tax codes to take into account a predictable amount of income (which would replace the tax-free allowance, etc) would be straightforward due to it being down to employers to correctly label tax codes before submitting to HRMC/whoever. Kind of related is how claiming universal credit/benefits/dole has changed recently - from being a fortnightly payment to being a monthly payment, and with it leading towards having to 'sign on' online (again, I'm no expert and I'm just paraphrasing a friend who works in a privatised social services role) are reducing the amount of taxpayer money spent on the benefits system, but are actually just increasing complication for many individuals -- and are really not caring for the vulnerable individuals who were already spunking away 2 weeks worth of money in a few days then scraping until the next dole-out; why give them twice the money in one go?

 

That Green Economy Policy as a whole would have to take decades to implement anyway. It's a heavy focus on the local community at a time where people are connecting via the internet on a massively international scale. But it's a complicated issue that I definitely can't claim to fully understand.

 

Unfortunately, the Greens have not done a great job of running the council of the constituency next door to mine (where my Dad lives). The main things they've done; caused a refuse-collector strike, erected large plant pots in the road (in only a few locations, but they are hazardous to cyclists and are not lit/etc), reduced speed limit to 20mph in residential areas (problem being 'residential area' is not always very residential, and isn't really of a massive benefit to anyone. Plus one of the greens went on a leadership course costing thousands of tax-payers money -- after he stepped down from his position. He states that what he learnt on the course he has passed on to his successors. Surely if this is of benefit to them then they should've gone in his stead?

 

Didn't mean to end up green-bashing. I voted them in (I was living with my Dad last election), and it's always going to be a case of the more disputed policies taking up the limelight.

 

I agree with raising taxes - but not for the individual. VAT went up to 20%, and the fact that the 'living wage' is higher than the minimum wage, and the fact that inheritance tax exists, stamp duty exists... In an ideal world we raise corporation tax - but considering we've reduced the amount that corporations have to pay by 3% in 3 years it's clear that we are trying to stop large corporations from leaving the uk so any increase would just mean that the economy as a whole takes a dive... which brings us back to the green's idea of localising economies so that there's no reliance on these massive companies... and of course if a company is facing a larger tax bill and they don't have the legal finesse to take advantage of tax breaks or subsidies or reallocating their head office... then they'll just up the cost to their customers anyway.

 

And if there's a minimum level of income guaranteed by a government, then the amount of money paid out by companies for their employees is going to take a total dive.

 

aaaaah economics go away!

[Oxigen_Waste]

Reality. No question. But like with every other problem society has, the root of the issue is that our current representative democracy systems will not let it happen. Only a system with decentralized power would ever allow such progressive measures to be successfully implemented, and sadly that is the true utopia (for the upcoming century, at least). This system needs to collapse in order to be rebuilt and to be honest the absurdly overwhelming prevalence of the individualistic approach when it comes to how we define humanity is going to prevent any meaningful change in the near future.

 

We are living in a defining era for humanity... what we do in the next 100 years will determine wether our future is to live forever or die by suicide. Emphasis on the we.