The Welsh government is going to trial a UBI scheme. It seems a sensible scheme with reasonable payments:
Age range: Child 0–17 - Payment rate per week: £120.48
Age range: Adult aged 18–64 - Payment rate per week: £213.59
Age range: Adult aged 65 and over - Payment rate per week: £195.90
Nor has anyone popped up to provide me with a KCN, what is the world coming to? Perhaps all the Tories are distracted by Partygate.
Stormlight
1 hour ago
17 comments:
That's brilliant news. Rates seem very high though. I'd have thought max £140 for adults, and that's only if Housing Benefit is also scrapped.
What's the dole at the moment?
Hmm, yes, I should have checked, the state pension is only £137.60 a week, so that's 50% more.
OTOH, the country could easily afford it, even at the higher rates.
The 'basic element' of UC seems to be £75 a week. Housing benefit is in addition.
£75 is too low IMHO and I hate separate HB.
The new full State pension is £180 a week, which seems fair enough.
The comments section is a rich seam of KCNs.
"From the party who stopped the M4 relief road, gave 16-year-olds the vote, minimum price for alcohol, pointless 20mph speed limits, motorway speeds of 50mph ~ now they want to impose a Marxist experiment in encouraging people to be lazy and hold their hands out for free money."
In Communist countries, for all their faults, there is/was nearly full employment. Proper Marxists hate UBI.
I rather suspected that would be the level of comment, that's why I didn't go there.
"..eradicate poverty entirely..." No. It won't. Because, 'they' will simply re-define 'poverty'. Got to keep the gravy train going.
And, IMHO, unless there is also wholesale reform of the rest of the tax and benefits system - and the banking settlement, this will still not 'work'. Which in turn will mean that the experiment failed and we are back to square one.
The article also talks about the Welsh UBI being a 'salary' or 'wage', which it ain't and nor should it be thought of as a 'benefit'. The use of these terms matters if UBI is to be accepted.
I think half arsed experiments are dangerous and can do more harm than good.
They don't mention what will happen to housing benefit, tax credits etc.
This is quite important.
If housing benefit and tax credits are not included (which they shouldn't be or it is not a UBI) then some people will lose (possibly correctly).
L, "I think half arsed experiments are dangerous and can do more harm than good" Agreed, people end up drawing whatever conclusions they want to support their initial prejudice.
LF, "some people will lose (possibly correctly)". Yes of course, I'm all in favour of radically simplifying everything on a 'fiscally neutral' basis i.e. no changes to tax rates and so that as far as possible, people break even.
There will of course be winners and losers, but so what? People can - and will have to - adjust. If the govt gives somebody a smaller amount than they used to get, is the govt really "taking anything away"?
I don't think they are. If I bought my daughter an expensive Xmas present last year and a cheaper one this year, then I have still given her something.
MW Just building on that 'half-arsed' bit. IMHO a lot/most of these trials are deliberately set up to fail.
I should have been clearer I don't have problems with people losing if it is fairer - and it is.
However I think the media and opposition would do - I can see sob stories about people having to leave their expensive house in a trendy part of Cardiff.
"..eradicate poverty entirely..." No. It won't. Because, 'they' will simply re-define 'poverty'."
Well quite, poverty is relative. The people who earn the least are always going to be the poor, no matter how much they earn.
"Got to keep the gravy train going."
Yes, the last thing a charity or government department want is to solve the problem they were set up to solve, otherwise they would be out of a job.
L, maybe, maybe not. You can see why people who work for DWP would want to throw a spanner in the works.
LF, yes, we UBI-ers are shot by both sides. The Mailexpressgraph wail about giving away taxpayers money to lazy slobs and the Guardian/Mirror wail about a) the undeserving rich will also get the UBI (a small tax rebate, really) and b) some poor people will get even poorer.
For sure, 'some' will lose out on a static basis but it will all sort itself out, and we have to just accept that some people are poor, whether in absolute or relative terms.
B, agreed.
"For sure, 'some' will lose out on a static basis but it will all sort itself out, and we have to just accept that some people are poor, whether in absolute or relative terms."
Thats why UBI's are either politically impossible, or totally unaffordable, at least for societies with existing means tested benefit systems.
We all know from the poll tax experiment that its political dynamite for a small but significant section of society to be asked to pay more (or get less its the same thing) and the massive arguments over the 'bedroom tax' just make the same point. Any change to the tax and benefit system that results in anyone at the bottom of the income scale ending up with less money while Mr Moneybags in his mansion gets something extra will just never fly. And of course if you make sure that no-one loses out then its totally unaffordable.
The only possible way I can see a UBI ever getting started is if its phased in over decades. Pick a date and everyone born after that date gets a UBI, while everyone else keeps the current system. Then no-one loses out. But even then its going to create situations whereby people under the old system are better off than the UBI (and vice versa possibly) and that will create political pressure to equalise things.
Regardless of the benefits (or not) of UBIs I just can't see how a society can transition from a means tested system to a universal one. Politically its just not doable IMO.
@Mark Wadsworth
In an ideal world what you said "For sure, 'some' will lose out on a static basis but it will all sort itself out, and we have to just accept that some people are poor, whether in absolute or relative terms."
Would be acceptable.
Sadly I feel in the real world what @sobers said is true.
Personally I like UBI. I am not sure what to do about how long immigrants have to live before they get it - but that is a minor detail.
"Thats why UBI's are either politically impossible, or totally unaffordable, at least for societies with existing means tested benefit systems."
I'd disagree on the "unaffordable" bit. After all how much could we "afford" to blow on a track and trace system that didn't work? In politics "we can't afford it" just means, we don't want to do it. The government can always afford to do what it wants to do. The reason why we will never have an UBI is simple envy. People would rather not have a UBI than have it and have someone they don't think deserves it have it too. Bonkers, but that's just the way our brains are wired (and monkeys' too).
S: "UBI's are either politically impossible, or totally unaffordable"
You've read enough of my articles, you should know better than that.
Most of the adult population are in work (they get the personal allowance) or OAPs (they get the state pension).
For those groups, the personal allowance or state pension are much the same as a UBI anyway.
There are a few million 'others' who already get one or more other benefits or tax breaks. Those can be just be merged into a single type of benefit; marginal deduction rates reduced to zero. But they won't also get the tax free personal allowance.
UBI claimants they will get a BR tax code if they find a job, work short-term or part-time etc, so they don't get the tax-free personal allowance as well. If they find a steady full time job, they can just waive the UBI and claim the personal allowance instead.
The numbers are mad - add up the number using up their personal allowance and/or receiving each different category of benefit is about five million more than the actual population. A small number get nothing at all; some people are in more than one category.
What's wrong with everybody getting the same i.e. a choice between UBI/state pension or the personal allowance?
Post a Comment