The Political Thread

[Professor Bear]

Yes, there would be immeasurable benefits to the population immediately, but the impact upon the wealthy minority would be what decided the fate of any such measure, as is always the case.  I recall getting sent a link to a Change.org petition calling for MPs to only receive minimum wage and no expenses, which had only a couple of thousand signatures, so I think people have just given up on the notion of a fair distribution of wealth if they literally cannot be bothered to make one click on a mouse on the offchance it frees up vast amounts of government money for other things.

One of the biggest gripes about Obamacare was that if people could get cheaper medicine, they would no longer work in badly-paying jobs to pay for something that would help them or their loved ones to stay alive, thus undermining the American economy which the Tea Party has now refreshingly admitted outright is based on slavery.  I imagine the same would apply over here: Daily Mail readers would get one whiff of the idea and realise that poor people would be under no obligation to stick with shit working conditions to get out of debt or buy leukemia treatment, and if people can live comfortably without struggle, what does that say about the privileged classes?  How exactly are they to define themselves in a socialist utopia when no-one is better off than anyone else?  In order to be further up the heap, you need people on the bottom, and sad to say, I am not actually being sarcastic, a lot of the more well-off among the population just want the poor to suffer.

[TordelBack]

...a lot of the more well-off among the population just want the poor to suffer.

While this is undoubtedly true, I don't think it's just 'them': the poor want the poor to suffer too, hence the enthusiasm with which people are grouped and defined as sub-human parasites: chavs, asylum-seekers, single mothers, the unemployed.  People who frequently have much the same limited means and opportunities as their would-be betters, but whose role is to provide a conceptual lower rung on the ladder on which to pour out your own self-righteousness. I may be deep in the shit, but I do my best, and at least I'm not one of them.  Take away their benefits, take away their houses, send them home, lousy scroungers, make the vermin suffer so I feel better about my own shitty situation. 

In a world of universal benefits, how would you know who the real scum are?

[The Legendary Shark]

Yes, yes - but what about the idea of UBI? A good idea? A bad one? Difficult to implement and fund or easy? What would the UBI achieve or destroy?

[Professor Bear]

Of course it's a good idea, and of course it's implementable if you take money away from ministers and their pet (white) elephants - but how likely do you think it is that they'll sacrifice one damn thing for you or me?

While this is undoubtedly true, I don't think it's just 'them': the poor want the poor to suffer too

"The poor" rarely have any means by which to change their situation, though I take your broader point.  Strange but true: in countries where female circumcision is still practiced, the loudest, most vociferous anti-change voices are from women - it's what they want not just for themselves, but for others.  It's the first thing I think of when I see anti-abortion campaigners trotted out on tv like performing monkeys.

[Modern Panther]

As lovely as the idea is, a decent income with no threat of losing your position if you don't meet the standards expected of you doesn't have a positive effect.  Some people will work hard and provide a decent service, but certainly not "most". Just look at MPs.  Or senior bankers.  Or large sections of the civil service.

[von Boom]

The problem with a UBI would probably be inflation. With everyone having at least a basic living amount you would see prices rise, so an increase in UBI is in order, after which prices rise, oh, then we need to increase UBI...

[JamesC]

Wouldn't it mean that you'd be paying out fifteen grand a year to lots of rich people who don't need it too?

[The Legendary Shark]

Inflation is a side-effect of debt-based money creation and so until that's fixed inflation has no option but to continue. UBI would have very little or no effect on inflation if the current monetary system is retained as is. Any unreasonable price-hikes, therefore, would most likely be punishable under existing profiteering laws. With more money in our pockets, would we really fall for certain brands raising their prices just because they can? I think that people are smarter than that.
.
I'm not sure how one would think we "wouldn't be allowed" to implement this kind of thing. We are still, barely, a democratic country and so all we need are enough people calling for this to get things moving. The one thing the "poor" have that the "rich" do not is numbers. Massive, overwhelming numbers. The "rich" know this - some believe it is their greatest worry - and so, given the choice of a bloody class revolution ending with them and their families hanging by their own guts from flagpoles or paying everyone, including themselves and their families, their share of the country's wealth without killing or bankrupting anyone I think they'll start to see sense. The "rich" are just like the "poor" - neither wants to lose what they've got, no matter how much or little that is. I have no problem with the existence of rich and poor people in the same world - let's just make "poor" mean 'not rich' and not 'in danger of starving to death'.
.
I do think it's true that only the jobs people want to do would get done but are we sure this would be such a bad thing? There will still be criminals, for example, who could be invited to perform some unpopular jobs in return for whatever compensation society deems appropriate. There's also the option of a kind of voluntary "National Service" where one signs up for a period of time to serve as a cleaner, farm hand, charity worker or whatever society needs. I can't speak for others, either rich or poor, but if I was guaranteed enough to live on I'd definitely still do my little part-time job and wouldn't mind if I got paid or not. I'd be more amenable to helping out my community and neighbours whenever and however I could. Of course, I'd also spend most of my time trying to improve my writing and getting into women's underwear.
.
I also think that saying people won't try if they're guaranteed an income is incorrect. Again I can only speak for myself here but if I'm treated with honesty and respect at work then I do a much better job. With UBI in place, I think employers will be forced to improve in order to attract the best people - it won't just be about who's got the biggest cheque book any more. In my experience, most people who work want to do a good job - it's only when workers get treated like shit that standards seem to drop.
.
UBI would also make things like apprenticeships and opening small businesses far easier, I think. Charities would get an influx of volunteers. There would be more live music and entertainment in pubs and public places. More free time. Yes, there would be problems and unforeseen consequences but nothing, I think, that we couldn't handle.

[The Legendary Shark]

JamesC - yes: The same for everyone, an equal share of the country's wealth.

[Recrewt]

UBI is an interesting idea but I'm not convinced that it could be implemented in the UK. Using your 1500 a month example Sharky equates to 18,000 per year (ignoring taxes and such).  Current UK population is about 63 million with about 20% of that being under 16 years of age (so, I'm assuming not included).  So 18,000 per year x 50 million people =  900 billion.  That's quite a bit of dosh to raise and a quick google search suggests that last year the UK Gov had about 600 billion total coming in.

[The Legendary Shark]

That does seem like a lot of (imaginary) money but the current DWP yearly bill is about £170bn and the public sector pensions bill is about £9bn so that's nearly £200bn without even trying. The rest could be gathered from VAT, a financial transactions tax and even government borrowing (they borrow money from the banks to give to the banks to stop the banks having no money already, so if you're going to stick with a stupid plan you might as well do something good with the proceeds).

.
The injection of cash into society will also stimulate the economy root and branch, leading to more tax income to pump back into the system.

.
Of course, if the government reclaimed the right and responsibility to create and control the money supply then this UBI initiative would be piss easy to run and probably the best way to get money into the economy and working as it was intended - as an economic lubricant instead of an economic toxin.

[TordelBack]

Staggered by this:


I initially assumed it was more brilliance from The Onion, but alas, no-one that bright was involved.  Would a simple poppy and 'we will remember them' or similar not have been the obvious and decent way to go? Is this really what should be commemorated?  Almost makes me glad Ireland is stuck with generic euros as we approach the centenary of 1916's self-absorbed clusterfuck...

[Jim_Campbell]

I initially assumed it was more brilliance from The Onion, but alas, no-one that bright was involved.  Would a simple poppy and 'we will remember them' or similar not have been the obvious and decent way to go? Is this really what should be commemorated?

Not just staggeringly inappropriate, but also a horribly ham-fisted piece of design to boot, with the central elements spilling out into the outer circle in such a way as to destroy any sense of balance in the design!

Cheers

Jim

[The Legendary Shark]

Inappropriate? No way. The only way this could be more appropriate would be if every coin came encrusted in the dried blood of murdered children.

.
War is money.

[Jim_Campbell]

Inappropriate? No way. The only way this could be more appropriate would be if every coin came encrusted in the dried blood of murdered children.

.
War is money.

I'm not saying that a coin is inappropriate, I'm saying that the paucity of imagination that puts a jingoistic Kitchener image complete with slogan on a commemorative coin is somewhat breath-taking. Add in the slap-dash design sensibilities and you have something that's just, well, horrible.

Cheers

Jim