Comments by "" (@grokitall) on "Tousi TV"
channel.
-
a lot of the comments made about universal basic income mirror those made about having a minimum wage. it is perfectly possible to have a universal benefit paid to everyone in the qualifying demografic, in fact we already have 2 of them, child benefit paid to the primary carer, and basic state pension paid to anyone over retirement age. in both cases it is a trivial test to see if you fit the demografic, and then the payment continues until you don't.
the suggestion is that it might make sense to roll it out to other groups, and the evidence is already in that benefits that are not means tested are spectacularly cheaper to administer, so it makes a lot of sense to look at what other benefits could follow this route.
we even have the universal credit single payment system already in place to make payments cheaper to administer.
it is also true that it is harder to set up a universal basic income in countries where you have already got a raft of means tested social security benefits, but there has been lots of research done on the practicalities of such systems, and again, the evidence is already there to say that they are almost impossible to run in a way that doesn't result in numerous different types of counterintuitive outcomes including:
irrecoverable overpayment - for example tax credits to pay for childcare
underpayment - just look at how the disabled are not being paid what they are supposed to get
massive beurocrasy to adm8nister all the paperwork required by means testing
benefits traps - where you earn a little extra, and you lose huge amounts of benefits in response so you have to work within those limits
ongoing benefits reform - trying to deal with all the other problems of means tested benefits
and lots of other problems.
in countries where it has been tried properly, especially those without massive social security systems, it was found that there were a lot of possitive outcomes as a direct result of not having other problems:
the ill and carers saw lots of improvements due to not having to fight poverty resulting in better physical and mental health
partners in couples who were not the primary breadwinner found it easier to escape from negative relationships, as they had their own independant source of income.
people found it easier to start businesses, as they don't have to go from zero to a living wage almost instantly
the elderly could cut back on the hours at jobs they liked, and still be in work, as any shortfall is covered
there are a number of others as well.
the stupidest objection here is about the unworthy poor. if you have not been caught as a criminal, there is no legal or moral reason to exclude you from benefits. if you have hard to prove medical conditions like backpain, it doesn't stop it from limiting what work you can do, so also should not limit your benefits.
as to affordability, it can be brought in the same way minimum wage was, start at a pittance, and have above inflation raises until that catagory of people achieve the apropriate level. you can also bring it in like the right to vote was brought in, extending the franchise gradually as you work out who should be entitled, and at what level.
remember, this does not stop you from taxing people. tax credits for the employed have a taper which gets gets deductions taken from your wages as part of paye according to recorded earnings. people who have to put in a tax return have limits above which they get taxed according to their reported incomes. both can be worked out by existing government departments as they are every year, they just have to take the new income into account like every other source of income.
the remaining questions are who should be eligable, and at what rate, which can be determined in the same ways benefits reformers already do it.
don't throw away the idea just because some idiot comes up with a specific scheme which is overgenerous and which has not yet had any thought as to how to fund it.
universal does not have to mean everyone is entitled to the same amount, it just means that everyone in some qualifying and trivial to test catagory is entitled to some specific amount.
basic just means that it is not means tested, and gets paid to you as of right.
and of course income in this sense just means that if you fit the criteria, (like being a child or a pensioner) you actually get some money.
none of this means it has to be non taxable. if i remember rightly, when child benefits go up, they just do not increase your tax limits by the same amount, so that if your family earns enough to pay tax, it is already revenue neutral. same with basic state pension.
1