Hard to wrap your head around it on the face of things, but the reason there's more and more conversation around it is that the places that have tried it have seen positive results.
Think the latest trial in Finland found the people who were put on UBI ended up taking on more paid employment than the ones who didn't.
It also saves on a lot of the costs involved of administrating a means tested system.
There are health and wellbeing benefits that save the public money in the long term and they also found that people used it as an opportunity to take on a job with fewer hours and then use spare time to do volunteering and care work (which again saves the govenrnment money). Believe it or not, the vast majority don't want to sit around on their arse all day. Laziness is not the main reason why a lot of people remain long term unemployed
Even if you were to provide a comprehensive cost/benefit analysis on it that found it's worth doing, some people will remain ideologically opposed to the idea.
It sounds bold but maybe the next few years, with so much rebuilding to be done, will require us to be bold. We're going to hit rock bottom in the wake of all this and we won't have much to lose if we were to try and become a world leader in rebuilding a greener economy. Ideas like UBI will have to come into play.
It’s been trialled (and then abandoned) in only one country, Finland, between 2017-18.UBI has been very successful in Scandinavia.
The Govt is literally paying 4 in 10 adults right now.Our political parties seem averse to giving the people anything in this corprocratic country.
It's not a magic bullet by any means. And there will be downsides. But i think it would be at least a start if people opened up their minds to the idea. Some people try to shut down the conversation from the off with with very reductive arguments like "free money, how stupid". There's obviously more to it than that and there are indirect financial benefits from schemes like this. I don't think the idea is going to go away and i'll be watching with interest how it works in other countries.
It's pretty clear that our current welfare system isnt working so I'm open to new creative ways of looking at it.
It was always a trial with a definite end date. They were never going to introduce it straightaway. What they will do along with all other 1st world countries is introduce it when they have no choice because of mass unemployment and civil unrest, probably in the next 10 to 20 years.It’s been trialled (and then abandoned) in only one country, Finland, between 2017-18.
So how do you mean it’s been successful in Scandinavia?
Yes although in the one trial (Finland), they only got £490 per month which is very similar to the UK’s Universal Credit in amount.I'm not sure how this works but my (very limited) understanding is that you set a level, say 500/week, which you guaranteed to every member of the country over 18. But at the same time you remove any and all welfare benefits so no matter who you are you are guaranteed 500 a week. If you work you get it on top of your wages but if you're unemployed you would get no other benefits so your 500 would go to paying your rent or mortgage, food, Bill's etc.
The total cost would be (probably far) higher than the current welfare bill but proponents say that it would bring huge additional benefits to peoples health and quality of life etc.
Is that how it is supposed to work or have I got it totally wrong?
Yes although in the one trial (Finland), they only got £490 per month which is very similar to the UK’s Universal Credit in amount.
Pretty much plus the gov subsidise so much as well. Think about it, 95% of food banks would disappear etc. There is also the taxation of companies with automation. Think about a warehouse with 300 worker paid £320p/w the government could tax a third of that which is far more than they would tax the worker, and the company would still save on wages, HR, electricity, insurance, uniforms etc. Then factor in the savings on health etc and your on your way. All imo of course.I'm not sure how this works but my (very limited) understanding is that you set a level, say 500/week, which you guaranteed to every member of the country over 18. But at the same time you remove any and all welfare benefits so no matter who you are you are guaranteed 500 a week. If you work you get it on top of your wages but if you're unemployed you would get no other benefits so your 500 would go to paying your rent or mortgage, food, Bill's etc.
The total cost would be (probably far) higher than the current welfare bill but proponents say that it would bring huge additional benefits to peoples health and quality of life etc.
Is that how it is supposed to work or have I got it totally wrong?