This is not football related at all, but something I was reading about recently. I'm sure people would have heard about it as its been in the news, and I just wanted to know peoples opinions of it on here.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/feb/19/basic-income-finland-low-wages-fewer-jobs
The basic concept of universal basic income is to replace the current welfare benefits system, and replace it with a system which gives every citizen a guaranteed income whether they are working or not.
The reasoning behind this is because currently for some people there is no incentive to find work, as the benefits of working a insecure job is too little of losing their welfare. In recent years there has been a rise of zero hour contract work, due to the nature of the economy, and people struggle with a insecure and unreliable work. Also the probable eventual rise of automation could cause increased unemployment.
The article I linked is interesting, as it explores both the negatives and positives of the scheme. It is also a scheme both supported by left and right wing thinkers, but there is also a good amount of scepticism on both sides too.
My personal view is that its a interesting idea which could improve the current system. From libertarian stand point it would decrease bureaucracy in the public centre, and streamline the government, and give confidence to those wanting to create startups. And from a socialist standpoint it could give those on welfare more incentive to get employed. But then again there are a lot of issues with the proposed model and its feasibility.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/12037623/Paying-all-UK-citizens-155-a-week-may-be-an-idea-whose-time-has-come.html
What are your thoughts?
Universal basic income
posted on 21/2/17
comment by Busby (U19985)
posted 1 hour, 48 minutes ago
Would we get the £155 a week even if we work? So everybody gets the benefits not just the job seekers?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah that would be the idea.
posted on 21/2/17
comment by Keep It Greasy Fick mich, du (U1396)
posted 1 hour, 47 minutes ago
comment by Edinspur (U1109)
posted 42 minutes ago
If everything was free and people were allowed to work as whatever they wanted society would be run better
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah but who wants to flip burgers, clean toilets or unblock drains?
And that's just my morning jobs
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Universal basic income would incorporated if those jobs were to be automated.
The idea is that its only a matter of time till the machines take over, which could lead to massive unemployment. The future work force would probably be on contract work most likely.
Some people see it as liberation from the low paid manual or service jobs. But it could be seen also as machines destroying peoples livelihoods.
posted on 21/2/17
comment by Dean Sturridge's Nephü (Formerly LGT... (U13718)
posted 2 hours, 51 minutes ago
The more I read about it the more I support it. Saves government expenditure, legal and staff costs of means-testing a lot of benefits which would hopefully allow that money to be put to better use.
Any income from work would have to taxed at a higher rate to pay for such a policy but as you have said in the OP it will always make work beneficial as opposed to the current system of insecure jobs affecting benefit payouts.
Another point to consider is that if more and more jobs are lost to automation in the long term governments will need to adapt their policies accordingly. Universal Income could be a solution to this issue with the potential to raise revenue from businesses who willingly automate tasks at the expense of jobs through taxation and levies.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I main reservations is the expense, and the potential of driving down wages by being a subsidy for corporations to exploit, or increasing inflation to the point where living standards are worse of.
I agree that UBI is probably the best policy in approaching the increase of automation. I don't think it will come to the UK anytime soon. Finland probably is the best country set up for the program right now. Their public debt is a lot less than most western countries, and overall have the GDP per cap to afford it in the near future. They also have very effective and successful public sector, publicly owned infrastructure like energy companies and rails, and strong unions.
They are probably the country which probably needs it the most too. Enormous amount of people lost their jobs with Nokia being bought by Microsoft, meaning there are a lot of very qualified unemployed people who with UBI could create start ups. Also as a culture they are passionate about technology, which means there is a lot more jobs automated there. In fact I remember going to a chemist there, and finding that automation is being used to prepare and deliver medication.
posted on 21/2/17
Would things stay the same prices for long, knowing everyone is £150 a week better off?
posted on 21/2/17
As with the increasing likelihood of cash being removed from the system, UBI is another very good way of having complete control over the populations wealth/liberty.
It's a 'no' from me.
posted on 21/2/17
comment by Mike (U1170)
posted 30 minutes ago
Would things stay the same prices for long, knowing everyone is £150 a week better off?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fully depends on inflation really. There is a possibility of rices in prices, but it depends on economic growth.
Whats more of a possibility is that the private sector might decrease its wages knowing that the public sector will top up the salary. We can only know once its really implemented.
posted on 21/2/17
comment by TUX (U5315)
posted 6 minutes ago
As with the increasing likelihood of cash being removed from the system, UBI is another very good way of having complete control over the populations wealth/liberty.
It's a 'no' from me.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How do you mean?
If anything I would argue it means more freedom in some ways. Government giving people money generated straight back to the citizen, will give people more purchasing power and allow people to individually spend public money.
I see it as giving people freedom to escape poverty, and freedom to spend public money how they want.
posted on 21/2/17
As a side anecdote, the USA almost had UBI. Amazingly it was Richard Nixon who proposed it, and it was a approved by the Senate and the House.
It was only later was it killed by the Senate Finance Committee.
posted on 21/2/17
comment by Broaquin (U16342)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by TUX (U5315)
posted 6 minutes ago
As with the increasing likelihood of cash being removed from the system, UBI is another very good way of having complete control over the populations wealth/liberty.
It's a 'no' from me.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How do you mean?
If anything I would argue it means more freedom in some ways. Government giving people money generated straight back to the citizen, will give people more purchasing power and allow people to individually spend public money.
I see it as giving people freedom to escape poverty, and freedom to spend public money how they want.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Quite the opposite tbh bud. The bigger the govt the less freedom for the masses.
History shows us this.
posted on 22/2/17
comment by TUX (U5315)
posted 1 day ago
comment by Broaquin (U16342)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by TUX (U5315)
posted 6 minutes ago
As with the increasing likelihood of cash being removed from the system, UBI is another very good way of having complete control over the populations wealth/liberty.
It's a 'no' from me.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How do you mean?
If anything I would argue it means more freedom in some ways. Government giving people money generated straight back to the citizen, will give people more purchasing power and allow people to individually spend public money.
I see it as giving people freedom to escape poverty, and freedom to spend public money how they want.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Quite the opposite tbh bud. The bigger the govt the less freedom for the masses.
History shows us this.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But thats the opposite of the aim of the scheme.
The basic aim is to reduce the size of government.