Finland and the Basic Income experiment

[woodview 10]

17 minutes ago, tzijlstra said:

You already are paying tax?

yes, plenty. Which is fine if it is being used for worthwhile uses, like the things I mentioned.

[tzijlstra 11]

25 minutes ago, woodview said:

yes, plenty. Which is fine if it is being used for worthwhile uses, like the things I mentioned.

Like welfare and pensions? Which I demonstrated would be pretty much cost-neutral? Especially if you make more than 30k annually?

[woodview 10]

3 minutes ago, tzijlstra said:

Like welfare and pensions? Which I demonstrated would be pretty much cost-neutral? Especially if you make more than 30k annually?

Yes, like pensions. You demonstrated that it would cost somebody on £27k would be taking home £1500 pa less.

But why pay a family doing nothing £30k? I'd support that going on wages for extra Police, Nurses, Teachers, Social workers, but not a family choosing to do no work.

[tzijlstra 11]

1 hour ago, woodview said:

Yes, like pensions. You demonstrated that it would cost somebody on £27k would be taking home £1500 pa less.

But why pay a family doing nothing £30k? I'd support that going on wages for extra Police, Nurses, Teachers, Social workers, but not a family choosing to do no work.

And what if people end up with a higher average income because they have a 10K guaranteed income?

[woodview 10]

1 hour ago, tzijlstra said:

And what if people end up with a higher average income because they have a 10K guaranteed income?

It doesn't add up.

In your £27k average salary example. That person would currently pay:

£27k - £11.8k allowance = £15.4k taxable x 20% = £3k tax to the government.

 

If they got the £10k basic income, but were taxed at 30% on all earned income, it would be:

£27k x 30% = £8160 tax. But they'd be receiving the £10k basic income so net government would be paying them £1800

 

So, you'd go from a position of the government currently receiving £3k tax from an average earner, to paying out £1800 to an average earner. That leaves the treasury £4800 down for that average earner.

If they are also paying out £10k for non-earners, or lower earners, they have no tax income apart from much higher earners.

I can't see how it is paid for.

Edited February 12, 2019 by woodview

[tzijlstra 11]

11 hours ago, woodview said:

It doesn't add up.

In your £27k average salary example. That person would currently pay:

£27k - £11.8k allowance = £15.4k taxable x 20% = £3k tax to the government.

 

If they got the £10k basic income, but were taxed at 30% on all earned income, it would be:

£27k x 30% = £8160 tax. But they'd be receiving the £10k basic income so net government would be paying them £1800

 

So, you'd go from a position of the government currently receiving £3k tax from an average earner, to paying out £1800 to an average earner. That leaves the treasury £4800 down for that average earner.

If they are also paying out £10k for non-earners, or lower earners, they have no tax income apart from much higher earners.

I can't see how it is paid for.

I thought that was the bit that was clear? The government spends over a third of its budget on welfare and pensions.

[Cyclone 10]

On 11/02/2019 at 20:01, woodview said:

I'd be interested to see a calculation done on it.

here's my 30 second one. We spend £160bn on benefits. 55 million adults (a guess) = £3k per annum net each adult average.

So with the basic income model, how does that work in terms of x million unemployed, x million on nmw, and x million on average salary? Would be interesting if anybody has got half an hour and a big fag packet.......

 

 

As a side issue, I think this is going to become interesting as time progresses and we see more and more automation cutting more lower paid jobs (ie the shelf filling example, checkout staff etc) . 

You've included pensions in "benefits" a conservative trick.

 

You'd need to be able to size the cost saving from closing down the bureaucracy that currently spends time persecuting people and denying them support.

On 11/02/2019 at 22:40, woodview said:

This is the big downside, not a plus point. A family getting £30k pa for no work is a recipe for disaster.

It needs to be designed so that doesn't happen.

Why?

Firstly, you assume that people would voluntarily put themselves into that state.  Evidence suggests that this isn't true.

Secondly, if they're in that state, you'd like them to suffer?  Otherwise, why is it a problem that they can have a moderate income?

22 hours ago, woodview said:

why does that matter? it is spent on rent / mortgage , food , heat, cigs, sky sports etc same as any other family. If you are happy to work 40 hours a week along with maybe 5 others, to support a family on £30k, then that is your opinion. I don't want to. I want my money spent on the NHS and people in actual need.

It's currently spent to run the bureaucracy that determines if people need support.  If a basic income can be made cost neutral then it's no detriment to you.  Not to mention that you would also be getting it of course.

[woodview 10]

3 hours ago, tzijlstra said:

I thought that was the bit that was clear? The government spends over a third of its budget on welfare and pensions.

I get that, and I'm not fundamentally opposed to the idea, but it has to work financially and avoid abuse.

In my £27k example HMRC is £4800 down for an average earner. I can't see how that works.

[woodview 10]

1 hour ago, Cyclone said:

You've included pensions in "benefits" a conservative trick.

 

You'd need to be able to size the cost saving from closing down the bureaucracy that currently spends time persecuting people and denying them support.

Why?

Firstly, you assume that people would voluntarily put themselves into that state.  Evidence suggests that this isn't true.

Secondly, if they're in that state, you'd like them to suffer?  Otherwise, why is it a problem that they can have a moderate income?

It's currently spent to run the bureaucracy that determines if people need support.  If a basic income can be made cost neutral then it's no detriment to you.  Not to mention that you would also be getting it of course.

You can't help yourself can you? I've not done any 'tricks' , I said it was a 30 second calc and would be interested to see more detail. Why not have a conversation rather than going straight on the offensive, because you've pre-judged you're not going to agree? Very tiresome and childish.

OK, cost the bureaucracy saving. I'm not in favour of persecuting or denying anyone support. If they genuinely need help they should get it.

Where did I ever imply I want anyone to suffer????  I've not said anyone has put themself in that state. Start speaking like a normal adult and maybe a conversation will emerge.

 

[Cyclone 10]

Did you stop reading after the first sentence or something?

 

The bureaucracy saving isn't about the persecution thing, it's the saving that is important.  Not having to deal with all the assessments on a weekly basis to determine if 10 million people are eligible for a dozen different benefits or not is a huge saving.  That saving is what funds the income.

 

Okay, perhaps you missed the question marks, you often do.

A family getting £30k pa for no work is a recipe for disaster.

It needs to be designed so that doesn't happen.

but it has to work financially and avoid abuse.

Why is it a problem if a group of three adults living together get an income from the state of £30k? 

What is the abuse that you are worried about?

Edited February 13, 2019 by Cyclone

[carosio 186]

14 hours ago, Cyclone said:

You've included pensions in "benefits" a conservative trick.

 

 

The DWP though do class State Pension as a benefit?

There are many individuals and families who would spend their UBI (in fact any amount) within 2 weeks; what would happen then I do wonder.

[woodview 10]

13 hours ago, Cyclone said:

 

Okay, perhaps you missed 

Why is it a problem if a group of three adults living together get an income from the state of £30k? 

What is the abuse that you are worried about?

If you have such entrenched naivity, I cannot even begin to answer