Has The Time Come To Replace The Welfare State With Universal Basic Income?

[Ms Macbeth 73]

20 hours ago, Mr Allen said:

Yeah because there's too much negativity from Daily Fail readers who think all disabled people of working age are "workshy slaves to the benefit system", granted there are people who flout the system, they could work but choose not to, but by the same token there's guys like me who desperately want to but the damn system won't let us, because every time I apply for anything, the first thing I do is declare my disabilities, including Asperger's, and I get insta-rejected!  

 

I also can't help that 99% of my customer facing shop work is in Charity shops, they're literally the only place that will take on anyone with a pulse even if they're disabled.

 

 

Have you tried the public sector?  Sheffield city council's job adverts state:

 

'We are committed to fairness and social justice and welcome applications from everyone. We value our diverse workforce and aim to work together to make the most of our differences. Under the Disability Confident Scheme, disabled applicants, who meet the essential criteria of this job, are guaranteed an interview.'

 

I've worked for more than one council and other public sector bodies and I've always had colleagues with disabilities. 

[GabrielC 53]

10 hours ago, the_bloke said:

Even the job centre says not to declare any disabilities until you've been offered the job.

Not all disabilities are visible until you declare them so by not declaring them at an job interview could lead you back into the dole as person unsuitable for the job. 

23 hours ago, Annie Bynnol said:

Does "... questionable health ..." apply to the vast majority  of disabled people?

Employers are quite capable of evaluating whether their business can make reasonable adjustments.

They did it for women(and still are).

 

We continue to 'hide disability' by providing minimal financial support instead and hoping nobody shouts to loud. Nothing but a  "proper job/business with prospects etc." is going to provide long term solutions.

 

If UBI happens it must not be used hide disability. 

 

 

Again why make any adjustments for a disabled person when you can get an young and healthy person and no need for any adjustments. UBI is an safety net I doubt anything be would be ' hidden '.

[Mr Allen 0]

46 minutes ago, GabrielC said:

Not all disabilities are visible until you declare them so by not declaring them at an job interview could lead you back into the dole as person unsuitable for the job. 

Again why make any adjustments for a disabled person when you can get an young and healthy person and no need for any adjustments. UBI is an safety net I doubt anything be would be ' hidden '.

Because the "reasonable adjustments" thing has been a legal requirement for years under various anti-discrimination Acts? (I'll spare y'all my long  about how IMO the current Act has no teeth, because the useless clowns in London don't and never will enforce it)

 

 

6 hours ago, Ms Macbeth said:

Have you tried the public sector?  Sheffield city council's job adverts state:

 

'We are committed to fairness and social justice and welcome applications from everyone. We value our diverse workforce and aim to work together to make the most of our differences. Under the Disability Confident Scheme, disabled applicants, who meet the essential criteria of this job, are guaranteed an interview.'

 

I've worked for more than one council and other public sector bodies and I've always had colleagues with disabilities. 

I've applied for several local Council jobs including one to be a Lollipop Man at Malin Bridge school last year, I ticked the guaranteed interview for disabled box, they never even acknowledged my application! I officially give up!    

 

[apelike 10]

2 minutes ago, Mr Allen said:

Because the "reasonable adjustments" thing has been a legal requirement for years under various anti-discrimination Acts? (I'll spare y'all my long  about how IMO the current Act has no teeth, because the useless clowns in London don't and never will enforce it)

But the useless clowns in London are not the ones who have to enforce it as they are the ones who create the laws not enforce them. 

[Annie Bynnol 612]

21 minutes ago, GabrielC said:

Not all disabilities are visible until you declare them so by not declaring them at an job interview could lead you back into the dole as person unsuitable for the job. 

...

Again why make any adjustments for a disabled person when you can get an young and healthy person and no need for any adjustments. UBI is an safety net I doubt anything be would be ' hidden '.

Sticking to the issue of UBI and disability in society.

One of the alleged goals of UBI is remove the current monolithic structure of the benefit system and put the money and decisions into the hands of individuals- fine by me.

 

Two areas concern me greatly and in part they do overlap.

1)There are some very vulnerable people in our society  whose circumstances  and education have failed them.

2)Disability can also deny individuals a path to employment.

 

A 'safety net' does not provide any help for these two groups, more than that it will condemn some to a permanent existence in  the 'safety net'. 

For many a in these two groups a permanent 'safety net' already exists.

Currently separate funding is available (but inadequate) for education, training and employment. UBI by definition will remove this unless the Government create special conditions for some.

And special conditions for some is not universal.

[GabrielC 53]

12 minutes ago, Annie Bynnol said:

Sticking to the issue of UBI and disability in society.

One of the alleged goals of UBI is remove the current monolithic structure of the benefit system and put the money and decisions into the hands of individuals- fine by me.

 

Two areas concern me greatly and in part they do overlap.

1)There are some very vulnerable people in our society  whose circumstances  and education have failed them.

2)Disability can also deny individuals a path to employment.

 

A 'safety net' does not provide any help for these two groups, more than that it will condemn some to a permanent existence in  the 'safety net'. 

For many a in these two groups a permanent 'safety net' already exists.

Currently separate funding is available (but inadequate) for education, training and employment. UBI by definition will remove this unless the Government create special conditions for some.

And special conditions for some is not universal.

An route for employment for an disabled person is self employment someone is more likely to have an go if they know their is an safety net if their business does not work out. The current system is based on unfair assessments that are designed with the intention to remove payments not to help anyone. The disabled are not just payed and that's it far from it many live in fear of their next assessment the stress just makes them more ill and damages their mental well been UBI removes that threat. The very vulnerable people you mention would greatly benefit from UBI some may have already have carers who manage their income it makes it easier for them knowing there is an regular income going in. 

[Anna B 1,401]

On 01/06/2021 at 21:13, GabrielC said:

An route for employment for an disabled person is self employment someone is more likely to have an go if they know their is an safety net if their business does not work out. The current system is based on unfair assessments that are designed with the intention to remove payments not to help anyone. The disabled are not just payed and that's it far from it many live in fear of their next assessment the stress just makes them more ill and damages their mental well been UBI removes that threat. The very vulnerable people you mention would greatly benefit from UBI some may have already have carers who manage their income it makes it easier for them knowing there is an regular income going in. 

Disabilities are wide ranging and diverse, and leave many vulnerable. Self employment is often not an option.  Why mot just bring back Remploy, which for those who don't remember were specialised workplaces for the physically disabled and mentally vulnerable. The ethos was to provide worthwhile employment, companionship, and support in a safe environment for those who couldn't manage working in mainstream jobs (of which there were many.) 

They closed down because it was deemed that regular employment could provide the support that was necessary, but like 'care in the community' which saw the mass shutting down of psychiatric hospitals, the results were patchy at best, or non existent, leaving many without help.

Edited June 11, 2021 by Anna B

[ECCOnoob 1,020]

2 hours ago, Anna B said:

Disabilities are wide ranging and diverse, and leave many vulnerable. Self employment is often not an option.  Why mot just bring back Remploy, which for those who don't remember were specialised workplaces for the physically disabled and mentally vulnerable. The ethos was to provide worthwhile employment, companionship, and support in a safe environment for those who couldn't manage working in mainstream jobs (of which there were many.) 

They closed down because it was deemed that regular employment could provide the support that was necessary, but like 'care in the community' which saw the mass shutting down of psychiatric hospitals, the results were patchy at best, or non existent, leaving many without help.

On the flip side, it was seen by many to be very insulting.   Treated as if disabled employees had to be kept hidden away in some protective bubble away from the regular workforce. It labelled them as second class workers who were clearly not capable of doing "proper" work for "proper" wages.  It became a token gesture... just something for them to do to fill the hours and get a little bit of pocket money.

 

The whole issue is a can of worms.

 

It's a heated debate which is happening right now in education. Controversy over disabled students being excluded from being taught to read and write, separated out to dealt with by special teachers in special school environments away from regular pupils.  This riled plenty who are demanding that irrelevant of the severity of the learning disability, special needs pupils should be doing the same stuff alongside regular pupils.  This is all against the background of lots of other people demanding that disabled students have their own dedicated, safe and specialist education establishments where there is less focus on some mandatory inflexible curriculum and far more bespoke on their special needs.

 

This debate rages every time they setup some kind of specialist ringfenced service. There is always those protesting that disabilities must be thrust into the mainstream, not hidden away like some private club and that those with disabilities have absolute equality alongside those without. That clearly goes severely against the grain of establishing and funding a modern-day Remploy type operation. Can't have it both ways.

Edited June 11, 2021 by ECCOnoob

[apelike 10]

2 hours ago, Anna B said:

Disabilities are wide ranging and diverse, and leave many vulnerable. Self employment is often not an option.  Why mot just bring back Remploy, which for those who don't remember were specialised workplaces for the physically disabled and mentally vulnerable. The ethos was to provide worthwhile employment, companionship, and support in a safe environment for those who couldn't manage working in mainstream jobs (of which there were many.) 

They closed down because it was deemed that regular employment could provide the support that was necessary, but like 'care in the community' which saw the mass shutting down of psychiatric hospitals, the results were patchy at best, or non existent, leaving many without help.

Remploy was about giving high paid subsidised jobs to the employees at Remploy and its noticeable that it was a Labour government who started with the closures.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/oct/30/remploy-factories-close-disabled-workers

[trastrick 866]

The problem with the welfare state is that it creates a dependency on government for the very basics of life. and raises generations who expect a government to solve every personal life problem for them. Like caged chickens they wait for the handouts, and squawk like mad when it doesn't arrive on time.

 

Even if it were possible to give everybody a livable income, child benefits, free housing, free education, childcare, free heathcare free social care for older citizens, providing worthwhile employment, companionship, and support in a safe environment for those who couldn't manage working in mainstream job, the physically disabled and mentally vulnerable. A safety net for investors if their business does not work out.

 

The government manpower reach required to make sure everybody is taken care of, is just not humanly practical or feasible, in spite of the plethora of big brother agencies, JSA UBI UC IMO DWR ATOS OECD and the literally hundreds of other acronymed entitities involved in your daily needs.

 

Such a monolithic levanthian can not even exist, without unstained borrowing from future generations yet unborn, who will be stick with the bill.

 

Kids raised and educated, with unrealistic expectations from life are being given a life of dependency, not a real education.

 

Despite all the never ending tinkering,  trial programs and social experimenting to get socialism just right,  we, including the Hard Left, know it is futile without enforced compliance, and we know what that is called.

[tinfoilhat 11]

1 hour ago, trastrick said:

The problem with the welfare state is that it creates a dependency on government for the very basics of life. and raises generations who expect a government to solve every personal life problem for them. Like caged chickens they wait for the handouts, and squawk like mad when it doesn't arrive on time.

 

Even if it were possible to give everybody a livable income, child benefits, free housing, free education, childcare, free heathcare free social care for older citizens, providing worthwhile employment, companionship, and support in a safe environment for those who couldn't manage working in mainstream job, the physically disabled and mentally vulnerable. A safety net for investors if their business does not work out.

 

The government manpower reach required to make sure everybody is taken care of, is just not humanly practical or feasible, in spite of the plethora of big brother agencies, JSA UBI UC IMO DWR ATOS OECD and the literally hundreds of other acronymed entitities involved in your daily needs.

 

Such a monolithic levanthian can not even exist, without unstained borrowing from future generations yet unborn, who will be stick with the bill.

 

Kids raised and educated, with unrealistic expectations from life are being given a life of dependency, not a real education.

 

Despite all the never ending tinkering,  trial programs and social experimenting to get socialism just right,  we, including the Hard Left, know it is futile without enforced compliance, and we know what that is called.

What a load of old ****.

[trastrick 866]

5 hours ago, tinfoilhat said:

What a load of old ****.

Lol

 

Unfortunately you have to live in a world where intelligent people don't share you dismissive views on the subject.

 

"Rishi Sunak has conceded that the current projections for UK borrowing are “obviously not sustainable”, after the chancellor yesterday unveiled huge economic interventions as part of his winter Spending Review.

 

Sunak yesterday lifted total government spending on the Covid response to £280bn, as he vouched his commitment to “jobs, businesses and public services." It means government borrowing will rise to its highest outside of wartime to deal with the economic fallout of the pandemic.

.

Official forecasts now predict the pandemic will spell the biggest economic decline in 300 years, with the UK economy expected to shrink by 11.3 per cent this year". - City AM November 2020

 

Economic decline means higher debt, and here's the "load of ......... kicker"

 

"Can the UK afford all this debt" - BBC.com, March 3, 2021

 

"Until recently, the government has been able to borrow easily at very low interest rates, which has made its debt more affordable.

 

At the moment it pays just 0.78% interest to borrow for 10 years.

 

Though it's still low, it has been rising recently - and the higher it goes, the harder it will be to support the UK's debt burden.

 

And in any case, interest payments will weigh on future generations until the debt is paid off, meaning there is less money available to spend on public services, or tax cuts"

.

One hopes it doesn't go back up to the 17.5% seen in the 1980s.

 

Of course our friend Rishi, will be long gone by that time. 

 

Pay attention to what the "load of........." the chickens at the G7 Summit in Cornwall will be gewin on abaht!

 

There's no Santa Claus, no Easter Bunny, no tooth fairy, and no "free" lunch.

 

And the sooner folks face that stark reality the better off the world will be.

 

Lol

 

Edited June 11, 2021 by trastrick