Anti -Vaxxer Named Health Secretary
News1 min ago
Latest Lunacy From The Looney Left?
53 Answers
https:/
....words fail me, discuss.
....words fail me, discuss.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ToraToraTora. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
//i think the question of whether or not it works is more important than whether or not it is left wing//
Why run a trial? Of course it will work. Give people 1600 quid a month and they will say “thanks very much” (if they bother to do that). What else do you need to know?
//…but boils down to people who earn (significantly) more than the UBI rate simply having their UBI taxed right back,//
So not quite so “universal” as the name suggests then?
//Depending presumably on where this effect kicks in exactly, this lowers the cost to something like 3% of GDP for most large economies like the UK. Bearing in mind that spending on the current welfare state is around 10% of our current GDP, then even if that 3% turns out to be an underestimate it could still end up representing a net reduction in cost.//
So tell me then, Clare, if there is to be a net reduction in the welfare bill of (just using your numbers for argument’s sake) 7% of GDP, who will bear the brunt of that reduction. State pensioners, of course, will be more than happy as this proposal will double their existing pension (which is one very good reason why it is likely to be even less "universal").
Why run a trial? Of course it will work. Give people 1600 quid a month and they will say “thanks very much” (if they bother to do that). What else do you need to know?
//…but boils down to people who earn (significantly) more than the UBI rate simply having their UBI taxed right back,//
So not quite so “universal” as the name suggests then?
//Depending presumably on where this effect kicks in exactly, this lowers the cost to something like 3% of GDP for most large economies like the UK. Bearing in mind that spending on the current welfare state is around 10% of our current GDP, then even if that 3% turns out to be an underestimate it could still end up representing a net reduction in cost.//
So tell me then, Clare, if there is to be a net reduction in the welfare bill of (just using your numbers for argument’s sake) 7% of GDP, who will bear the brunt of that reduction. State pensioners, of course, will be more than happy as this proposal will double their existing pension (which is one very good reason why it is likely to be even less "universal").
yes i have my doubts about this trial being conducted by an organisation that advocates for UBI... in toratoratora's link they say they "make the case for a national basic income and more comprehensive trials to fully understand the potential of a basic income in the UK"... well i bet they do lol
the welsh government trial sounds a lot more promising however
the welsh government trial sounds a lot more promising however
////…but boils down to people who earn (significantly) more than the UBI rate simply having their UBI taxed right back,//
So not quite so “universal” as the name suggests then? //
I don't think that this would undermine the idea that it's a UBI. After all, the point is to ensue that nobody gets below that amount per month. It stands to reason that those getting (significantly) more than it might not see a literal x-hundred-a-month increase in their pay in order to make the scheme affordable. It's just an extension of how the usual welfare state "deal" works: from each according to ability, to each according to need. That would be as true for UBI.
// So tell me then, Clare, if there is to be a net reduction in the welfare bill of (just using your numbers for argument’s sake) 7% of GDP, who will bear the brunt of that reduction. State pensioners, of course will be more than happy as this proposal will double their existing pension ... //
This is presumably where details matter as to how to design the existing scheme, what level to set the UBI at, etc. In this sense, as I hope I'd made clear later in the same answer, my numbers were illustrative only rather than a fully-costed proposal: the main point was to show that the effective cost is not literally the same as (total adult population)*(UBI rate), but rather a fraction of that, and perhaps even less than -- or, at any rate, comparable to -- current spending on welfare.
// Why run a trial? Of course it will work.//
Depends, again, on how you define "work[ing]". As shown in the various links I provided earlier, you could -- and should! -- test the change in various key measurements, including but not limited to healthcare outcomes, educational levels for children in the test sample, etc., but also effects on whether these people work, what jobs they enter, if any, and its effect on the job market.
untitled has pointed out one possible source of bias in this particular scheme, and another is that this scheme is likely far too small to draw robust conclusions. For that, I'd say, you really need a city or a province, or better yet a country, and test the effect over a long period of time. Not easy at all. I said earlier that the only nationwide scheme anywhere seems to be in Iran, which introduced a flat payment to all citizens of c.$40/month -- equivalent, by using the "29% of median income" rule, to about £800/month in the UK.
My main point is that, while it's clear that details will matter and the scheme will need to be carefully-designed, the idea should be at least taken seriously, and explored on its merits, rather than written off as "lunacy".
So not quite so “universal” as the name suggests then? //
I don't think that this would undermine the idea that it's a UBI. After all, the point is to ensue that nobody gets below that amount per month. It stands to reason that those getting (significantly) more than it might not see a literal x-hundred-a-month increase in their pay in order to make the scheme affordable. It's just an extension of how the usual welfare state "deal" works: from each according to ability, to each according to need. That would be as true for UBI.
// So tell me then, Clare, if there is to be a net reduction in the welfare bill of (just using your numbers for argument’s sake) 7% of GDP, who will bear the brunt of that reduction. State pensioners, of course will be more than happy as this proposal will double their existing pension ... //
This is presumably where details matter as to how to design the existing scheme, what level to set the UBI at, etc. In this sense, as I hope I'd made clear later in the same answer, my numbers were illustrative only rather than a fully-costed proposal: the main point was to show that the effective cost is not literally the same as (total adult population)*(UBI rate), but rather a fraction of that, and perhaps even less than -- or, at any rate, comparable to -- current spending on welfare.
// Why run a trial? Of course it will work.//
Depends, again, on how you define "work[ing]". As shown in the various links I provided earlier, you could -- and should! -- test the change in various key measurements, including but not limited to healthcare outcomes, educational levels for children in the test sample, etc., but also effects on whether these people work, what jobs they enter, if any, and its effect on the job market.
untitled has pointed out one possible source of bias in this particular scheme, and another is that this scheme is likely far too small to draw robust conclusions. For that, I'd say, you really need a city or a province, or better yet a country, and test the effect over a long period of time. Not easy at all. I said earlier that the only nationwide scheme anywhere seems to be in Iran, which introduced a flat payment to all citizens of c.$40/month -- equivalent, by using the "29% of median income" rule, to about £800/month in the UK.
My main point is that, while it's clear that details will matter and the scheme will need to be carefully-designed, the idea should be at least taken seriously, and explored on its merits, rather than written off as "lunacy".
One might be forgiven for thinking that this would ultimately fuel an increase in pay demands as those working want an incentive to get out of bed rather than have pretty much the same income as a pyjama wearing layabout.
I know that I seethe when I pass local pubs and see the same faces, some of whom I went to school with, out for a quick puff before returning to their respective perches to resume the destruction of their bodies. I know they've never worked and never will.
Resentment is a powerful emotion and politicians and "think tanks" need to keep that in mind when coming up with these wheezes.
Fix the roads and stop the invasion then you can have fun with numbers.
I know that I seethe when I pass local pubs and see the same faces, some of whom I went to school with, out for a quick puff before returning to their respective perches to resume the destruction of their bodies. I know they've never worked and never will.
Resentment is a powerful emotion and politicians and "think tanks" need to keep that in mind when coming up with these wheezes.
Fix the roads and stop the invasion then you can have fun with numbers.
//At present my wages are £2000 a month top line with £500 taken off as tax and NI//
Then (unless you have some additional tax liabilities) you should contact your employer and/or HMRC because one, other or both of them is turning you over.
Your annual deductions should be £2,264 income tax (slightly less than if you lived in England) and £1,513 NI. So £3,777 in total or £315 per month.
Then (unless you have some additional tax liabilities) you should contact your employer and/or HMRC because one, other or both of them is turning you over.
Your annual deductions should be £2,264 income tax (slightly less than if you lived in England) and £1,513 NI. So £3,777 in total or £315 per month.
Money for nothing get your "chips" for free. No wonder we are in dire straits. Didn't Finland(the land of lap dancers and and all the snow you could sniff at) once try a free money scheme? They found that a universal basic "income" experiment did not encourage the idle feckless recipients to seek work in the year long "experiment". Well who would have thought? Does anyone understand rewarded and unrewarded behaviour any more? Pay the wasters to sit at home and they will. Make it unrewarding for the workforce to work and they wont. Easy enough to get your head around I would think. Of course every person who is inclined to work, or has will think the idea stupid and irresponsible. Every benefits claimant and would be shirker thinks it is the way to go. When the people who work decide to jump on the bandwagon it is all over. No tax no handouts. Remember ... Governments do not have any money. They can only fund their bribes with the cash of the working people. Governments do like a human zoo though. The next step with handouts on this scale is an expectation of conformity from the recipients. AI is coming, unemployment is forecast , control of a non working populace will be necessary. Is this a first step? Plus, if it is why, do we need millions of immigrants for jobs that will not exist? I want my, I want my, I want my blank CV.
I knew I had a quote tucked away somewhere. Had a busy week and only just managed to locate it.
“You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.”
The Late Dr. Adrian Rogers, 1931 to 2005
“You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.”
The Late Dr. Adrian Rogers, 1931 to 2005
Latest Posts
The Starmer Stasi At It Again......
News13 mins ago
Food Shortage Plan Being Drawn Up To...
News18 mins ago
News20 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.