Universal basic income doesn’t work

[NewtonTrino]

Originally Posted by theprestige

This is essentially just a positive spin on "the UBI will make people less productive".

If most people will stop putting in the effort they need to survive, then where are you getting the wealth to distribute as UBI? According to you, most people are going to opt out of doing the hard work, given the option.

Haven't you been reading? From the millionaires and billionaires! Robots! AI. All the magical productivity machinery will supply, no need to worry!

And yes I think overall productivity of "money making" stuff will go down as people concentrate more on themselves and their families. This is Jeff Bezos problem, he's the one who will have to pony up the money, it won't be us since we won't be paying taxes on our UBI.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by NewtonTrino

And yes I think overall productivity of "money making" stuff will go down as people concentrate more on themselves and their families.

Most active money making throughout history has been the direct result of people concentrating on themselves and their families.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by NewtonTrino

Haven't you been reading? From the millionaires and billionaires! Robots! AI. All the magical productivity machinery will supply, no need to worry!

I've been ignoring this bit, because it doesn't seem serious, and you've been sending strong signals that you don't want to help make sense of it.

[NewtonTrino]

Originally Posted by theprestige

I've been ignoring this bit, because it doesn't seem serious, and you've been sending strong signals that you don't want to help make sense of it.

Both Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren have plans to tax wealth directly to help pay for social programs. Why can't we use this to fund whatever we want? UBI, healthcare for all, cradle to grave security for everyone in the country regardless of race, creed, religion or socioeconomic status.

[P.J. Denyer]

Something that occurred to me today is that certain professions are becoming closed shops that exclude entry to people from poorer backgrounds by demanding experience gained in unpaid internships as a precondition of being considered for paid roles. This makes the job possible for someone with parents willing and able to support them through the internship but is difficult if not impossible for someone with no such support. This particularly has knock on effects in areas such as politics and the media where this is used. UBI doesn't eliminate the problem, particularly since these internships tend to be situated in the most expensive areas, but it would make entry difficult rather than next to impossible.

[Elaedith]

Originally Posted by theprestige

I've been ignoring this bit, because it doesn't seem serious, and you've been sending strong signals that you don't want to help make sense of it.

NewtonTrino doesn't think UBI will work; that's why he's trying to make fun of it.

Of course, there are some millionaires and billionaires in favour of basic income in one form or another; Pierre Omidyar, Mark Zuckerberg, Chris Hughes, Elon Musk, and Tim Berners-Lee for example. So if NewtonTrino is correct and they will be the only ones funding it, one can only admire their altruism.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by NewtonTrino

Good idea! Emergency loans when you get into trouble could really help out in a jam. Although if you have to pay it back with your UBI wouldn't that mean you are just pushing the problem further down the road? This is what happens to people who take payday loans. So I think to mitigate that the payback would have to be over a long period of time or something.



I'm really looking forward to pulling my kids out of college if we get UBI. First off it will save a ton of money in paying for college, and secondly what's the point if they don't ever need to work? Given the current price it's not really worth it anyway (it costs me around $25k per year to send one).

Why wouldn't ypur kids want to go to college?

[NewtonTrino]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Most active money making throughout history has been the direct result of people concentrating on themselves and their families.

Great, then this will be a boon for GDP and we can tax all that money to pay for the people who aren't so productive. You know, the millions held down by the man who can't make it today.

[NewtonTrino]

Originally Posted by Darat

Why wouldn't ypur kids want to go to college?

Why would they want to if they get free money forever?

The idea of going to college is to get a degree so you can get a well paying gig. But if you don't need a gig you don't need the college.

Learning is btw a completely separate thing. Plenty of free information on the internet including plenty of college level (and beyond) stuff. The only reason to go to college is for fun, meeting people and most of all the piece of paper that says you went. Almost all of that is about career.

If they still want to go though, no problem, just live on the BI. But I won't be paying since it's not needed (unless my wife forces me to, curses!).

[NewtonTrino]

Originally Posted by Elaedith

NewtonTrino doesn't think UBI will work; that's why he's trying to make fun of it.

Of course, there are some millionaires and billionaires in favour of basic income in one form or another; Pierre Omidyar, Mark Zuckerberg, Chris Hughes, Elon Musk, and Tim Berners-Lee for example. So if NewtonTrino is correct and they will be the only ones funding it, one can only admire their altruism.

You'll note however that none of those people have willingly given up their fortunes. Anyone can say anything if they think it's good PR. Although I know there are some rich people who feel incredibly guilty about the whole thing (while still flying around on their jet).

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by P.J. Denyer

Something that occurred to me today is that certain professions are becoming closed shops that exclude entry to people from poorer backgrounds by demanding experience gained in unpaid internships as a precondition of being considered for paid roles. This makes the job possible for someone with parents willing and able to support them through the internship but is difficult if not impossible for someone with no such support. This particularly has knock on effects in areas such as politics and the media where this is used. UBI doesn't eliminate the problem, particularly since these internships tend to be situated in the most expensive areas, but it would make entry difficult rather than next to impossible.

Which professions, for example?

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Elaedith

NewtonTrino doesn't think UBI will work; that's why he's trying to make fun of it.

Thanks. Somehow I missed that. I also think it won't work, but I'm more interested in actually discussing it than reading pondertingturtle-tier sarcasm.

[NewtonTrino]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Thanks. Somehow I missed that. I also think it won't work, but I'm more interested in actually discussing it than reading pondertingturtle-tier sarcasm.

It really depends on what you mean by work. It's really difficult to predict what will happen. I'm just trying to lay out some scenarios as to what the various effects might be. For example my hypothetical about families moving out of the city and living on UBI in the country as a group. That seems very plausible to me.

For one thing we are basically subsidizing people to do things that we know aren't economically productive. If we want less productivity because we think that robots are taking over then maybe it will actually function as intended. Think tons of etsy jewelry shops, bad indie videogames etc. from people following their passion (instead of their talent).

I'm not sure where all the money is supposed to come from. Once we've taxed away the fortunes of the top 1000 billionaires there probably won't be more after them. So I would expect a rather large middle class tax hike to be necessary to keep the money flowing.

Of course the constant lobbying but those on UBI to increase it may up the class warfare ante a little bit. After all this would be a rather large constituency of people who have a direct economic benefit from increasing taxes and increasing the benefit. We already see this kind of thinking coming from the left today so that's not a stretch.

A lot of this is why I think a lot of people will simply choose not to work, or if they do work, to do it in the underground untaxed economy (e.g. the black market).

This is basically fully automated star trek style communism as the way forward with this simply being the first step.

I think the most likely outcome of a $1k per month basic income instituted today would be inflation which make the $1k not worth much and then we are back where we are. This will happen because there won't be an appetite for the required tax increases so they will just print the money up anyway.

[Elaedith]

Originally Posted by NewtonTrino

Good idea! Emergency loans when you get into trouble could really help out in a jam. Although if you have to pay it back with your UBI wouldn't that mean you are just pushing the problem further down the road? This is what happens to people who take payday loans. So I think to mitigate that the payback would have to be over a long period of time or something.

Payday loans have ridiculously high interest rates. An emergency loan paid back through UBI could just be charged interest at inflation, plus actual administrative costs to ensure it doesn't add to the cost of the scheme. It could be paid back in very small deductions. This allows for UBI payments being fairly low on the assumption that people won't usually be living on UBI alone, but still provide an additional safety mechanism for short-term inability to find additional income.

[Elaedith]

Originally Posted by NewtonTrino

I'm not sure where all the money is supposed to come from. Once we've taxed away the fortunes of the top 1000 billionaires there probably won't be more after them. So I would expect a rather large middle class tax hike to be necessary to keep the money flowing.

All what money? The net cost of UBI is not simply the amount of UBI multiplied by the number of recipients. Here is an article that claims the net cost is much loss than some have claimed. I admit economics is not my area. If anyone has critiques of this I would be interested.

[NewtonTrino]

Originally Posted by Elaedith

Payday loans have ridiculously high interest rates. An emergency loan paid back through UBI could just be charged interest at inflation, plus actual administrative costs to ensure it doesn't add to the cost of the scheme. It could be paid back in very small deductions. This allows for UBI payments being fairly low on the assumption that people won't usually be living on UBI alone, but still provide an additional safety mechanism for short-term inability to find additional income.

Well sure, but even if the interest rate was zero they now owe money they need to pay back. This will impact their current budget. Also, once they have a loan outstanding do you let them have another loan? What if they get in another jam?

Debt is generally not a good solution to a problem like this. A better solution would be something like a "hardship exemption" where a social worker looks at the circumstances and authorizes some extra money to get out of the situation. Of course this kind of high touch stuff is the opposite of UBI.

[NewtonTrino]

Originally Posted by Elaedith

All what money? The net cost of UBI is not simply the amount of UBI multiplied by the number of recipients. Here is an article that claims the net cost is much loss than some have claimed. I admit economics is not my area. If anyone has critiques of this I would be interested.

Sure, the net cost is definitely less than the roughly three trillion number we keep hearing about. I've seen various numbers around but nobody really knows how it will shake out in practice.

Where you draw the line seems like a major political compromise.

[Elaedith]

Originally Posted by NewtonTrino

Well sure, but even if the interest rate was zero they now owe money they need to pay back. This will impact their current budget. Also, once they have a loan outstanding do you let them have another loan? What if they get in another jam?

It hardly has any impact on budget if the deductions are very small. And no, it would be sensible not to be allowed more than one loan at a time. I am simply suggesting some tweaks that could increase the effectiveness as a safety net without increasing costs.

You seem to be determined to cling to this idea that some people will try to avoid earning any extra money if receive UBI, and so won't be able to cope with any small additional expenses. Most people who are not disabled can find a way to earn at least a little money.

Quote:

Debt is generally not a good solution to a problem like this. A better solution would be something like a "hardship exemption" where a social worker looks at the circumstances and authorizes some extra money to get out of the situation. Of course this kind of high touch stuff is the opposite of UBI.

Yes, the idea is to avoid giving anyone the power to decide who deserves what.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Elaedith

All what money? The net cost of UBI is not simply the amount of UBI multiplied by the number of recipients. Here is an article that claims the net cost is much loss than some have claimed. I admit economics is not my area. If anyone has critiques of this I would be interested.

Looks like you need a Proquest account to read the abstract.

[NewtonTrino]

Originally Posted by Elaedith

Yes, the idea is to avoid giving anyone the power to decide who deserves what.

I get that but in a world of limited resources don't you want those resources to be deployed in the best way possible? I'm not at all convinced UBI will do that. Opportunists will milk it and the poor will still be the poor.

[Elaedith]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Looks like you need a Proquest account to read the abstract.

Sorry, I did not need to log in so I assumed it was available. I must have a cookie on my computer. Try this.

[Tero]

Have not really followed this thread, but just a note on the Finnish study
https://www.kela.fi/perustulokokeilu
it was 2000 people and has ended. If the people were not in the study, they would still be on unemployment. Not sure which is less! The lowest level of social security in Finland is about 600 euros a month.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by NewtonTrino

Why would they want to if they get free money forever?

I think you are a) overestimating the quality of life that a UBI will give you if you don't supplement it and b) underestimating peoples' desire to achieve.

[NewtonTrino]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

I think you are a) overestimating the quality of life that a UBI will give you if you don't supplement it and b) underestimating peoples' desire to achieve.

Ok. I think you are underestimating how far the money could go if managed well. And also overestimating people's desire to have a crappy job they don't need.

If you are poor today and you have a lot of desire to achieve something like a basic income isn't necessary. People that already have the desire are already out there making things happen. If someone today is in a position to get a basic income they aren't out there busting ass right now. It's the people who cannot achieve right now that will get the basic income.

Do you know what you call a poor person who has the desire to achieve? You call them rich.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by NewtonTrino

Ok. I think you are underestimating how far the money could go if managed well. And also overestimating people's desire to have a crappy job they don't need.

If you are poor today and you have a lot of desire to achieve something like a basic income isn't necessary. People that already have the desire are already out there making things happen. If someone today is in a position to get a basic income they aren't out there busting ass right now. It's the people who cannot achieve right now that will get the basic income.

Do you know what you call a poor person who has the desire to achieve? You call them rich.

You've just expressed the biggest lie of capitalism - that if you are in poverty, it is easy to get yourself out of it if you work hard enough. Repeat: that is a lie.

Have you heard of the Captain Samuel Vimes 'Boots' theory of socioeconomic unfairness?

Originally Posted by Terry Pratchett

“The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money.

Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles.

But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet.

This was the Captain Samuel Vimes 'Boots' theory of socioeconomic unfairness.”

Being poor is expensive.

[NewtonTrino]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

You've just expressed the biggest lie of capitalism - that if you are in poverty, it is easy to get yourself out of it if you work hard enough. Repeat: that is a lie.

I specifically caveat it and I don't recall saying it's easy. In fact it's darn hard work which is why only the people who really have the desire up end successful. Most people, quite frankly, don't have the follow through.

The USA is still a great place to become very well off, if not wealthy, if you want it. Those who want it tend to go and do it though, they don't spend their time pontificating on internet forums. Instead they are out there working towards whatever their goal is.

Of course you get the negative nancies who tell everyone they don't control their own lives. That you can't be successful even with hard work. Those people do a lot of damage to people that might otherwise be pretty successful.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by NewtonTrino

I specifically caveat it and I don't recall saying it's easy. In fact it's darn hard work which is why only the people who really have the desire up end successful. Most people, quite frankly, don't have the follow through.

The USA is still a great place to become very well off, if not wealthy, if you want it. Those who want it tend to go and do it though, they don't spend their time pontificating on internet forums. Instead they are out there working towards whatever their goal is.

Of course you get the negative nancies who tell everyone they don't control their own lives. That you can't be successful even with hard work. Those people do a lot of damage to people that might otherwise be pretty successful.

The only reason poor people are poor is because they're lazy. Right.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by NewtonTrino

Sure, the net cost is definitely less than the roughly three trillion number we keep hearing about. I've seen various numbers around but nobody really knows how it will shake out in practice.

Where you draw the line seems like a major political compromise.

You are so full of straw.

Anybody with half a brain can calculate a level of UBI that is revenue neutral.

[Orphia Nay]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

You've just expressed the biggest lie of capitalism - that if you are in poverty, it is easy to get yourself out of it if you work hard enough. Repeat: that is a lie.

Have you heard of the Captain Samuel Vimes 'Boots' theory of socioeconomic unfairness?


Being poor is expensive.

I've noticed that concept, but hadn't seen Pratchett's prose. Thank you, I want to send that to someone, I was looking for a good example.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by Orphia Nay

I've noticed that concept, but hadn't seen Pratchett's prose. Thank you, I want to send that to someone, I was looking for a good example.

It's a very good explanation of the paradox of the expensive poor. More often than not, poor people are forced to spend more than rich people, just to stay where they are. People are working hard - holding down three jobs at a time, working every day, but they remain poor, not because they don't have the desire to do well - they do - but because they are forced to spend more of their hard-earned cash buying more crappy stuff.

[Orphia Nay]

Originally Posted by NewtonTrino

You'll note however that none of those people have willingly given up their fortunes. Anyone can say anything if they think it's good PR. Although I know there are some rich people who feel incredibly guilty about the whole thing (while still flying around on their jet).

UBI and giving up fortunes?

Ever heard of Philanthropy? I'd be highly surprised if any of those you query don't donate large amounts to community welfare projects.

Ever heard of The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation?

The Warren Buffet Giving Pledge?

The Giving Pledge is a commitment by the world's wealthiest individuals and families to dedicate the majority of their wealth to giving back.

https://givingpledge.org/
(Page lists the many donors.)

Originally Posted by NewtonTrino

I specifically caveat it and I don't recall saying it's easy. In fact it's darn hard work which is why only the people who really have the desire up end successful. Most people, quite frankly, don't have the follow through.

The USA is still a great place to become very well off, if not wealthy, if you want it. Those who want it tend to go and do it though, they don't spend their time pontificating on internet forums. Instead they are out there working towards whatever their goal is.

Of course you get the negative nancies who tell everyone they don't control their own lives. That you can't be successful even with hard work. Those people do a lot of damage to people that might otherwise be pretty successful.

There sounds like some interesting personal experiences behind these rather conflicting sentences.

You speak at times like a rich bastard (as opposed to a negative nancy or a pontificator).

Have you been thwarted or successful in your fortune-seeking?

Are any of your rich oppressors or business associates on the Giving Pledge list?

[NewtonTrino]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

The only reason poor people are poor is because they're lazy. Right.

There are a lot of caveats and I don't think it's fair that you strawman my argument like that.

[NewtonTrino]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

It's a very good explanation of the paradox of the expensive poor. More often than not, poor people are forced to spend more than rich people, just to stay where they are. People are working hard - holding down three jobs at a time, working every day, but they remain poor, not because they don't have the desire to do well - they do - but because they are forced to spend more of their hard-earned cash buying more crappy stuff.

Yeah I'm just going to go and ahead and say this is a bunch of hogwash. Terry's story is a good yarn, but that doesn't make it true, especially in the modern world. I see this get trotted out all the time and frankly I'm kind of astounded people think it applies to their lot in life.

[NewtonTrino]

Originally Posted by Orphia Nay

UBI and giving up fortunes?

Ever heard of Philanthropy? I'd be highly surprised if any of those you query don't donate large amounts to community welfare projects.

Ever heard of The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation?

The Warren Buffet Giving Pledge?

The Giving Pledge is a commitment by the world's wealthiest individuals and families to dedicate the majority of their wealth to giving back.

Yes, I've heard of it. Notice they haven't given up control yet :0

Actually I have all the respect in the world for Bill & Melinda, they seem to be doing great things. I was thinking more of people like ultra leftist Nick Hanauer. That's the guy with the most wealth guilt I've ever seen.

Quote:

There sounds like some interesting personal experiences behind these rather conflicting sentences.

You speak at times like a rich bastard (as opposed to a negative nancy or a pontificator).

Have you been thwarted or successful in your fortune-seeking?

Are any of your rich oppressors or business associates on the Giving Pledge list?

I immigrated to the usa with a suitcase about 20 years ago. Most people would probably consider me rich but I'm of the minor nobility compared to a lot of my peers.

[Orphia Nay]

Originally Posted by NewtonTrino

Yes, I've heard of it. Notice they haven't given up control yet :0

If you are managing a non-profit organisation well or a philanthropic charity and not profiting from it, should THEY give up control?

Think of an organisation you donate to. Should their CEO give up control?

Originally Posted by NewtonTrino

Actually I have all the respect in the world for Bill & Melinda, they seem to be doing great things. I was thinking more of people like ultra leftist Nick Hanauer. That's the guy with the most wealth guilt I've ever seen.

I don't think I've heard of him.

Do you mean he feels guilty, or he should feel guilty?
Have you looked into his Annual Reports?

I was rabidly anti-Newscorp a few months ago till I read the latest Annual Report.

Nuances.

Opposing our opponent lets them take advantage of your vehement attention of them.

We all need to work together.

All of us old JREFers know that "woos" only double down and dig deeper when you confront or bully them all the time.

*cough* TBD *finalcommentonthat*

Originally Posted by NewtonTrino

I immigrated to the usa with a suitcase about 20 years ago. Most people would probably consider me rich but I'm of the minor nobility compared to a lot of my peers.

I started a thread in Community a month or two ago...

We have lots of company owners/directors/CEOs here. They all have Impostor Syndrome. /DrOrph

Well, done, that's very brave of you. I was messaging my mother today about the year my father's parents emigrated from the UK (separately) because of what their parents were trying to make them do. I admire such bravery and independence.

Likewise, I admire refugees who can only afford boat or foot travel and "illegal entry", as opposed to being a "$10 tourist" (term from Australia's White Australia days) or a $100,000 paid Australian immigrant now. All are doing what they can to survive and help.

[NewtonTrino]

Originally Posted by Orphia Nay

I don't think I've heard of him.

Do you mean he feels guilty, or he should feel guilty?
Have you looked into his Annual Reports?


I started a thread in Community a month or two ago...

We have lots of company owners/directors/CEOs here. They all have Impostor Syndrome. /DrOrph

Nick is a local guy that made a bunch of money investing in (I think) facebook. He pushes for a lot of very lefty causes and talks about the pitchforks coming out for the wealthy. Other than that I don't pay much attention to the guy.

One thing I don't have is imposter syndrome.

Anyway I just jump into here every once in a while, but overall this place seems like it's dying, as is the concept for a forum like this in general. At one time in my life I really thought this was a great community but I became disillusioned at some point with it.

[Suddenly]

Originally Posted by NewtonTrino

Yeah I'm just going to go and ahead and say this is a bunch of hogwash. Terry's story is a good yarn, but that doesn't make it true, especially in the modern world. I see this get trotted out all the time and frankly I'm kind of astounded people think it applies to their lot in life.

You mean when I can buy a new car that will last ten years because I can afford a down payment when my friend buys a used one that will last less than half that and have more mechanical problems and a payment that is almost as much because due to his low income he is seen as more of a credit risk?

Or when I buy a house and build equity and he rents and doesn't just because I have that down payment? And that rent requires him to live in a part of town that makes getting insurance more expensive?

Heck, I paid cash outright for my house, so even as to my friends that can get a mortgage I am ahead all that interest.

It is more true today than ever, especially in a world where creditworthiness is important and where we saddle teenagers with debt if they want to get an education.

[ArchSas]

Originally Posted by Suddenly

You mean when I can buy a new car that will last ten years because I can afford a down payment when my friend buys a used one that will last less than half that and have more mechanical problems and a payment that is almost as much because due to his low income he is seen as more of a credit risk?

Or when I buy a house and build equity and he rents and doesn't just because I have that down payment? And that rent requires him to live in a part of town that makes getting insurance more expensive?

Heck, I paid cash outright for my house, so even as to my friends that can get a mortgage I am ahead all that interest.

It is more true today than ever, especially in a world where creditworthiness is important and where we saddle teenagers with debt if they want to get an education.

Yep. As a person that grew up poor and worked pretty hard to get to the middle class, I'm also going to throw support behind the idea Pratchett was expressing. I've lived through it and seen it. When you're poor, it's damn hard to accumulate anything.

Besides the cost of keeping up with low-quality pruchases (like maintenance on unreliable cars), not knowing how to leverage debt also has a lot to do with it. One of the pieces of "advice" commonly given to the poor also contributes to that cycle: the idea that you should avoid debt at any cost. Beyond the added challenge of spending pretty much all of your money when expenses occur instead of (smartly) using tools to spread out impact, the simple fact of the matter is that in the US, you can't accomplish much of anything without a good credit score and a significant credit history. The only way to build that is by managing debt, and if you avoid participating in that system, you're royally screwed. I fell for that advice and it's still causing me problems that make pretty much every aspect of normal middle class life (getting a car, housing, even trying to get a credit card to build more history) still kind of a challenge for me. To tie this into the larger point about how expensive it can be to be poor, a great example is how much it cost me to rent my current apartment: because of my lack of credit history, I needed to pay double the typical security deposit, along with last month's rent (another cost not usually required at my complex) - that tripped the normal move-in costs and could have easily been prohibitive had I not had decent savings. And it all could have easily been avoided by getting a credit card at 18 and being responsible with it, instead of avoiding debt like poor people are "supposed" to do. And given that all the financial advice and wisdom I hear now is about leveraging debt, it makes me think there might be some insidious motivations behind what I was hearing as a poor teenager.

[Rolfe]

Coincidentally, I discovered when I read my newspaper today that someone has been punting the UBI idea to our parliament, and there are actual numbers attached to the article. ("CBI" stands for "citizens' basic income", so it's the same thing. A bit daft though because "CBI" is usually taken to stand for "Confederation of British Industry" around here.)

MSPs hear benefits of basic income proposal that could pay up to £200 a week

Quote:

The group has suggested introducing a CBI set at two levels, with a lower rate more closely aligned to the current level set for benefit payments. A higher rate would be based on the minimum income standard produced by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. It has proposed £120.48, £213.59 and £195.90 a week for people aged up to 15-years-old, 16 years to pension age and above pension age respectively.

The second, lower, level of payment would be more closely aligned with current benefit entitlements. This would be £84.54, £57.90, £73.10 and £167.25 for those aged up to 19-years-old, those between 20 and 24-years-old, 25-years-old to pension age, and pension age respectively.

There are two suggested levels there, the first to give an acceptable standard of living and the second to give absolute bare-minimum assistance.

I note the proposal for a lower rate for minor children, then a full adult rate, then a pension-age rate. Looking at these figures as monthly income they seem to be as follows.

	Higher rate	Lower rate
Child	£522.08	£366.34
Youth	£925.66	£250.90
Adult	£925.56	£316.77
Pensioner	£848.90	£724.75

I am a bit hazy as to the logic of some of this. It's a short article and I suspect the journalist has cut out information for length. The Joseph Rowntree proposed rates are not far out of line with what we've been discussing for children and adults. I'm a little unclear why the decrease at pension age, because that's when people will no longer be supplementing the CBI with earnings, but I strongly suspect this sum is intended to be in addition to the current state pension rather than to substitute for it. In that case it represents more than a doubling of basic pension-age income which is absolutely needed because state pensions in Britain are extremely low.

The lower-rate column is more based on current bare-minimum benefit levels, so I presume child benefit rates, then youth benefit rates, then adult benefit rates, and that last number looks a bit like the current state pension. However, again I'm confused. My state pension right now is £753.61 per month (the figure I gave earlier is actually the 4-weekly payment) so if the lower rate pension-age CBI is supposed to be the pension itself, it's a cut of £28.86 per month, which isn't really on. So maybe again this is a proposal to (almost) double the basic pensioner income?

Anyway, it's some figures. It's a concrete proposal that was presented to the Social Security Committe in our parliament. Yesterday. Discuss.

[P.J. Denyer]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Which professions, for example?

Media, politics and fashion are three which are commonly cited although law and finance also sometimes use unpaid internships. With regards the media in particular Nick Cohn has written has written about his observations on the effect it's had in the demographics entering the industry.