Universal Basic Income

[Puja]

NO ONE IS SUGGESTING TO INCREASE TAX BANDS FOR PEOPLE EARNING 50K!

FFS, seriously, just read what's posted before making a point that has no basis in realism. 50k is not a big wage and it's not a high earner. And I don't think anyone here was suggesting that it was!

Also, let's not forget that marginal tax brackets for the highest earners are at a historically low mark. The highest tax bracket has been taxed at 70% in the past without the country falling over and I believe are taxed much higher in neighbouring countries.

Puja

Great way to encourage the brain drain. Thatcher reduced it to 60%. Previous tax them til the pips squeak approaches didn’t do us any favours and were contributory to us being an economic basket case of Europe.

There is also a good argument that with higher tax comes higher tax avoidance.

Brain drain to where though - a lot of developed countries have a higher top marginal rate than us. We're currently at 50% - below Thatcher! Will people really relocate over losing 60% of their income of £150k instead of 50%? (Not to mention that an unmentioned effect of UBI would likely be lower crime through lower poverty, likely making Britain a nicer place to live).

Higher tax avoidance, I'd give you, which is why any plan involves the government of the day being interested in the needs of the many rather than the few (hey that's a catchy slogan) and actually doing something about loopholes.

Puja

[Sandydragon]

Also, let's not forget that marginal tax brackets for the highest earners are at a historically low mark. The highest tax bracket has been taxed at 70% in the past without the country falling over and I believe are taxed much higher in neighbouring countries.

Puja

Great way to encourage the brain drain. Thatcher reduced it to 60%. Previous tax them til the pips squeak approaches didn’t do us any favours and were contributory to us being an economic basket case of Europe.

There is also a good argument that with higher tax comes higher tax avoidance.

Brain drain to where though - a lot of developed countries have a higher top marginal rate than us. We're currently at 50% - below Thatcher! Will people really relocate over losing 60% of their income of £150k instead of 50%? (Not to mention that an unmentioned effect of UBI would likely be lower crime through lower poverty, likely making Britain a nicer place to live).

Higher tax avoidance, I'd give you, which is why any plan involves the government of the day being interested in the needs of the many rather than the few (hey that's a catchy slogan) and actually doing something about loopholes.

Puja

You assume that replacing benefits worth a certain amount with UBI worth about the same will suddenly make parts of the country more law abiding. I’m not anti UBI as stated below but I think that’s a stretch for an argument, or at least an outcome that won’t be seen for quite some time.

For right now in Brexit land I’d rather have top earners paying what they do today than watch those who pay 90% of tax receipts disappear.

Tax avoidance on big multinationals who price UK companies out of business I agree with. But I wouldn’t touch individual income tax for the next ten years or longer.

[Sandydragon]

NO ONE IS SUGGESTING TO INCREASE TAX BANDS FOR PEOPLE EARNING 50K!

FFS, seriously, just read what's posted before making a point that has no basis in realism. 50k is not a big wage and it's not a high earner. And I don't think anyone here was suggesting that it was!

Which Tyler suggested changing tax rates. The 40% tax rate starts at £50k. My post was in response to WTs original before you lot became all moralistic and assumed I was referring to very high earners.

You brought £250k into the argument somewhat belatedly. If that’s what you meant then be clear FFS.

Fair enough. It is worthwhile noting, however, that even if taxes at 50k+ were raised, tax is marginal and thus only those on only just 50k would see no effect. Plus, those people wouldn't be earning 50k anymore, but 67k, so unless the new tax rate was incredibly punitive, they'd still be better off.

Puja

Someone in say £55k would be paying 20% tax on income between £12500 £50k.

Under the UBI rules below, they would get a 55k salary plus 12000’UBI for 67k.

Under current taxation, they would pay 20% tax on all income up to £37500 and then 40%’thereafter.

Under current taxation rules it’s about the same. If you increase the taxation rate then they are less well off.

That assumes that you keep the current taxation’s rules where the 20% tax rate covers thenfirst £37500 after your tax free allowance.

If you change it to a flat 1-50000 at 20% then 40% over 50K then there’s a definite improvement but any tax rate rise would nullify that.

If you increase the tax rate to 45% then

Existing application would see them worse off, alternative application would see a slight improvement.

[Digby]

Historically a big part of the reason given for cutting taxes from the 60, 70 and evening 90 something percentages was that with lower tax the higher earners would see less of a need to pay themselves a large salary. Since tax rates have come down salaries for the rich have increased in massive fashion. I suspect those in charge knew that would happen and their justification was just to get the change done in support of 'right sort' of people, but that part of the justification did prove a load of utter bollocks.

I don't in isolation mind the idea the tax rates go back up, with upper thresholds for earnings over £200k and say £300k being higher, and earnings over £1M being higher again. The query would be how do you do that whilst seeing the capital markets not move against you, there's little political and economical advantage to being a Western European version of Venezuela, and I doubt you'd have to be overtly cynical to think the money markets might have some concerns valid or otherwise.

That said conversation on UBI can easily be shifted away from its purpose and a lot of the conversation around UBI and where and why we levy taxes is a different political and economical question to UBI. For those in favour of UBI it's going to prove difficult not to have a whole bunch of crap dragged into the argument, stuff which might justify it's own debate but isn't a UBI issue. We could say it's all linked, and yes it is, but we don't tend to look to DCMS strategy when thinking about fire safety.

We have a society which marks out entitlement/ownership and says people are not free to avail themselves to things considered the possession of others, be that land, animal resources, water, power.... and once you do that I'd suggest you take on a responsibility for all those in your society, and that's where the discussion around UBI belongs, 'cause if not UBI what model do people propose?

Then there's a separate conversation around wealth, who owns wealth, who generates wealth, how it's being distributed, whether you want any changes, what those changes should be and how you change it, and then all across those points how you measure it.

[Puja]

You assume that replacing benefits worth a certain amount with UBI worth about the same will suddenly make parts of the country more law abiding. I’m not anti UBI as stated below but I think that’s a stretch for an argument, or at least an outcome that won’t be seen for quite some time.

A large chunk of crime is poverty-driven. Another large chunk is stress-driven. Give everyone in the country the ability to have the essentials without working (and the ability to buy nicer stuff by working) and I'm willing to bet that crime reduces very quickly.

Nb: My proposed UBI is higher than a lot of benefits are right now and wouldn't require jumping through humiliating hoops to prove that you deserve it.

Puja

[Sandydragon]

You assume that replacing benefits worth a certain amount with UBI worth about the same will suddenly make parts of the country more law abiding. I’m not anti UBI as stated below but I think that’s a stretch for an argument, or at least an outcome that won’t be seen for quite some time.

A large chunk of crime is poverty-driven. Another large chunk is stress-driven. Give everyone in the country the ability to have the essentials without working (and the ability to buy nicer stuff by working) and I'm willing to bet that crime reduces very quickly.

Nb: My proposed UBI is higher than a lot of benefits are right now and wouldn't require jumping through humiliating hoops to prove that you deserve it.

Puja

A lot of crime is also driven by boredom. UBI needs some kind of work alongside it ideally in order to keep people mentally and physically active.

[Zhivago]

I don't think UBI is the solution people think it will be. As you indicate its main benefit is simply trimming the admin fat from the benefits system. The bottom line is that if companies will need to pay people less in order for them to survive, then they'll pay them less. UBI therefore is simply a merger, simplification, and slight expansion of the current tax credit system. And it's more likely that normal working people will end up paying for such an expansion rather than billionaires or corporates.

Therefore, in my view it is only another attempt at plastering over the cracks caused by capitalism, cracks that will get bigger as billionaires hoard ever more of the proceeds of technological advancement, this is also why plenty of billionaires are starting to see that UBI is good for them. What we really needed is more fundamental reforms that change some of the dynamics at play in the current capitalist economic model.

[Digby]

More fundamental reforms aimed at a redistribution of wealth are not a UBI issue. If you have an aim to redistribute wealth take it up with a policy that isn't UBI

[Zhivago]

More fundamental reforms aimed at a redistribution of wealth are not a UBI issue. If you have an aim to redistribute wealth take it up with a policy that isn't UBI

I disagree - UBI falls very much into the reform or revolution type of topic.

[Digby]

More fundamental reforms aimed at a redistribution of wealth are not a UBI issue. If you have an aim to redistribute wealth take it up with a policy that isn't UBI

I disagree - UBI falls very much into the reform or revolution type of topic.

I suppose if you look at job benefits, unemployment benefits and think they're doing a job on redistribution of wealth so be it. But the clue is in the name, basic income

[morepork]

Also, let's not forget that marginal tax brackets for the highest earners are at a historically low mark. The highest tax bracket has been taxed at 70% in the past without the country falling over and I believe are taxed much higher in neighbouring countries.

Puja

Great way to encourage the brain drain. Thatcher reduced it to 60%. Previous tax them til the pips squeak approaches didn’t do us any favours and were contributory to us being an economic basket case of Europe.

There is also a good argument that with higher tax comes higher tax avoidance.

Brain drain to where though - a lot of developed countries have a higher top marginal rate than us. We're currently at 50% - below Thatcher! Will people really relocate over losing 60% of their income of £150k instead of 50%? (Not to mention that an unmentioned effect of UBI would likely be lower crime through lower poverty, likely making Britain a nicer place to live).

Higher tax avoidance, I'd give you, which is why any plan involves the government of the day being interested in the needs of the many rather than the few (hey that's a catchy slogan) and actually doing something about loopholes.

Puja

Brain drain. How much does it cost to go to medical school, get an engineering degree? Are your working class being poached by other economies? Why are high earners so revered as the saviours of an economy? Are you losing real professionals or just a privileged few. The current pandemic has thrown into sharp relief the dangers of working people being shat on by the system. Do you really think fucking over the majority for the benefit of a chosen few is sustainable? For generations we've seen the folly of that tired mantra.

[Zhivago]

More fundamental reforms aimed at a redistribution of wealth are not a UBI issue. If you have an aim to redistribute wealth take it up with a policy that isn't UBI

I disagree - UBI falls very much into the reform or revolution type of topic.

I suppose if you look at job benefits, unemployment benefits and think they're doing a job on redistribution of wealth so be it. But the clue is in the name, basic income

Yes welfare is a redistributive policy area. Redistribution involves taking and giving. Welfare is the giving side of the redistribution.

[Sandydragon]

Great way to encourage the brain drain. Thatcher reduced it to 60%. Previous tax them til the pips squeak approaches didn’t do us any favours and were contributory to us being an economic basket case of Europe.

There is also a good argument that with higher tax comes higher tax avoidance.

Brain drain to where though - a lot of developed countries have a higher top marginal rate than us. We're currently at 50% - below Thatcher! Will people really relocate over losing 60% of their income of £150k instead of 50%? (Not to mention that an unmentioned effect of UBI would likely be lower crime through lower poverty, likely making Britain a nicer place to live).

Higher tax avoidance, I'd give you, which is why any plan involves the government of the day being interested in the needs of the many rather than the few (hey that's a catchy slogan) and actually doing something about loopholes.

Puja

Brain drain. How much does it cost to go to medical school, get an engineering degree? Are your working class being poached by other economies? Why are high earners so revered as the saviours of an economy? Are you losing real professionals or just a privileged few. The current pandemic has thrown into sharp relief the dangers of working people being shat on by the system. Do you really think fucking over the majority for the benefit of a chosen few is sustainable? For generations we've seen the folly of that tired mantra.

Those people are paying the vast majority of the income tax that provides benefits to those less well off. Yes, we want to protect that income.

[morepork]

Brain drain to where though - a lot of developed countries have a higher top marginal rate than us. We're currently at 50% - below Thatcher! Will people really relocate over losing 60% of their income of £150k instead of 50%? (Not to mention that an unmentioned effect of UBI would likely be lower crime through lower poverty, likely making Britain a nicer place to live).

Higher tax avoidance, I'd give you, which is why any plan involves the government of the day being interested in the needs of the many rather than the few (hey that's a catchy slogan) and actually doing something about loopholes.

Puja

Brain drain. How much does it cost to go to medical school, get an engineering degree? Are your working class being poached by other economies? Why are high earners so revered as the saviours of an economy? Are you losing real professionals or just a privileged few. The current pandemic has thrown into sharp relief the dangers of working people being shat on by the system. Do you really think fucking over the majority for the benefit of a chosen few is sustainable? For generations we've seen the folly of that tired mantra.

Those people are paying the vast majority of the income tax that provides benefits to those less well off. Yes, we want to protect that income.

Those people enjoy disproportionately more benefits than those less well off. That is not even up for debate. Every time they get a tax break, benefits for the rest of society get triaged. Again, it is not sustainable and is the wrong strategy because it is so obviously the wrong strategy. How many more decades do we indulge this flat earth theory before we drown in the data?

[Sandydragon]

Brain drain. How much does it cost to go to medical school, get an engineering degree? Are your working class being poached by other economies? Why are high earners so revered as the saviours of an economy? Are you losing real professionals or just a privileged few. The current pandemic has thrown into sharp relief the dangers of working people being shat on by the system. Do you really think fucking over the majority for the benefit of a chosen few is sustainable? For generations we've seen the folly of that tired mantra.

Those people are paying the vast majority of the income tax that provides benefits to those less well off. Yes, we want to protect that income.

Those people enjoy disproportionately more benefits than those less well off. That is not even up for debate. Every time they get a tax break, benefits for the rest of society get triaged. Again, it is not sustainable and is the wrong strategy because it is so obviously the wrong strategy. How many more decades do we indulge this flat earth theory before we drown in the data?

And yet they provide over 90% of the income tax revenue. Lose that, or some of that, and it’s a lot less to spend on redistribution and basic support.

[Sandydragon]

I disagree - UBI falls very much into the reform or revolution type of topic.

I suppose if you look at job benefits, unemployment benefits and think they're doing a job on redistribution of wealth so be it. But the clue is in the name, basic income

Yes welfare is a redistributive policy area. Redistribution involves taking and giving. Welfare is the giving side of the redistribution.

Is it that much of a redistribution when everyone gets the same amount (barring disabled as previously discussed and possibly single parents)?

[Son of Mathonwy]

I'm in favour, for the increase in dignity and reduction in chronic stress this would bring to the population.

[Digby]

I suppose if you look at job benefits, unemployment benefits and think they're doing a job on redistribution of wealth so be it. But the clue is in the name, basic income

Yes welfare is a redistributive policy area. Redistribution involves taking and giving. Welfare is the giving side of the redistribution.

Is it that much of a redistribution when everyone gets the same amount (barring disabled as previously discussed and possibly single parents)?

it is not a redistribution as you note, and where people fight to say it must be such and the purity of their vision demands that it'll make it much harder to deliver actual UBI which at minimum deserves a proper airing/debate, both in light of the situation now in society and what (I fear) is to come

if people want a redistribution of wealth by all means lobby for and fight elections on that basis, and if enough people agree with you you'll get your shot, but not every policy needs to deliver your panacea before you'll agree to help an awful lot of people

[Digby]

I disagree - UBI falls very much into the reform or revolution type of topic.

I suppose if you look at job benefits, unemployment benefits and think they're doing a job on redistribution of wealth so be it. But the clue is in the name, basic income

Yes welfare is a redistributive policy area. Redistribution involves taking and giving. Welfare is the giving side of the redistribution.

We have welfare as part of the current model, and overall there's not a lot of redistribution, far from it, much more we see money coalescing at the top. UBI is a change and a significant one to our current model, it's not proposed (by me at least) that a model designed to ensure a basic standard of living is commensurate with a wider reengineering in society that actually sees a significant redistribution of wealth, if you want huge changes to the tax system, even a dismantling of the capital system, whilst I'm unlikely to support your ideas, indeed I'm likely to think you've lit upon something as sensible as the dribblings of Trump, by all means go for it.

I'd just like to think we could see the case for UBI which would help a huge number in society could be pursued without tying it to still much wider ranging reforms again because that's going to make it much harder to achieve. Why this happens that so many on the left seem to want people to suffer because they consider ultimately that will help deliver their one true vision rather than getting on with what might be practically possible I don't know, hopefully this isn't going to be another instance of those with their pure vision from the moral high ground allowing the potential perfect to crowd out the possible good. For this to happen we don't need to convince the WT's of the UK, we need to convince a lot of Sandys and quite frankly a lot of people who'll be far more sceptical for a variety of reasons than Sandy, saddling the project with a lefty agenda (or tbh a righty agenda because there are things you could do looking the other way with UBI) helps kill the debate before it even gets started

[morepork]

Those people are paying the vast majority of the income tax that provides benefits to those less well off. Yes, we want to protect that income.

Those people enjoy disproportionately more benefits than those less well off. That is not even up for debate. Every time they get a tax break, benefits for the rest of society get triaged. Again, it is not sustainable and is the wrong strategy because it is so obviously the wrong strategy. How many more decades do we indulge this flat earth theory before we drown in the data?

And yet they provide over 90% of the income tax revenue. Lose that, or some of that, and it’s a lot less to spend on redistribution and basic support.

Because they get more taxable income. I don't see the problem with that. The top 1% of earners in the US take over 20% of all taxable income. That's just personal income. How much more pie do they need?

[Which Tyler]

Sorry, thread has moved on since I was last in.

'Entitlement checks would be easy enough "do you exist?" No means testing.'
- need to define elibility first, then we'd know what checks.
i'm sure where do you live/ how long have you lived here?/where are you now ? might be factors

You seem to be missing the "universal" part of UBI - there are no other eligibility checks needed, however many you think there should be.

I find it helpful to look at use cases for these kinds of calculations, so in this use case where a single parent has no income and receives no support from a partner, the £12K pa UBI would leave them significantly worse off.

Correction, most single parent households have 2 (or more) people in them.
So a UBI of £12k leaves them with a household UBI of £24k - leaving them (much) better off.

I’m thinking more about the motivation to do demanding and responsible jobs which tend to come with a better salary.

I'm failing to see the difference with UBI versus without UBI. The motivation to do a higher paid job is to have more money. UBI doesn't change that (except starting with more money in the first place).

Which Tyler suggested changing tax rates. The 40% tax rate starts at £50k. My post was in response to WTs original before you lot became all moralistic and assumed I was referring to very high earners.

My post left it open for discussion, and suggested UBI replacing the £12.5k personal allowance, meaning that those in higher tax brackets are better off with UBI than they are without. I also suggest changing the highest tax bands, but that's a separate issue to UBI.
Currently, a job paying £80k received £80k, and then pays back 0% for the first £12.5k, 20% for the next £37.5k and 40% on the remaining $30k. So a take-home income of £60.5k
Under my suggestion of UBI replacing the personal tax allowance (which is NOT the only option available) they'd have UBI paying £10.5k and a job paying £80k. They'd pay no tax back on the £10.5, 20% for the next £37.5k and 40% for the remaining £42.5k. So a take home income of £66k.
So the poor little diddums, gets an extra £5.5k per year with no down sides. I feel so sorry for him.



Let's run some other scenarios, but let's assume UBI of £12k, as that seems to be a number bandied about above (and I think is realistic).
So a household with an unemployed single parent and 1 child current receives £16.5k (your maths, and I see no resaon to query it).
With UBI, they take-home £24k - 45.5% better off

A part-time low-income worker currently gets £6k, paying £0 in taxation
Under UBI, they get £12k + £6k, paying £1.2k in tax; taking home £16.8k - 180% better off

A part-time average earner currently gets £12.6k, paying £20 in tax; taking home £12,580
Under UBI, they get £12k + £12.6k, paying £2.52kin tax; taking home £22.08k - 75.5% better off

A full-time low-income worker currently gets £20k, paying £1.5k in tax; taking home £18.5k
Under UBI, they get £12k + £20k, paying £4k in tax; taking take home £28k - 51% better off

A full-time average salary gets £36.6k, paying £4.8k in tax; taking home £31.8k
Under UBI, they get £12k + £36.6k, paying £7.3k in tax; taking home £41.3k - 30% better off

A threshold earner gets £50k, paying £7.5k in tax; taking home £42.5k
Under UBI, they get £12k + £50k, paying £12.5k in tax; taking home £49.5k - 16.5% better off

A high earner gets £100k, paying £27.5k in tax; taking home £72.5k
Under UBI, they get £12k + £100k, paying £32.5k in tax; taking home £79.5k - 9.6% better off

A stupidly high earner gets £500,000, avoiding £205k in tax; taking home £295k
Under UBI, they get £12k + £500,000, avoiding £210.6k in tax; taking home £301.4k - 2% better off


The only one there who may need a closer look, and more tinkering is that single parent with single child and no child support - and only then if inflation has a massive effect (but bear in mind, UBI is supposed to reflect the cost of living, so inflation increases the amount of UBI by as much as it effects the basic cost of living)

[Sandydragon]

Sorry, thread has moved on since I was last in.

'Entitlement checks would be easy enough "do you exist?" No means testing.'
- need to define elibility first, then we'd know what checks.
i'm sure where do you live/ how long have you lived here?/where are you now ? might be factors

You seem to be missing the "universal" part of UBI - there are no other eligibility checks needed, however many you think there should be.

I find it helpful to look at use cases for these kinds of calculations, so in this use case where a single parent has no income and receives no support from a partner, the £12K pa UBI would leave them significantly worse off.

Correction, most single parent households have 2 (or more) people in them.
So a UBI of £12k leaves them with a household UBI of £24k - leaving them (much) better off.

I’m thinking more about the motivation to do demanding and responsible jobs which tend to come with a better salary.

I'm failing to see the difference with UBI versus without UBI. The motivation to do a higher paid job is to have more money. UBI doesn't change that (except starting with more money in the first place).

Which Tyler suggested changing tax rates. The 40% tax rate starts at £50k. My post was in response to WTs original before you lot became all moralistic and assumed I was referring to very high earners.

WT's original post suggested no such thing.
My follow-up post left it open for discussion, and suggested UBI replacing the £12.5k personal allowance, meaning that those in higher tax brackets are better off with UBI than they are without. I also suggest changing the highest tax bands, but that's a separate issue to UBI.
Currently, a job paying £80k received £80k, and then pays back 0% for the first £12.5k, 20% for the next £37.5k and 40% on the remaining $30k. So a take-home income of £60.5k
Under my suggestion of UBI replacing the personal tax allowance (which is NOT the only option available) they'd have UBI paying £10.5k and a job paying £80k. They'd pay no tax back on the £10.5, 20% for the next £37.5k and 40% for the remaining £42.5k. So a take home income of £66k.
So the poor little diddums, gets an extra £5.5k per year with no down sides. I feel so sorry for him.



Let's run some other scenarios, but let's assume UBI of £12k, as that seems to be a number bandied about above (and I think is realistic).
So a household with an unemployed single parent and 1 child current receives £16.5k (your maths, and I see no resaon to query it).
With UBI, they take-home £24k - 45.5% better off

A part-time low-income worker currently gets £6k, paying £0 in taxation
Under UBI, they get £12k + £6k, paying £1.2k in tax; taking home £16.8k - 180% better off

A part-time average earner currently gets £12.6k, paying £20 in tax; taking home £12,580
Under UBI, they get £12k + £12.6k, paying £2.52kin tax; taking home £22.08k - 75.5% better off

A full-time low-income worker currently gets £20k, paying £1.5k in tax; taking home £18.5k
Under UBI, they get £12k + £20k, paying £4k in tax; taking take home £28k - 51% better off

A full-time average salary gets £36.6k, paying £4.8k in tax; taking home £31.8k
Under UBI, they get £12k + £36.6k, paying £7.3k in tax; taking home £41.3k - 30% better off

A threshold earner gets £50k, paying £7.5k in tax; taking home £42.5k
Under UBI, they get £12k + £50k, paying £12.5k in tax; taking home £49.5k - 16.5% better off

A high earner gets £100k, paying £27.5k in tax; taking home £72.5k
Under UBI, they get £12k + £100k, paying £32.5k in tax; taking home £79.5k - 9.6% better off

A stupidly high earner gets £500,000, avoiding £205k in tax; taking home £295k
Under UBI, they get £12k + £500,000, avoiding £210.6k in tax; taking home £301.4k - 2% better off


The only one there who may need a closer look, and more tinkering is that single parent with single child and no child support - and only then if inflation has a massive effect (but bear in mind, UBI is supposed to reflect the cost of living, so inflation increases the amount of UBI by as much as it effects the basic cost of living)

Ah, you are suggesting that children also receive UBI? In your original post you mentioned anyone with an NI number which is 16+.

[Which Tyler]

I didn't realise it was 16+ for an NI number. I was using but as shorthand for "eligible for free at the point of contact health care" - obviously wrongly.
But I also said, "anyone who exists", "no eligibility criteria", "every man, woman and child", "kids don't have the same upkeep costs as adults"

Would "Any British Citizen" be better then?

[Sandydragon]

I didn't realise it was 16+ for an NI card.
But I also said, "anyone who exists", "no eligibility criteria", "every man, woman and child"

OK, its clear now and if every child is also eligible then I agree, a single parent family will be better off. There would be an argument for how many children one person can have and still claim full UBI, but thats a different discussion.

[Which Tyler]

Yup, sorry but was unclear, my mistake there.