RugbyRebels

Which Tyler wrote:Sorry, thread has moved on since I was last in.

Galfon wrote:'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.

Sandydragon wrote: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.

Sandydragon wrote: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).

Sandydragon wrote: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 wrote:If you use the same tax bands now and merely add £12K to someones income, then they are going to be better off. Thats not my argument. The point raised below was that tax could be reviewed. My point is that higher tax bands start at £50K which is hardly a huge earner, but comfortable. If you increase the level of tax within the same earnings bindings then the middle earners are no longer better off and that will lose the support of many in the UK who don't consider themselves rich, but do jobs which have high levels of responsibility.

If the suggestion is to keep this tax neutral then fine, no arguments from me. if the intention would be to increase tax rates, or lower the level that the 20% band applied ot then it would cost a large number of people much more, losing support for the initiative.

Stom wrote:Where would the UBI go for a child, though? And when would the cutoff be for when that money goes to the child and not to their responsible adult? 16? Out of full-time education?

Also, I'm not sure every child needs the full allowance. If a family has 2 children, the second is cheaper than the first, and so on. Would the complications of testing that be worth the savings?

Also, British Citizens? Or anyone who is eligible for an NI number or free NHS treatment (if they aren't yet eligible for an NI number)? What about new migrants?

Which Tyler wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:If you use the same tax bands now and merely add £12K to someones income, then they are going to be better off. Thats not my argument. The point raised below was that tax could be reviewed. My point is that higher tax bands start at £50K which is hardly a huge earner, but comfortable. If you increase the level of tax within the same earnings bindings then the middle earners are no longer better off and that will lose the support of many in the UK who don't consider themselves rich, but do jobs which have high levels of responsibility.

If the suggestion is to keep this tax neutral then fine, no arguments from me. if the intention would be to increase tax rates, or lower the level that the 20% band applied ot then it would cost a large number of people much more, losing support for the initiative.

Reviewed =/= reviewed in a way that completey negates the point, and sets up a nice straw man to argue against.
Please quote someone actually proposing that argument, and I'll withdraw the straw-man comment.

BTW, "£50K which is hardly a huge earner, but comfortable" is showing your privelege there. Virtually no-one thinks that they're a big earner. I'm happy calling anyone earning 150% the national average, 400% of my income, or enough to be classified as "A higher earner" by HMRC as being a high earner. But that's an aside.

Actually, the suggestion is that tax revenue would increase (as demonstrated), whilst government spending is neutral and nobody is worse off.
Nobody has suggested increasing tax rates.
I am suggesting (but not making it law) that UBI REPLACES the personal allowance. If you like, consider the UBI to be £12,500 - exactly the same as the current personal allowance. Then, rather than calling it a tax-free cheque from the government, call it taxable income - which just so happens to attract 0% tax.
Your suggestion on the 20% tax bracket simply looks like someone who hasn't read the thread. Or the post he's quoting. Otherwise - please give an example where my suggestion makes someone worse off. I've even already run the maths for you - and found no such person; let alone "a large number of people".

Stom wrote:Where would the UBI go for a child, though? And when would the cutoff be for when that money goes to the child and not to their responsible adult? 16? Out of full-time education?

Also, I'm not sure every child needs the full allowance. If a family has 2 children, the second is cheaper than the first, and so on. Would the complications of testing that be worth the savings?

Also, British Citizens? Or anyone who is eligible for an NI number or free NHS treatment (if they aren't yet eligible for an NI number)? What about new migrants?

This is the discussion to be had - much more worthwhile than arguing that giving someone £10k makes them poorer.

Stom wrote:Where would the UBI go for a child, though? And when would the cutoff be for when that money goes to the child and not to their responsible adult? 16? Out of full-time education?

Also, I'm not sure every child needs the full allowance. If a family has 2 children, the second is cheaper than the first, and so on. Would the complications of testing that be worth the savings?

Also, British Citizens? Or anyone who is eligible for an NI number or free NHS treatment (if they aren't yet eligible for an NI number)? What about new migrants?

Wouldn't this put even more strain on migration offices, and result in a higher spend there to offset a larger number of applications, even if those applications end in rejection?

To clarify my own stance in this, I used to be against UBI but I've gradually come around to the idea. I think that it should be paid for by corporation tax rises and dividend tax rises, though.

And I also want to make clear that there is absolutely 0% chance of this happening in the current concept of the UK. It goes against the idea of our lovely little island as a tax haven, which is basically what Brexit was all about.

Sandydragon wrote:

Stom wrote:Where would the UBI go for a child, though? And when would the cutoff be for when that money goes to the child and not to their responsible adult? 16? Out of full-time education?

Also, I'm not sure every child needs the full allowance. If a family has 2 children, the second is cheaper than the first, and so on. Would the complications of testing that be worth the savings?

Also, British Citizens? Or anyone who is eligible for an NI number or free NHS treatment (if they aren't yet eligible for an NI number)? What about new migrants?

Wouldn't this put even more strain on migration offices, and result in a higher spend there to offset a larger number of applications, even if those applications end in rejection?

To clarify my own stance in this, I used to be against UBI but I've gradually come around to the idea. I think that it should be paid for by corporation tax rises and dividend tax rises, though.

And I also want to make clear that there is absolutely 0% chance of this happening in the current concept of the UK. It goes against the idea of our lovely little island as a tax haven, which is basically what Brexit was all about.

Which is the thinking behind child benefit where the amount decreases significantly from the first to second child.

The age at which UBI swops from the parent to the child is an excellent question and it will probably alter depending on circumstance. What about children who are in joint care for example between parents; it can get complicated. Not unresolvable, but it does require thought.

Digby wrote:You might also change how many businesses are run with that shift in how dividends are taxed. I get a lot of the thinking but it could easily come with a number unintended consequences

Stom wrote:

Digby wrote:You might also change how many businesses are run with that shift in how dividends are taxed. I get a lot of the thinking but it could easily come with a number unintended consequences

Like with businesses? And why would they be paying only in dividends if not to avoid tax?

Digby wrote:

Stom wrote:

Digby wrote:You might also change how many businesses are run with that shift in how dividends are taxed. I get a lot of the thinking but it could easily come with a number unintended consequences

Like with businesses? And why would they be paying only in dividends if not to avoid tax?

Yes it's an incentive to manage tax, but you want those, incentives that is. Perhaps it's not the best model to encourage business but I'd be hesitant to simply change that in isolation

Stom wrote:

Digby wrote:

Stom wrote:
Like with businesses? And why would they be paying only in dividends if not to avoid tax?

Yes it's an incentive to manage tax, but you want those, incentives that is. Perhaps it's not the best model to encourage business but I'd be hesitant to simply change that in isolation

Why? What negative could it have?

Digby wrote:

Stom wrote:

Digby wrote:
Yes it's an incentive to manage tax, but you want those, incentives that is. Perhaps it's not the best model to encourage business but I'd be hesitant to simply change that in isolation

Why? What negative could it have?

The need to run a profitable businesses and the desire to even run a business could be dampened

Stom wrote:

Digby wrote:

Stom wrote:
Why? What negative could it have?

The need to run a profitable businesses and the desire to even run a business could be dampened

You can still run a profitable business while only earning £20k... and then your tax bill isn't going to be huge. And I don't think you should necessarily scrap the dividend allowance of £2k, which allows you to siphon off excess profits. But there's a lot of tax take to be made in taxing the pay of those who take home £250k+ more fairly, and that includes taxing dividends as income.

Sandydragon wrote:You first brought up reviewing tax:

Either way, we've can put somewhere around £700-722B into a pot to be redistributed with UBI. If we "simply" did that, and didn't touch the rest of the tax brackets (though I would anyway), for a population of 66.6Million, that gives us £10,510- £10,840 for every man, woman and child in the country (AKA, anyone with a national insurance number).

And I'll repeat myself again, if you change the tax threshold then those earning over 50K will be worse off, which is what you have alluded to in your opening post.

Were you suggesting a tax reduction? I somehow doubt that. If you want a potted history of how that comment by you became an argument over tax then read through the responses to the original post. My point all along is that people on £50K incomes are pretty normal people and they already pay a higher rate of tax, so if you are intending to increase tax then it would be useful to specify what income you see as requiring change.

As for privilege, you can shove that argument where the sun doesn't shine. I grew up in a single parent family on a council estate and have first hand experience of living below the poverty line. There are plenty of people I know who earn £50K and have less disposal income than many on lower incomes due to mortgages etc. If you want to propose UBI to help those who are genuinely in hardship then fine, but lets not make this a jealous crusade against those who earn more money that you simply because they work hard for it in jobs that pay that wage.

Which Tyler wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:You first brought up reviewing tax:

Either way, we've can put somewhere around £700-722B into a pot to be redistributed with UBI. If we "simply" did that, and didn't touch the rest of the tax brackets (though I would anyway), for a population of 66.6Million, that gives us £10,510- £10,840 for every man, woman and child in the country (AKA, anyone with a national insurance number).

And I'll repeat myself again, if you change the tax threshold then those earning over 50K will be worse off, which is what you have alluded to in your opening post.

Were you suggesting a tax reduction? I somehow doubt that. If you want a potted history of how that comment by you became an argument over tax then read through the responses to the original post. My point all along is that people on £50K incomes are pretty normal people and they already pay a higher rate of tax, so if you are intending to increase tax then it would be useful to specify what income you see as requiring change.

As for privilege, you can shove that argument where the sun doesn't shine. I grew up in a single parent family on a council estate and have first hand experience of living below the poverty line. There are plenty of people I know who earn £50K and have less disposal income than many on lower incomes due to mortgages etc. If you want to propose UBI to help those who are genuinely in hardship then fine, but lets not make this a jealous crusade against those who earn more money that you simply because they work hard for it in jobs that pay that wage.

Try again. But please note, repeating a lie desn't make it truthful.
Shopw me an actual eample where my suggestion makes soeone worse off.
Bonus points if you can show where I've alluded to them being worse off.
Prove to me that £49,500 is less money than £42,500

As we're repeating ourselves, I'll do likewise - "no such person exists".

No; which you'd know if you read my post.

If you want a rant on the word "privilege" then start a new thread. It looks like you could do with learning something.

Either way, we've can put somewhere around £700-722B into a pot to be redistributed with UBI. If we "simply" did that, and didn't touch the rest of the tax brackets (though I would anyway), for a population of 66.6Million, that gives us £10,510- £10,840 for every man, woman and child in the country (AKA, anyone with a national insurance number).

Stom wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Stom wrote:Where would the UBI go for a child, though? And when would the cutoff be for when that money goes to the child and not to their responsible adult? 16? Out of full-time education?

Also, I'm not sure every child needs the full allowance. If a family has 2 children, the second is cheaper than the first, and so on. Would the complications of testing that be worth the savings?

Also, British Citizens? Or anyone who is eligible for an NI number or free NHS treatment (if they aren't yet eligible for an NI number)? What about new migrants?

Wouldn't this put even more strain on migration offices, and result in a higher spend there to offset a larger number of applications, even if those applications end in rejection?

To clarify my own stance in this, I used to be against UBI but I've gradually come around to the idea. I think that it should be paid for by corporation tax rises and dividend tax rises, though.

And I also want to make clear that there is absolutely 0% chance of this happening in the current concept of the UK. It goes against the idea of our lovely little island as a tax haven, which is basically what Brexit was all about.

Which is the thinking behind child benefit where the amount decreases significantly from the first to second child.

The age at which UBI swops from the parent to the child is an excellent question and it will probably alter depending on circumstance. What about children who are in joint care for example between parents; it can get complicated. Not unresolvable, but it does require thought.

The thing is, though, that these are both edge cases and details that can be ironed out once a decision has been made to go ahead.

On the tax/financing issue:

Higher rate is from 50k to 150k...so someone on 50k isn't going to be paying any higher rate...

Someone on 55k will be paying 40% on 5k...not the end of the world, I'd think.

I, personally, believe that there should be more tax bands and that there should be a 30% from 50k-100k and 40% from 100k-150k, and 50% from 250k+

But the real tax take is to be made on dividend taxes, which are considerably lower than income tax. That needs to be rectified in my mind. It should count toward your income for the purposes of your tax band. So if you get paid 49k but claim a dividend of 30k, you're not stuck in the 20% tax band but go up to 40%.

That would have a big impact on tax take.

Under the NEF proposal, the tax-free personal allowance would be scrapped and the proceeds used to fund a flat payment of £48.08 a week for every adult.

Universal income would lower poverty but increase tax rate
Top rate would have to rise to 85 per cent, says working group
Greig Cameron
Friday June 12 2020, 12.01am, The Times

A universal basic income would lift hundreds of thousands of Scots out of poverty but would need income tax to rise to 85 per cent for top earners, economists have said.

A steering group of local councils has recommended a three-year pilot of the scheme and will hand over its findings to the Scottish government at the end of this month.

Holyrood will then have to decide whether to proceed with a trial, which is likely to be on a very small scale, to assess what impacts it may have.

An economic paper modelling the effects of the proposals was released yesterday and points out a number of potential hurdles.

The Fraser of Allander Institute, Manchester Metropolitan University and the think tank IPPR Scotland were asked to consider two scenarios about introducing a citizens basic income (CBI). One is for a higher level of basic income paying about £120 per week for those aged under 16, £213.59 for the working-age population and £195.90 for pensioners.


The other was for a lower level at £84.54 weekly for those aged 19 and under, £57.90 for 20 to 24-year-olds, £73.10 for people aged between 25 and pension age and £163 for pensioners.

The economists estimated the lower scheme would cost £27 billion while the higher one would be £58 billion.

They concluded there would need to be significant changes to taxation to achieve a “fiscally neutral” introduction of the system.

For the lower payment scheme an increase of 8 percentage points on each income tax band in Scotland is suggested, taking the bottom rate to 27 per cent and the top rate to 54 per cent.

For the higher payment scheme income tax would need to start at 58 per cent and go up to 85 per cent.

Those tax rises would help to offset the cost of basic income and other savings would be made in the dropping of the state pension, reductions in benefits and the scrapping of the income tax personal allowance.

The researchers warned that those kind of changes would be likely to cause unemployment to rise and gross domestic product to decline.

They said: “In short, if these behaviours turned out to be the response to a CBI then we can expect our economy to be smaller — in the long-run — as a result, and potentially significantly so.”

However, the expectation is that both levels of the scheme would have significant positive impacts on poverty.

The lower one was forecast to lift 280,000 adults and 80,000 children out of poverty while at the high level the figures were 910,000 and 250,000.

“Introducing a substantial, permanent and unconditional CBI will require a massive fiscal effort by Scottish taxpayers, in exchange for a significant reduction in inequality,” the researchers said. “If people who lose income take some action to restore their living standards by demanding more pay or changing how much they work then we might expect negative economic impacts. If people instead are content to see their own income reduced due to the existence of a basic income that benefits others, then we might expect more positive impacts. Other impacts, such as changes to productivity, good and bad, may also occur.

“At present, there is a lack of evidence — both here in Scotland and internationally — to say conclusively what the final economic impact will be.”

Digby wrote:There are a number of bad reports out there on the benefits of UBI, which doesn't surprise as people are venturing forth into a new field, I'd expect the initial forays to include errors that will (and should) be challenged. The attempts to predict the positive and negative impacts will improve, but might also carry forward some assumptions that prove utter bollocks.

Also important to consider there's a cost to not doing something. The UK has already voted to make itself poorer through Brexit because people were oftentimes not economically happy with their lot, go figure, and further rises in inequality and/or poverty aren't likely to proceed without other egregious voting outcomes and/or disruption in society. And looking at what the assumptions are for what can be automated in the next few decades it's troubling, very troubling. Perhaps those concerns are misplaced because until this point we have always found ways of creating new jobs, and for all poverty is a concern the safety net has rarely been better anywhere anytime in human history. Still, there's a cost to not adopting UBI or some other (perhaps even better) option

Sandydragon wrote:

Digby wrote:There are a number of bad reports out there on the benefits of UBI, which doesn't surprise as people are venturing forth into a new field, I'd expect the initial forays to include errors that will (and should) be challenged. The attempts to predict the positive and negative impacts will improve, but might also carry forward some assumptions that prove utter bollocks.

Also important to consider there's a cost to not doing something. The UK has already voted to make itself poorer through Brexit because people were oftentimes not economically happy with their lot, go figure, and further rises in inequality and/or poverty aren't likely to proceed without other egregious voting outcomes and/or disruption in society. And looking at what the assumptions are for what can be automated in the next few decades it's troubling, very troubling. Perhaps those concerns are misplaced because until this point we have always found ways of creating new jobs, and for all poverty is a concern the safety net has rarely been better anywhere anytime in human history. Still, there's a cost to not adopting UBI or some other (perhaps even better) option

I would disagree that we are doing nothing. We do have a wide range of benefits already in this country - the better answer might be to review and increase them. I'm not philosophically against UBI, but its a big change that will alter tax and the wider society and therefore should not be rushed into. There is a lack of really good data because trials have been so few, and pretty small.

Digby wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Digby wrote:There are a number of bad reports out there on the benefits of UBI, which doesn't surprise as people are venturing forth into a new field, I'd expect the initial forays to include errors that will (and should) be challenged. The attempts to predict the positive and negative impacts will improve, but might also carry forward some assumptions that prove utter bollocks.

Also important to consider there's a cost to not doing something. The UK has already voted to make itself poorer through Brexit because people were oftentimes not economically happy with their lot, go figure, and further rises in inequality and/or poverty aren't likely to proceed without other egregious voting outcomes and/or disruption in society. And looking at what the assumptions are for what can be automated in the next few decades it's troubling, very troubling. Perhaps those concerns are misplaced because until this point we have always found ways of creating new jobs, and for all poverty is a concern the safety net has rarely been better anywhere anytime in human history. Still, there's a cost to not adopting UBI or some other (perhaps even better) option

I would disagree that we are doing nothing. We do have a wide range of benefits already in this country - the better answer might be to review and increase them. I'm not philosophically against UBI, but its a big change that will alter tax and the wider society and therefore should not be rushed into. There is a lack of really good data because trials have been so few, and pretty small.

I'd have done better to note something along the lines of making no changes rather than doing nothing. And yes it i's a huge change, and it will need significant discussion, because even if it's a really good idea it's going to need widespread buy-in across society, not universal, but certainly significant.

Right now I cannot think of a single significant leader in the UK, politics or otherwise, even trying to make the case. Okay yes it's got the support of the Lib Dem leadership, but that's not as such significant, far from it. Far far from it. Right now as with global warming, removing habitat for animals increasing the risk of zoonotic transfers our leaders are hoping the problem will go away and they'll not need to think on some awkward issues, and worse campaign for votes with some policies that jibe against each other and worse again can be easily misrepresented.

Sandydragon wrote:

Digby wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:
I would disagree that we are doing nothing. We do have a wide range of benefits already in this country - the better answer might be to review and increase them. I'm not philosophically against UBI, but its a big change that will alter tax and the wider society and therefore should not be rushed into. There is a lack of really good data because trials have been so few, and pretty small.

I'd have done better to note something along the lines of making no changes rather than doing nothing. And yes it i's a huge change, and it will need significant discussion, because even if it's a really good idea it's going to need widespread buy-in across society, not universal, but certainly significant.

Right now I cannot think of a single significant leader in the UK, politics or otherwise, even trying to make the case. Okay yes it's got the support of the Lib Dem leadership, but that's not as such significant, far from it. Far far from it. Right now as with global warming, removing habitat for animals increasing the risk of zoonotic transfers our leaders are hoping the problem will go away and they'll not need to think on some awkward issues, and worse campaign for votes with some policies that jibe against each other and worse again can be easily misrepresented.

You could argue that if the Lib Dems support it, its dead in the water.

Interestingly, I found an article from the US where the authors idea of UBI read a lot like Universal Benefit. Which is not what I would call UBI, but makes you wonder how many significant differences there are in how this is viewed.