You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
How many of the 65 million are under working age or above retirement age?
Under working age? No UBI.
Over retirement age? Already getting their pension so no net change.
As you start to earn the tax rate increases so in real terms you see less and less of that £179.60 until you reach a point where you are effectively giving it straight back. If you want to get into the details about exactly what these tax bands should be you can have that discussion with someone else because it’s impossible to accurately predict until we have more data.
So you're proposing a 100% tax rate for the first £9,330 of paid employment?
Not really an incentive to work is it?
Meanwhile, you have reduced the costs of the bureaucracy involved in pensions, benefits, etc to 0.
The costs of operating DWP are ~£4bn a year.
Just another £391bn to find...
Under working age? No UBI.
Actually, I would give it to everyone.
I would get rid of child benefit and the state pension though.
So you’re proposing a 100% tax rate for the first £9,330 of paid employment?
Not really an incentive to work is it?
That's not how I read that, but then I'm not looking to poke holes in UBI...
How many of the 65 million are under working age or above retirement age?
About 65 less 31, so 34 million.
Under working age? No UBI.
Surely there are costs of supporting children so they would get this universal payment too?
Otherwise you'd be penalising families
Over retirement age? Already getting their pension so no net change.
Pensions are within the Welfare budget, so those amounts are included within the £212bn figure, which I netted off.
So you’re proposing a 100% tax rate for the first £9,330 of paid employment?
Not really an incentive to work is it?
i have no idea how you managed to reach that conclusion from what I wrote. Look up Progressive Tax Rate.
If your main objection to UBI is that there might have to be changes to the tax brackets then I don't really have much to argue against that.
If UBI were introduced there would have to be changes to tax regimes.
Actually, I would give it to everyone.
Really? That's just asking the proles to breed... 😉
Given that the mooted figure for UBI is significantly higher than UC, I would bin CB.
See how unaffordable this is?
Only if you make no changes to tax rates....
Which is not much of an argument against it.
You just tweak tax rates to make it fiscally neutral.
If your main objection to UBI is that there might have to be changes to the tax brackets then I don’t really have much to argue against that.
My main objections are that its significantly unaffordable, and reduces the incentives to work.
You just tweak tax rates to make it fiscally neutral.
Yes, but currently the average tax rate is 23%
To raise the amount of additional tax, you'd have to double that, so the basic rate would have to go from 20% to 40%
Higher rate from 40% to 80%
This then reduces the incentive to work further.
Then theres less people working, to bare that tax burden and so that cycle continues to grow until nobody works.
To raise the amount of additional tax, you’d have to double that, so the basic rate would have to go from 20% to 40%
Higher rate from 40% to 80%
What makes you think you'd have to stick to the current structure? You can tax however you like.
What makes you think you’d have to stick to the current structure? You can tax however you like.
I was just using the existing system as a starting point.
What would the alternatives be?
Higher corporation tax.
Close tax loopholes.
I was just using the existing system as a starting point.
What would the alternatives be?
There are endless alternatives and they would all be in the running as part of the calculations.
You don't need to get into the detail as that can easily be worked out, the most important thing about UBI is whether you support the principle of it or not and you clearly don't.
I support UBI but not sure how it would actually resolve labour shortages (getting back to thread) as it would have no bearing on that as it would not create the people or interest in the jobs with shortages.
Then theres less people working, to bare that tax burden and so that cycle continues to grow until nobody works.
You’ve only looked at one side of the supply/demand equation. If supply of Labour reduces then, as we are seeing right now, the demand side can do things to compensate for that. It’s not just about money, people work for many reasons: social, status, enjoyment, financial etc.
I don’t think your back of the envelope economics are right about the impact of UBI on tax take. I don’t think anyone really has a definitive set of economic modelling (not least because there are so many variables that are not just money) but people have certainly done far more robust consideration of it than an argument on a bike forum and it’s not completely insane. Most of the solid concerns about it are either unknowns (and change / risk is bad for economies) or people who want to protect their position in the status-quo.
support UBI but not sure how it would actually resolve labour shortages (getting back to thread) as it would have no bearing on that as it would not create the people or interest in the jobs with shortages.
A certain level of unemployment is the ideal. It creates competition for jobs and the opportunity to keep wages low and people in control (I hope that wasn't too tin hat).
The labour shortage 'crisis' is not a crisis for the working person - it's a great opportunity - people need to make changes and grab those opportunities whilst they are there.
The BBC are pushing a story of Amazon poaching care home staff .. evil Amazon slant of course.
Then BBC is promoting a further story of NI increasing, and being so unfair because young workers will have to pay more instead of old people who will be first to use social care ..
There needs to be a totally new re-think of social care; we will all need it, yet it is seen as inferior to the NHS in funding and recognition of the amazing staff who work in it.
Increase care staff wages and recognition, and that would encourage people to go into it, instead of Amazon or training as a HGV driver.
To raise the amount of additional tax, you’d have to double that, so the basic rate would have to go from 20% to 40%
Higher rate from 40% to 80%
Only with your insane assumption about how much it would cost. Most people already working wouldn't be any better off, so the extra cost of UBI for them is zero. It's only extra money for the poorest. I'd expect to get £10k tax free (say) and then pay £10k extra tax (ie no gain at all), plus probably some more tax to fund it for those who actually net more money after tax.