|
|
|
|
|
by cortic
2233 days ago
|
|
UBI would be cheaper than the current system (in the UK at least, but likely other countries as well). First off, those that are currently entitled to most benefits would be getting UBI instead, and those that are not currently entitled to (most) benefits would be getting UBI and paying it back in tax.. so in theory its the same cost, less the administration and means testing. Its also high return as its mostly spent on the basics when it isn't directly taxed back, so the money changes hands (taxed) several times within weeks. But also savings from the health service (10 billion spent each year in UK on preventable poverty related disease) and on courts and police (another 5 billion spent on petty crime directly related to poverty -likely not the full figure). Or as mentioned; the massive possibility for profit as you free up millions from demeaning repetitive low tax jobs to chase their dreams and entrepreneurial ambitions or higher education, as well as a permanent stimulus to the economy replacing much of the bailouts currently needed. IMO we also really need an automation tax, as more and more jobs are automated the extra profit can't/shouldn't be focused on the few, though this wouldn't be necessary for UBI. edit; I also want to add that back in the 80s early 90s, the UK welfare system was basically a guaranteed lifelong income. People were still falling over themselves to get work, i remember 10K applicants for 50 ICI jobs (low wage long hours). |
|
How many workers does britain have (percentage)?
In slovenia, a bit less than half of people work (we have a huge amount of pensioners, kids, students, and also some unemployed) + a huge public sector.
With UBI, an average worker would have to pay for two UBIs in taxes, to get one UBI back. And that's not counting the people quittin their jobs due to UBI (and moving to cheaper countries, where that money is worth more).