Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Basic Income

Its already happening... There are already calls for it from the right.

The global economy is flatlining...growth is shrinking...everything the central bankers and other figures who have their hands on the levers of the economy do is failing to create the growth their own models predict.

There is a real fear that the entre global economy will fall into a depression. The economists have run out of tricks to give the economy a boost. That's why increasingly there are voices calling for helicopter money, which in this case means basically giving everyone some cash in the hope they will spend it and get the economy growing again.

All the endless cutting and digging for profits means average people have less to spend... Basic income would get people spending again, these economists hope.

Personally I'm not fussed on their motivations, I think its good in principal, and can hopefully be improved on in practice...
 
Heres an example for the Telegraph just the other day - kind of sums up my post above Get ready to be showered by helicopter money ...includes basic income as an option

There have been positive sounds made about basic income in the FT, the economist, the telegraph, radio 4, basically across the right economic media...but here the conversation is about stopping the system from collapsing rather than helping the people.

i think the degree of money given makes a difference...finland and netherlands are looking at £200 a week or thereabouts...in the uk if it ever happens it will never start at more than the dole is at that moment. £200 feels a bit more like socialism ;) :D
 
but here the conversation is about stopping the system from collapsing rather than helping the people.

That's it in my opinion. There is no real change if the suggestion boils down to to propping up the current system, little more than the hijacking of progressive thought by the Right in terms of language and faux-sentiment? Short term micro-reforms that lead back to the same sorry shit....it's just us running around trying to fill holes in a sinking ship rather than swimming to shore and building a better one or...if we so wish, working the land. :)
 
Last edited:
It's reformism yes but I think its a good reform and one that can be a thin end of a more progressive wedge.

A total collapse of the economic system would be all out war... Plugging the holes isn't such a bad option under the circumstances...

I think basic income is an opportunity, and one that has opened up because of this financial crisis. It doesn't solve all our problems but I still think its a potential step in the right direction.
 
I may be a thick cat when it comes to macroeconomics but are we really looking at a situation where capitalists would give you money to keep the bigger gears greased and allow the mysterious hand to keep stimulating the free market nob? Is that where we are now? I just don't understand anything anymore. Right-capital offering free money, or at least thinking about it. Discussing it. Worlds gone mad
 
I may be a thick cat when it comes to macroeconomics but are we really looking at a situation where capitalists would give you money to keep the bigger gears greased and allow the mysterious hand to keep stimulating the free market nob? Is that where we are now? I just don't understand anything anymore. Right-capital offering free money, or at least thinking about it. Discussing it. Worlds gone mad
One thing you may be sure of, they're not thinking of it because they've suddenly decided not to be total cunts. There's an angle they're looking to play. . .

And the angle is that the idea of collective social solidarity seems to be missing in the very concept of basic income. The way the neoliberals propose it, it's an individualised, and individualistic solution to the collective problems their ideology has created.
 
Basic income is what it is... Political philosophy and attitude attached to it is in the eye of the beholder and can change with successive governments.

Once its established as a principle it will be hard to undo
 
One aspect that seems somewhat untested is what the inflationary impact would be... How much will prices go up to soak up the extra cash out there. From what I read in the UK at least the economists want more inflation, but at present can't seem to get it. Once the money tap turns on it would be hard to regulate and then turn off...
 
Right-capital offering free money, or at least thinking about it. Discussing it. Worlds gone mad
The world economy is truly fucked... Scarily so. Here if the housing bubble bursts.....

It was the crisis of post WW2 chaos that gave us the nhs and other social reforms ... Seems only right we get something out of this ongoing crisis.

There's also a big difference as to if the money comes from taxation or from the money pixie in the sky. At the moment theres talk of magicking the money out of nowhere... (printing it)
 
Last edited:
One thing you may be sure of, they're not thinking of it because they've suddenly decided not to be total cunts. There's an angle they're looking to play. . .

And the angle is that the idea of collective social solidarity seems to be missing in the very concept of basic income. The way the neoliberals propose it, it's an individualised, and individualistic solution to the collective problems their ideology has created.

Yes...and in this guise and for these reasons it will do nothing more than perpetuate the current 'be a selfish cunt' system.

That's my issue... half baked reforms are not change.
 
I may be a thick cat when it comes to macroeconomics but are we really looking at a situation where capitalists would give you money to keep the bigger gears greased and allow the mysterious hand to keep stimulating the free market nob? Is that where we are now? I just don't understand anything anymore. Right-capital offering free money, or at least thinking about it. Discussing it. Worlds gone mad
Yes and no.
The capitalists might want the proles to have a bit more cash to flash on the shite they're producing, but they don't want to forgo their profit/accumulated wealth to fund it. They'd be happy for it to come from 'printing' or even redistribution from the richer 'little people' to the poorer 'little people'; either way they & their corporations wouldn't pay because they don't join in with tax stuff.
IMO 'helicopter money' would simply represent the 'fourth wave' of macro-economic stop-gaps designed to plug the diverging gap between productivity and wages, characteristic of the neo-liberal era.

7784d8e6-4276-41e8-b187-13a44efa21a2_zpsshdliffh.jpg


The growing inequality from the accelerating appropriation of surplus value obviously has the potential for crisis as aggregate demand crashes. Successive approaches to attempt to 'make good' that demand deficit have included inflation (allowing the 'money illusion' to boost consumption), public debt, and most recently explosive private debt ("Privatized Keynesianism" ).

ae14a6e9-cb6e-4a5e-bc59-c5741cd812bc_zpsfpmdt9b3.png

(both graphs for USA)
But all these attempts have had a finite time within which they can perpetuate the illusion of some degree of social justice before they've started to have negative impacts upon capitalists ability to accumulate...hence policy change. 'Helicopter money' would simply represent the latest/last (?) attempt to forestall the real social breakdown made inevitable by neo-liberalism.
 
Last edited:
I've really got to make myself get into this thread and read the whole lot because I've always been interested in/keen on basic income and even on helicopter money. So I definitely need to know more. The the morning before work is not the best updating time though :(

Still, for now ...

Good luck with any idea of arguing the economic case against helicopter money, because most ordinary people would, erm, simply like to have some! (Surely?)

brogdale
 
That much is what already commonly happens on a smaller scale with share issuance, e.g. a company raises £Xm by issuing new shares and thus diluting the value of everyone's holding. This is basically printing money. But it's often acceptable, if unpalatable, because the raised money is necessary; in an extreme case, the alternative is running out of cash and rendering the whole thing worthless.

A lot more control and alignment of priorities in this example though than in the wilderness of currency & QE.
 
Pretty sure the Dutch and Finnish are planning to use tax to generate the money for their basic income programmes...so if you're talking about £200 a week, thats a massive wealth redistribution scheme, probably the biggest theres ever been.

Lets say the UK introduced Basic Income at dole rates (what is it at the moment? £70 I think...), and used printed money to fund that at first...I very much doubt the plan would be to print money forever into the future - before long that money would also have to come from general taxation.
Once the principle is set it would be hard to undo. If other schemes in europe are successful there will be more pressure on the UK to follow their rates and increase the amount paid. Like I said, a potentially thin end of a more progressive wedge.

===
Just did a quick search to check about the Dutch experiment and first link was US business magazine Forbes getting excited about this <another example of the right wing economic press blowing the trumpet
The Excellent Dutch Experiment Into The Universal Basic Income
 
I know the likelihood is that the UK, if it ever did bring in basic income, would be set at dole rates, but that wouldn't be enough.

A basic income has to replace all benefits to be useful, otherwise there's no gain. Also, dole is deliberately and openly set at below the rate at which you can live. It should be set at the same level as the living wage, at least, but the minimum wage would probably be the actual amount.

I think we're a long way off getting it in the UK though, and we'll probably be one of the last places to implement it.
 
I know the likelihood is that the UK, if it ever did bring in basic income, would be set at dole rates, but that wouldn't be enough.

Well it wouldn't be ideal, but £70 a week, working or not, would be a damn good start. And people would be able to take a few hours work here and there to top that up in a way it isn't practical to do while on the dole (if you think it is, try doing it and declaring it and going through all the fuss)

Plus you wouldn't get poor sods topping themselves after being sanctioned for a making a simple mistake (or even a job centre mistake)


I think we're a long way off getting it in the UK though, and we'll probably be one of the last places to implement it.

I agree there. Can anyone tell me a progressive reform the UK *has* been the first to introduce? With pretty much everything that could be called 'progressive' another European country, or even a more progressive US state, has got there before us.
 
Following todays interest rates to zero move;

George Magnus: Helicopter money could be next
By ‘throwing the kitchen sink’ at the eurozone’s problems, the European Central Bankmay have moved closer to the point where it has to actually start showering cash on the economy.

So argues George Magnus, an experienced City voice who used to be head economist at UBS.

He argues that the market reaction shows investors don’t believe today’s package of interest rate cuts, cheap loans and a beefier asset purchase scheme will work.

So what’s left? Free money, effectively.

Magnus writes:

So is the ECB’s arsenal now bare? If it sticks to the general approach to policy it has currently then yes. But, though this is inconceivable as thing stand, there are things the ECB could theoretically do. It could take us towards Milton Friedman’s “helicopter money.” This would involve the ECB taking a more direct role in creating money that might be distributed directly to households, companies and banks, for example by buying loans from banks, or public debt directly from governments, or financing cash distributions in the form of tax cuts or investment allowances.

These ideas will remain the subject of idle chatter for the time being. But eventually, who knows? If today’s kitchen sink episode ends with a whimper, as seems likely, and governments continue to stand aside from the economic fray, Europeans may demand still more of their central bank.
 
Just on my commute home and in the Standard there's a comment piece from Amol Ranjan, Independent editor, calling for basic income... Definite growing drum beat...
 
I may be a thick cat when it comes to macroeconomics but are we really looking at a situation where capitalists would give you money to keep the bigger gears greased and allow the mysterious hand to keep stimulating the free market nob? Is that where we are now? I just don't understand anything anymore. Right-capital offering free money, or at least thinking about it. Discussing it. Worlds gone mad

Stabelise the base of the developed world's pyramid.
 
Well it wouldn't be ideal, but £70 a week, working or not, would be a damn good start. And people would be able to take a few hours work here and there to top that up in a way it isn't practical to do while on the dole (if you think it is, try doing it and declaring it and going through all the fuss)

Plus you wouldn't get poor sods topping themselves after being sanctioned for a making a simple mistake (or even a job centre mistake)




I agree there. Can anyone tell me a progressive reform the UK *has* been the first to introduce? With pretty much everything that could be called 'progressive' another European country, or even a more progressive US state, has got there before us.
While there's definitely a growing mass of people calling for a BI, it has to be funded somehow. And the way it is usually proposed to be funded is by getting rid of all other social security. The idea behind basic income is that you don't need any other income because it's enough to live on.

£70 isn't enough to live on so they can't get rid of other benefits. If they can't get rid of other benefits, where is the money for £70/w for every adult coming from?

There 20m working age people in the UK, so that's £74,3bn a year they need to give them all £70 a week. The entire social security budget is only £110bn a year currently. There are 8.88m "economically inactive" adults in the UK currently, so if we take that away from the 20m population size for the calculation above (they're already getting seventy quid a week so shouldn't need counting here), that's 11.12m people, or an extra £40.5bn on the state spending bill - nearly as much as we spend on defence.
 
Even the daily-evening-free-fascist is on to it! :(
yep - though its a comment piece rather than an editorial - here's the piece
Guaranteed income is the kind of radical idea we urgently need
One of the main themes this column has developed over the past few years is the impact of globalisation and technological innovation on the rich world’s poor, and how the resulting anxiety and anger explain the rise of politicians such as Nigel Farage, Donald Trump and Marine Le Pen. For supporters of these creatures change means loss, especially when it is rapid and hard to prepare for.

In the Nineties, the share of national income that went to the labour force in rich countries was 66 per cent. That fell to 62 per cent in the 2000s, and is falling still. This trend has vast social and moral implications. Stemming it may require radical policies. I am in favour of radical policies, especially when they address the biggest challenges we face, and achieve support across the political divide. That is why I’m interested in the universal basic income.

This is a guaranteed government payment to all citizens, regardless of their private wealth, which replaces conventional welfare. Sound bonkers? It isn’t. After all, it’s not a million miles from the tax-free allowance of £10,600 that the Coalition passed, which now has support from all the main parties.

For those on the Left a basic income appeals because it provides a safety net and attacks inequality directly. Thomas Paine argued for a version of it in his 1797 pamphlet Agrarian Justice. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Canada’s version of Nick Clegg, is supporting its introduction in Ontario this week. Yanis Varoufakis, the former finance minister of Greece and an influential Marxist, is an avid supporter.

But the most persuasive arguments emanate from the American Right. Several of the smartest, reform-minded conservatives in the US have endorsed the idea, including David Frum and Charles Murray. And get this: Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman were advocates too. (Any idea that unites those two with Varoufakis has got to be interesting). These influential conservatives were attracted both by the idea of radical simplification of the tax code and lower expenditure on bureaucracy. At a time of austerity and indebted governments, lifting millions out of poverty while increasing efficiency and reducing day-to-day dependency is attractive.

Of course there are snags. It could disincentivise some workers and it’s not clear when immigrants should qualify. Above all, if all citizens received it the initial cost could be vast, and the poor would end up paying the rich.

That is why it makes sense to test the theory in the real world and to start small — which is what they’re doing not just in Ontario but in parts of Finland and the Dutch city of Utrecht. In Switzerland, there’s a vote on the basic income in June. As Hannah Fearn wrote in The Independent this week, if these countries are taking it seriously, “Britain cannot keep dismissing it without its own test of the evidence”.

I am not yet an advocate because I need to test the idea against strong opposition before I espouse it, and see the evidence. But politics across the Western world is waking up to the need for radical thinking to address our fast-changing labour market. After all, George Osborne increased the minimum wage less than two decades after his party opposed its introduction. Might a Chancellor with big ambitions, and in search of popular appeal, guarantee a basic income for you and me?

Amol Rajan is editor of The Independent. @amolrajan

Im pretty sure Amol came up on Urban after a piece he wrote saying I love reggae but theres no good reggae nights as theyve all been hijacked by those religious nut Rastas :D anyone remember that?


Also this yesterday in the paper he
edits
After Canada, Britain can't ignore the need for a basic income anymore
 
While there's definitely a growing mass of people calling for a BI, it has to be funded somehow. And the way it is usually proposed to be funded is by getting rid of all other social security. .

And by abolishing the tax free allowance so you pay tax on everything you earn.

Is £70 enough to live on? Well assuming you get housing benefit on top, it's just about enough to exist on. I have done it for 6 months and yes it is possible.

But that assumes you never work at all. I think there should be premiums for those who can't work due to illness, disablility or caring for someone who has one of those things. Most BI models propose this.

Everyone else should be able to find some work to top up their BI, even if it is only a few hours a week. Even 5 hours a week at £7 an hour takes you over the £100 mark and that improves the livability considerably.
 
yep - though its a comment piece rather than an editorial - here's the piece
Guaranteed income is the kind of radical idea we urgently need
One of the main themes this column has developed over the past few years is the impact of globalisation and technological innovation on the rich world’s poor, and how the resulting anxiety and anger explain the rise of politicians such as Nigel Farage, Donald Trump and Marine Le Pen. For supporters of these creatures change means loss, especially when it is rapid and hard to prepare for.

In the Nineties, the share of national income that went to the labour force in rich countries was 66 per cent. That fell to 62 per cent in the 2000s, and is falling still. This trend has vast social and moral implications. Stemming it may require radical policies. I am in favour of radical policies, especially when they address the biggest challenges we face, and achieve support across the political divide. That is why I’m interested in the universal basic income.

This is a guaranteed government payment to all citizens, regardless of their private wealth, which replaces conventional welfare. Sound bonkers? It isn’t. After all, it’s not a million miles from the tax-free allowance of £10,600 that the Coalition passed, which now has support from all the main parties.

For those on the Left a basic income appeals because it provides a safety net and attacks inequality directly. Thomas Paine argued for a version of it in his 1797 pamphlet Agrarian Justice. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Canada’s version of Nick Clegg, is supporting its introduction in Ontario this week. Yanis Varoufakis, the former finance minister of Greece and an influential Marxist, is an avid supporter.

But the most persuasive arguments emanate from the American Right. Several of the smartest, reform-minded conservatives in the US have endorsed the idea, including David Frum and Charles Murray. And get this: Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman were advocates too. (Any idea that unites those two with Varoufakis has got to be interesting). These influential conservatives were attracted both by the idea of radical simplification of the tax code and lower expenditure on bureaucracy. At a time of austerity and indebted governments, lifting millions out of poverty while increasing efficiency and reducing day-to-day dependency is attractive.

Of course there are snags. It could disincentivise some workers and it’s not clear when immigrants should qualify. Above all, if all citizens received it the initial cost could be vast, and the poor would end up paying the rich.

That is why it makes sense to test the theory in the real world and to start small — which is what they’re doing not just in Ontario but in parts of Finland and the Dutch city of Utrecht. In Switzerland, there’s a vote on the basic income in June. As Hannah Fearn wrote in The Independent this week, if these countries are taking it seriously, “Britain cannot keep dismissing it without its own test of the evidence”.

I am not yet an advocate because I need to test the idea against strong opposition before I espouse it, and see the evidence. But politics across the Western world is waking up to the need for radical thinking to address our fast-changing labour market. After all, George Osborne increased the minimum wage less than two decades after his party opposed its introduction. Might a Chancellor with big ambitions, and in search of popular appeal, guarantee a basic income for you and me?

Amol Rajan is editor of The Independent. @amolrajan

Im pretty sure Amol came up on Urban after a piece he wrote saying I love reggae but theres no good reggae nights as theyve all been hijacked by those religious nut Rastas :D anyone remember that?


Also this yesterday in the paper he
edits
After Canada, Britain can't ignore the need for a basic income anymore
I think my main concerns about consolidator states toying with the concept are summed up quite succinctly in this quote from that piece on the Ontario proposals in yesterday's Indy...
The pilot would also test whether a basic income would provide a more efficient way of delivering income support, strengthen the attachment to the labour force, and achieve savings in other areas such as health care and housing supports. The government will work with communities, researchers and other stakeholders in 2016 to determine how best to implement a Basic Income pilot.”
 
And by abolishing the tax free allowance so you pay tax on everything you earn.

Is £70 enough to live on? Well assuming you get housing benefit on top, it's just about enough to exist on. I have done it for 6 months and yes it is possible.

But that assumes you never work at all. I think there should be premiums for those who can't work due to illness, disablility or caring for someone who has one of those things. Most BI models propose this.

Everyone else should be able to find some work to top up their BI, even if it is only a few hours a week. Even 5 hours a week at £7 an hour takes you over the £100 mark and that improves the livability considerably.
"assuming you get housing benefit on top" is a big assumption, but let's go with it.

Council tax? Water rates? Electricity? Gas? Phone bills? Internet? Food? They're all essential to modern life and I'm not sure how you could afford those with only £70 a week. What about clothing? Cleaning products?

Westminster has the lowest council tax bills in the UK @ £674/y - that's £13/w
The cheapest average energy bill for a small house/flat is £44/m - £10/w
Mobile phone - £5/m - £1/w (you might argue this is no longer essential if you didn't have to work, whereas it's absolutely essential now - fair enough, but it's a quid a week so I'm including it)
Internet - £17.50 line rental + free internet - £4/w
Water average bill - £388/y - £7.50/w

So those are the bare essentials, minus food, and you're on £35.50/w. Average food spend is £58.80, but you could spend much less. Let's say £20. I don't think you can spend much less than that and not be eating shit. So that leaves you with £15/w for everything else. If a lightbulb breaks, you might have to get the bus to town £4 for a day rider in Leeds, £1 for the bulb. That's 1/3 of your spending money gone. What if you need to buy a shirt for an interview? Can't. You don't have the money.

£70 a week is a disgraceful amount to have to live on, and I've had recent first hand experience. I was on the dole for over a year and only survived because I had family who supported me and a huge overdraft.
 
I think my main concerns about consolidator states toying with the concept are summed up quite succinctly in this quote from that piece on the Ontario proposals in yesterday's Indy...

"The pilot would also test whether a basic income would provide a more efficient way of delivering income support, strengthen the attachment to the labour force, and achieve savings in other areas such as health care and housing supports. The government will work with communities, researchers and other stakeholders in 2016 to determine how best to implement a Basic Income pilot."

the fact that its more efficient is objectively true - one payment given to everyone knocks loads of forms, mean testing and bureaucracy on the head...and like Leslie B said thats also good on the level that theres no more hoop jumping above an alligator pit for "benefit" (hate that word) claimants. So yes, there should be savings to be made in that regard (once the money itself is raised), and I presume thats what they're angling at in the article.. I dont know what "strengthen the attachment to the labour force" is meant to mean?

But is that what you were referring to brogdale? I dont think it is...
 
I'm not sure we are disagreeing about very much here, Fez. I did get council tax benefit as well, I'm not sure how that would work under BI.

But yeah, it's really tough. I didn't buy any clothes for that 6 month period and I cycled *everywhere* to save on bus fares. And yes I ate shit food.

I couldn't have done it indefinitely that is for sure. But it is possible, short term at least.

I don't think the idea is that everyone should give up work and live on BI indefinitely. That's certainly not how I understand it.
 
the fact that its more efficient is objectively true - one payment given to everyone knocks loads of forms, mean testing and bureaucracy on the head...and like Leslie B said thats also good on the level that theres no more hoop jumping above an alligator pit for "benefit" (hate that word) claimants. So yes, there should be savings to be made in that regard (once the money itself is raised), and I presume thats what they're angling at.. I dont know what "strengthen the attachment to the labour force" is meant to mean?

But is that what you were referring to brogdale? I dont think it is...
"Strengthen attachment to the labour market" is neoliberalese for forcing people to work through cutting overall benefit packages to the rock bottom basic income. They'd be eyeing up savings beyond that achievable through efficiencies.
 
Back
Top Bottom