Scotland may be first to adopt a Universal Income, will give $200 a week to every citizen for life

I think most people, with rising living costs, especially rent and food, is just barely making it by, living pay check to pay check, or even at a slight deficit. For those people it would be a great savior. It would cost the government more if these people were to fall out of the position of being able to own/rent a home on their own income. Like somebody else mentioned, the alternative is to make significantly less money to obtain welfare.

I don't think its a whole lot of money that its going to affect too many things as far as budget spending goes, but its enough money that it will save a lot of people living on the borderline.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Bluesma

I think the ubI is more a level that civilized society says nobody should fall below. I don't think it's to level the field.

That minimum level you speak of, supported by the society, IS the field.

It is the base.

It is the same for everyone, so it is then level, or equal.

a reply to: nOraKat

Another point is once a person is no longer working just for basic survival they instead start working to live instead. They are no longer shackled bye the slavery of work or suffer in the misery of starvation and death and instead work for reward. Work stops being about avoiding punishment and instead becomes about gaining rewards in the form of a higher standard of living.

People avoid punishment is completely natural. Welfare gives a way to get basic survival and avoid punishment. This promotes welfare over jobs which also provide little more than basic survival as there is no real reward. You are simply being punished for the same gain as the welfare recipients as the freetime lost is far worse than the minor gain of working a low end job.

UBI on the other hans makes working always a positive reward. You never suffer for doing it and it's nevet a net loss. You work for more to get rewarded. Work becomes about making your life better not just avoiding death and misery. People will work because they want to not because they are being threatened to. And unlike welfare there will be actual positive incentive to do so even with low end jobs. Also people will be more free with spending because they'll no longer be worried about losing everything over a sudden job loss.

a reply to: nOraKat

I dont think a UC is necessarily a bad idea i just think that it wont do what it says on the tin.

These people require more than just monies to help fix the situation in which they find themselves. How will it save lots of people living on the borderline if the cost of living increases in line or more so than this UC can accommodate?

a reply to: andy06shake

I think its purpose is also to put more on society to act more and not the government to save everyone.

For instance you can rent a home with other people. Pool your money together. Non profits and charities would have to step up. Families would have to step up.

Your correct however to worry that the expirement would not work.

The positive side your grocery store job just got a 10k raise. The mill worker just got a 10k raise. An entrepreneur may have some safety net that allows them to take a chance on their idea etc...

a reply to: Puppylove

Businesses may also benefit from discovering that people are willing to work jobs that provide a lower income.

a reply to: nOraKat

And they may not need to provide workers insurance or woman's comp. Which literally doubles the wage for the employer.

a reply to: luthier

There are some positive aspects but they don't exactly balance out in the ways or for the people who i imagine this type of scheme is intended to help.

Consider the amount of food banks in operation and you will see the predicament in which an alarming amount of people find themselves these days.

It's not grocers and entrepreneurs that are forced to use such, its people on minimum and low paid wages, essentially a significant percentage of our working-class citizens.

a reply to: andy06shake

You don't think low wage employees would benefit from an extra 200?

What about people not working so the benefits don't go away?

Or food banks not run by the government?

What if a person wants to become a house cleaner and start a business? I wasn't just talking about elon musk. I also mean carpenters, machinists etc.

A lot of people using those food banks may also have jobs.

If your talking about people with actual disabilities that will be the real issue.

The problem is can private citezens solve their local issues better than the beuracracy? Will people have more time to do charity work? More to give?

I think if you study the pros and cons that have been hammered out over the decades this has been a theory you can find its pretty positive but a definite unknown reality.

a reply to: nOraKat

just to point out the obvious :

there is no such status as a " scottish citizen "

a reply to: luthier

"You don't think low wage employees would benefit from an extra 200?"

That depends on how they get to spend that £200, like i said "They" take with one hand and give with the other.

"What about people not working so the benefits don't go away?"

Why would their benefits go away unless their situation has changed?

"Or food banks not run by the government?"

Of course food banks are run by the government(most of them) but the very fact that they are in operation in what is supposed to be a first world nation is a complete and utter travesty in itself.

I have lived the pros and con, and have indeed studied them to a fashion but the fact of the matter is that its the distribution of wealth and power that needs to change, to many have not and far to few haves.

This type of UC will not significantly change the situation for many people who live below the breadline as much as i wish that it would it will simply bring about other issues to contend with.

a reply to: andy06shake

What empirical evidence do you have of this prediction in regards to a ubi?

First off it will greatly help the working poor correct?

I have never seen a ubi model that restricts use of funds.

In the case f a ubi you have incentive to work at least part time. Your ubi doesn't get cancelled when you start working like a means based welfare system. So you can work part time and still get your ubi.

I do recognize your points. I think you have good points but, there is no reference for the model. So its a true unknown in many regards.

a reply to: luthier

If it works then all the better for it and the people in general.......if it works.

The unknowns are a major point of contention indeed.

As to empirical evidence, i have none really, truth is i'm pretty much caught in the poverty trap right now but i have experienced many walks of life both semi privileged and poverty-stricken.

£200 all well and good but real jobs that pay a proper salary and not minimum wage or have zero hour contracts for our people, better education, affordable housing, and a sustainable level regarding the cost of living are far more desirable imho.

a reply to: andy06shake

The things you mentioned are extremely complicated beuracracy.

The point of the ubi is its simple structure and minimization of administrative waste.

Also society only works best if the society and not just the government are part of the solutions. The ubi is putting a burden on society to step up as well instead of letting a beuracracy absorb the effort.

People who have little education still deserve a liveable wage.

In the US a carpenter makes basically poverty wages if they don't own a business or are a subcontractor.

$200 a week would be a pretty big boost for a carpenter particularly on that gets hurt and can't work until an injury is healed. God forbid you get hurt outside of work and can't hold a tool properly.

The question is are their more working poor and able to work poor or are their more people with disabilities who can't work?

In the case of disabilities social planong would need to be done to support disabled workers.

a reply to: luthier

Fact is that society only works or is a desirable existence for the privileged few these days.

The rest, well it seems to me it's a "let them eat cake" type scenario, even if it is a £200 cake.

In the case of disabilities and/or people who have such, the current political establishment, quite frankly is operating a stealth eugenics war against the poor souls. As is quite clearly illustrated by the DWP and their minions aka ATOS and the like.

Like i said if it works all the better for it but chance would be a fine thing indeed, im sorry if that sound a little glass is half empty, but such is the world in which we live.

a reply to: andy06shake

Outside of tribal living society has always been one of the haves.

At least in democracy a poor person can actually get an education and elevate themselves. It is a possibility.

That hasn't always been the case. Eugenics was decided by the king and operated in the open.

a reply to: luthier

"Outside of tribal living society has always been one of the haves."

The level of poverty in some areas of Scotland is quite frankly deplorable in this day of age, same with the rest of the nation. Some areas being in direct contrast and synonymous to the slum tenement oblivions of the early 1900s.

And to be honest, tribal is rather a good way to describe rather few ideologies us Scots subscribe to, after all we were once a nation of clans so to speak.

"At least in democracy a poor person can actually get an education and elevate themselves. It is a possibility."

Democracy is broken just like the rest of our forms of gooberment, only difference being the people think they have a say when the reality is money, power, and the bankers behind the curtain wag the dogs tail.

"That hasn't always been the case. Eugenics was decided by the king and operated in the open."

Eugenics or a form of such was in operation right up until the 1960-70s, same with America. The simple fact is the war went underground, became more stealth like, trust me when i say the Tory government(Westminster) kills people every day down to simple neglect and mistreatment.

a reply to: andy06shake

I just don't see it that way nor underatand the use in having a perspective that make me a victim.

If I lived 200 years ago in Scotland I think it would be a fair bit more difficult to succeed in poverty, be a specific religion, be gay, a woman, etc..

It's not all bad. There are problems and always have been.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
This equals out to about $50,832,000,000 per year in welfare, their GDP is $216,000,000,000. That leaves over $150,000,000,000 to work with. It might actually work because all that money will be put back into the economy anyways.

It's awesome when a government puts the welfare of their people over profit. Time will tell if this will work but I'm guessing the people who drew it up looked at the budget.

GDP is the value of all goods and services produced in a country in a year...not what the government collects.
The almost $51 billion dollars in UBI would need to come from somewhere...an increase in taxes and fees, reduction of tax deductions, etc.

a reply to: peter_kandra

UBI models replace welfare, and tax deductions all together in most cases. Some include cutting all Healthcare bennifits depending on the model.