Universal Basic income

£1600 per month x 45 million adults in the UK = a new cost of £864bn per year.

In the last financial year, total UK tax revenue was £1,017bn.

So you'd need to increase taxes by 85% to pay for this. Who would bother working in this scenario? And then how would the UBI be funded?

£1600 per month x 45 million adults in the UK = a new cost of £864bn per year.

In the last financial year, total UK tax revenue was £1,017bn.

So you'd need to increase taxes by 85% to pay for this. Who would bother working in this scenario? And then how would the UBI be funded?

Amerantin (former member) said:

So you'd need to increase taxes by 85% to pay for this. Who would bother working in this scenario? And then how would the UBI be funded?

On surface level it sounds like it takes all the money everyone worked for away but, in a way, essential living costs already does that. Rents/mortgage, food, bills etc. leaves people with little left afterwards. In the hypothetical scenario of UBI people more or less gets those covered working or not from this UBI and so those who work are working for that additional disposable income on top.

If we take minimum wage of £10.42, do 40 hour weeks for 52 weeks you have an income of £21,673

The 1,600 monthly UBI works out £19,200.

If a person with UBI was still continuing working those 40 hours with 85% tax on the whole lot would make the £19,200 + £3,250 for a total take home of £22,450. So, they'd be better off for disposable income but if they chose to work less or not at all they'll likely still have their basic living costs covered. Now, that £3,250 sounds bad if you were to frame it as 'you work for about than £1.50 an hour!' but in a way you need to view those pay packets like pure profit with expenses removed. If you took away your living expenses from your wage you'll find your hourly rate also sounds much less exciting. If anything it could incentivise work more as you know you're working for the extra things you want in life rather than to stay alive and have shelter.

I'm not necessarily in favour of UBI outright and I'm not sure it would have the desired effects in the UK practically, even if it sounds like it should in theory but just offering another perspective on a frightening sounding tax rate on work incentives.

I think one of the concerns though is that you then become more dependent on that UBI so if the government wanted to exercise some level of control they have the majority the income of a lot of people in their hands. Do something 'wrong'? Sanction you directly through your UBI before it even reaches you. Refuse your payments until you agree to do whatever it is the government wants to implement etc.

I think I'd be more in favour of a lower rate UBI, one that alone might not be enough to cover you but gives people on low incomes some breathing room and a safety net but you've still gotta do some kind of work.

I strongly suspect that aside from NGO’s, UBI’s main source of funding is the WEF and the world bank, not the U.K. taxpayer - and at some future point, the WEF will want its money back with interest, forcing national governments to implement their policies regardless of how it affects the citizens of those nations - aside from the U.K., it’s totally obvious that the Irish government is bought and paid for by the WEF as leaders are selected not elected, problem reaction solution, once freedoms are taken away they are never given back, democracy is an illusion, infiltration via the long March through the institutions - all politicians are pointless now and there is no political solutions