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

originally posted by: MarsIsRed
Sounds like £150 in free beer vouchers to me! You can buy a lot of cheap cider for that a week...

That's likely because you are an alcoholic....

£150 a week isn't much, and in real terms it would represent a massive cut for current social security claimants. This UBI trial is aiming at up to £150 a week, so it's probably going to be considerably less. And it would replace (not enhance) all current forms of benefit income including unemployment payments (currently £70 a week) and housing allowance.

The UK Government pays unemployed people £70 a week because that is the bare minimum it thinks you need to survive. Anyone who has spent any time on the dole will tell you that it is not enough to get by on for anything over a month or two, after which you are simply plunged into poverty and debt.

(Up to) £150 minus £70 leaves (up to) £80 a week to cover everything. The Scottish government says that the rent for a room in a shared house (the cheapest rental option) is £340 a month.

Taking one month as roughly four weeks, that means you need to find about £85 a week just to get a roof over your head. In the most basic scenario. If you are on the next housing rung, a one-bedroom flat, the average rent is £482 a month or £120 a week - so you now have £30 left each week to live off (£120 a month). This is not possible according to the Government itself.

I'm not sure which figures Nicola Sturgeon is relying on, if she's not relying on the Scottish govt rent statistics cited above. But this looks like another example of the SNP's magical maths (like their plan to sell oil at $100 a barrel).

However, if you are in Scotland and are reliant on any benefits (unemployment, disability, pension, etc), you have a great deal to fear from this proposal. It's not a hand-out, it would represent a savage cut.

a reply to: EternalShadow

For a country with full taxation and spending powers it is perfectly possible to make a UBI revenue neutral*.

Scotland has very limited powers and a shared currency so would be extremely difficult to implement.

*Which is not to say you would want it to be revenue neutral but it is an option.

a reply to: noonebutme

I might slightly agree with you if tax money was spent honestly and for the benefit of the people, but that is not the case.

If some people in the government want to give tax dollars back to the people, I am all for it.

People who are down on their luck is not always due to laziness. Sometimes it is unfortunate consequences, mental disability, psychological problems, etc. and often it is temporary.

Anyway, its not like you are taking money from well-to-do people and giving it to the poor lazy people. It is giving the money back to everyone, including yourself and hard working responsible people.

So the government takes your money and then gives it back to you. Why not just let you keep it in the first place? Oh, because of the people that don't have money. Not sure if you've noticed, but the main reason people don't have money is because they're bad with money. What makes them think giving them other's people money is going to make them spend any more responsibly?

What happens when more and more jobs disappear because of technological advancements? Then you're just living off the rich, right? Well, I thought that the rich holding all of the cards over everyone else was exactly what people were rebelling against in the first place. You're living in the same reality you've been trying to destroy.

This is like a dog chasing its tail.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: EternalShadow

For a country with full taxation and spending powers it is perfectly possible to make a UBI revenue neutral*.

Scotland has very limited powers and a shared currency so would be extremely difficult to implement.

*Which is not to say you would want it to be revenue neutral but it is an option.

Is it possible, in the long run, that there could be reached an equilibrium and surplus if taxes are maintained at a certain level for period of time to cope with the outflow of benefits, being that the velocity of money would increase throughout the economy as spending is more available?

originally posted by: audubon
£150 a week isn't much, and in real terms it would represent a massive cut for current social security claimants. This UBI trial is aiming at up to £150 a week, so it's probably going to be considerably less. And it would replace (not enhance) all current forms of benefit income including unemployment payments (currently £70 a week) and housing allowance.

The UK Government pays unemployed people £70 a week because that is the bare minimum it thinks you need to survive. Anyone who has spent any time on the dole will tell you that it is not enough to get by on for anything over a month or two, after which you are simply plunged into poverty and debt.

(Up to) £150 minus £70 leaves (up to) £80 a week to cover everything. The Scottish government says that the rent for a room in a shared house (the cheapest rental option) is £340 a month.

Taking one month as roughly four weeks, that means you need to find about £85 a week just to get a roof over your head. In the most basic scenario. If you are on the next housing rung, a one-bedroom flat, the average rent is £482 a month or £120 a week - so you now have £30 left each week to live off (£120 a month). This is not possible according to the Government itself.

I'm not sure which figures Nicola Sturgeon is relying on, if she's not relying on the Scottish govt rent statistics cited above. But this looks like another example of the SNP's magical maths (like their plan to sell oil at $100 a barrel).

However, if you are in Scotland and are reliant on any benefits (unemployment, disability, pension, etc), you have a great deal to fear from this proposal. It's not a hand-out, it would represent a savage cut.

This explanation sounds a lot more reasonable.

originally posted by: Ddrneville
It's just a social "catching net", so people that are suddenly out of a job don't immediately fall in a black hole or in extreme poverty...

So you have some time to get your life back together

Didn't the OP say that all Scottish citizens get the dough...every week for the rest of their life?

originally posted by: EternalShadow

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: EternalShadow

For a country with full taxation and spending powers it is perfectly possible to make a UBI revenue neutral*.

Scotland has very limited powers and a shared currency so would be extremely difficult to implement.

*Which is not to say you would want it to be revenue neutral but it is an option.

Is it possible, in the long run, that there could be reached an equilibrium and surplus if taxes are maintained at a certain level for period of time to cope with the outflow of benefits, being that the velocity of money would increase throughout the economy as spending is more available?

My rather unhelpfully vague answer is maybe.

In Scotland's case however no, as it is part of s larger currency area, so the economic benefits of increased spending would not be contained within Scotland.

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: Ddrneville
It's just a social "catching net", so people that are suddenly out of a job don't immediately fall in a black hole or in extreme poverty...

So you have some time to get your life back together

Didn't the OP say that all Scottish citizens get the dough...every week for the rest of their life?

Yes the idea behind s UBI is that everyone gets the money and that rather than people having to apply for benefits, be means tested etc, there is a minimum income they will never fall below.

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: Ddrneville
It's just a social "catching net", so people that are suddenly out of a job don't immediately fall in a black hole or in extreme poverty...

So you have some time to get your life back together

Didn't the OP say that all Scottish citizens get the dough...every week for the rest of their life?

My fear would be corporations that pay out lump sums for "life payments" or lottery winnings. They could corrupt the whole process within a short time without legislation to prohibit such things.

Take it a bit further.... let's say your willing to put up with a short-term pain in order to take care of a long-term goal...

You could get enough people, friends, family, associates together and collectively use said capital to start major innovative businesses that threaten corporate superiority..

Just thinking of how this could be used effectively.... or effectively shut down to protect the status quo.

a reply to: carewemust

Yeah, but i suppose those are unimployed are more targeted, but on the other hand, i see general (food..etc.) prices go up with this system, so the poor are once again the losers

a reply to: audubon

That *points to prior posting* is THE problem most people blinded by "free ca$h" choose to ignore. They will get less out of it, and don't realize it right now.

Because sometimes it costs more to live where you live at than you would get by this.. See Munich, Berlin, Hamburg, I guess Edinburgh as well.

a reply to: EternalShadow

That is actually a very good point. There would be affects on consumer lending from a guaranteed income.

There might be good results such as easier for young people to get mortgages. However there could also be a lot of unscrupulous lending based on lump sums now, in exchange for long-term access to someone's UBI payments.

originally posted by: Ddrneville
a reply to: carewemust

Yeah, but i suppose those are unimployed are more targeted, but on the other hand, i see general (food..etc.) prices go up with this system, so the poor are once again the losers

Good point. The wealthier the populace, the more goods and services will cost. Probably best to only give the $200 a week to those truly in need, eh?

a reply to: carewemust

Yep, it's like our economy is now based on a 2 income salary per home, that was no problem a few years ago, but after the financial crisis, the jobs dropped and that 2 income system isn't taken for granted anymore, but prices stay...

I see big problems in the future for my country

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: EternalShadow

That is actually a very good point. There would be affects on consumer lending from a guaranteed income.

There might be good results such as easier for young people to get mortgages. However there could also be a lot of unscrupulous lending based on lump sums now, in exchange for long-term access to someone's UBI payments.

Thank you for your input as well. This is an interesting topic for me when we can get rid of the labels, i.e. capitalism/socialism, and look beyond the trees to TRULY explore if this is feasible or not.

It's not about destroying pre-established economic models, it's just simply seeing if this would be, again.. feasible.

It's a can of worms without proper legislation, and the populace of ANY nation who is trying to implement such things better do their COMPLETE DUE DILIGENCE to ensure their government doesn't coral the citizenry into complete servitude.

a reply to: DBCowboy

The rest of the UK, mostly England. It'll somehow be taken from the Tax payers in the rest of the UK and given to the Scots. They already get more money per head than the rest of the UK so why not give them more. I mean come on we know this is just a scam to try and get more votes and support for her party that has apparently been losing votes and support for a while now. Nicola is just taking the Jeremy Corbyn political game of throwing every idea at the wall and seeing what sticks, this will either happen through the tax payers south of their country or it won't happen Scotland, from what I hear, cannot afford something like this.

a reply to: nOraKat

Or another word for it,communism with the 200 a week comes a list of rules ,ask old Russians from old Soviet Union

a reply to: nOraKat

Or another word for it,communism with the 200 a week comes a list of rules ,ask old Russians from old Soviet Union