Mark wadsworth killer arguments against citizen’s income, not (16) e85 gas stations in ohio

##

So it’s been determined that those on £100k+ do not need the personal allowance. So extending this down to everyone to partly pay for CI is not a huge leap. Also has the advantage of getting rid of the 60% tax bracket between £100k and 123k.

S, I wonder how many people currently on disability payments would find it possible to work given a UBI? For example, someone with depression or other mental illness being hounded by the DWP, constantly nagging them to see if they really can’t work could well be pushed into a deeper state of depression and unable to work at all. Attempting to get into work carries the risk of starting again with the Spanish Inquisition if their health deteriorates again and they have to reapply. All the intrusions of the DWP (including sanctions) don’t appear to have yielded any meaningful results, making things worse at great cost often anyway.

With a UBI, their stress levels would be much less and a part time job feasible. And with a UBI, the extra that you could get from a disability payment would be much less, making it less enticing for the (albeit few) folk who are not severely disabled who get it fraudulently.

MW, re the personal allowance, it’s such an arbitrary judgement. Does a single high earner household of 5 in effect get no personal allowance whereas a household of two slightly lower earners gets two? Does a rent free trust fund kid or semi-retired household deserve a personal allowance?

If a CI doesn’t replace disablity benefits then its useless, as there will be the same incentive as now to ‘get on the sick’ and get more money from the State. The whole point of a CI is its universality and uniqueness – everyone gets the same, deal with it. As soon as you start allowing special cases then it creates incentives to get yourself into those categories to claim extra money.

For example a friend of mine is a teacher – just about every single mother parent he deals with is trying to get their child(ren) statemented as disabled in some way (normally Aspergers/autism/ADHD/even Tourettes) so they can claim more benefits. If this continues post CI, then there will be no great change in welfare culture. The same goes for people with bad backs and depression there’s hundreds of thousands of them.

It doesn’t matter whose hands you put the decision making process in, its always gamed by those seeking to gain an advantage. The last thing one needs is to make the NHS even more political, its bad enough as it is. Doctors are hardly very rigorous in enforcing the existing sick note system, they’ll hand them out to anyone basically. Give them the power to decide who gets disability benefits and the bill would go through the roof.

This is why CIs and UBIs are never going to fly in States with well established needs and means tested welfare systems. There’s too many people who would face income cuts if they were introduced at any sort of affordable level and they are all the sort of hard cases who would be paraded across our screens nightly in order to discredit any new system.

MW – great summary. A UBI reduces the incremental payment for disabilities while leaving the total the same. If you get £x for disability, you’re much less likely to lie or change your behaviour to get it than if you get £x/2 unconditionally and £x/2 for disability.

Sobers, the argument that people will game the system is not an argument against the system. Every system is going to be gamed by someone. The universality of a CI means that it is very hard to game it, as demonstrated by the lack of gaming of child benefit in pre-means tested days.

Saying that UBI isn’t going to stop people gaming disability benefit is a disadvantage of UBI is like saying that one of the disadvantages of screwdrivers is that they can’t be used to drive in a nail. UBI isn’t going to cure world hunger or reconcile the Israelis with the Palestinians, either.