RugbyRebels

Stom wrote:Well, any UBI would surely have to be linked to higher corporation tax and fewer handouts for established businesses.

But I’d be looking for ways to promote small and local businesses first.

Digby wrote:

Stom wrote:Well, any UBI would surely have to be linked to higher corporation tax and fewer handouts for established businesses.

But I’d be looking for ways to promote small and local businesses first.

The downside to promoting small and local businesses is whilst they're the backbone of the economy they're also often shit and struggle for a reason, maybe they're a bad idea to begin with, maybe they're set up where there's too much competition, maybe they're badly run... And so supporting them is too often as useful as pissing into the wind

Digby wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:
It CAN be pretty simple; it CAN be unworkably complicated[/quote]

Given nobody has a working model that works I'm not sure I'd want to say in advance that it should prove simple

Which Tyler wrote:

Digby wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:
It CAN be pretty simple; it CAN be unworkably complicated[/quote]

Given nobody has a working model that works I'm not sure I'd want to say in advance that it should prove simple

Given how many people are seriously looking at implementing it, that's really not surprising.
And of course it CAN be ridiculously easy.
"Everybody with a national insurance number gets £500 a month"
There, really difficult that was. Tonnes of problems, but being overly complicated is not one of them

Which Tyler wrote:Depending on what you want it to cover, UBI would be a relatively easy morph from the current income support programmes and universal credit.
And yes, paid for by closing tax loopholes; actually getting fair tax income from the likes of Amazon and Google (and Jacob Rees Mogg); increasing tax on the top earners - ideally by adding another bracket (TBH, I do'nt see why we can't move much closer to a sliding scale on income tax - why just the 3 brackets?) Oh, and UBI would see the end to the personal allowance at the "poor" end of the income scale, as everyone is getting enough to live.

Personally, I'd want UBI to be set low, and with local fluctuations.
Enough to cover housing costs, utilities, basic sanitation and basic level feeding.
A group of nutritionists can get together, and build a "weekly shopping cart for 1" - to include basic sanitary products; that UBI will cover; and then take the average cost over 3 supermarkets for that.
Local authorities can easily get data on average cost of housing (which would be the most dependant on location). You then look at what percentage of the median average is covered.
Same for utilities.

Maths is reworked every year.

Each household gets that based on the number of people in the household (some categories would need less or more, such as disabled, differently aged kids etc). With increased automation and fewer jobs available, this may need to become more generous.
If you also want a car, or an iPhone, or £100 a month sports TV package, a week in Lanzarote - then work.

It CAN be pretty simple; it CAN be unworkably complicated


Getting a little off topic here though - my underlying point was that Starmer could "use" this to normalise some ideas of big government, to support the conservatives when they do good things, whilst holding them account for cock-ups "You say we have plenty of PPE - why is it not reaching the frontline" etc. He'll ned to largely keep his powder dry, especially on the usual petty party political stuff; but there's still plenty he can do beyond "support the NHS, and otherwise keep out of it"

Sandydragon wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:Depending on what you want it to cover, UBI would be a relatively easy morph from the current income support programmes and universal credit.
And yes, paid for by closing tax loopholes; actually getting fair tax income from the likes of Amazon and Google (and Jacob Rees Mogg); increasing tax on the top earners - ideally by adding another bracket (TBH, I do'nt see why we can't move much closer to a sliding scale on income tax - why just the 3 brackets?) Oh, and UBI would see the end to the personal allowance at the "poor" end of the income scale, as everyone is getting enough to live.

Personally, I'd want UBI to be set low, and with local fluctuations.
Enough to cover housing costs, utilities, basic sanitation and basic level feeding.
A group of nutritionists can get together, and build a "weekly shopping cart for 1" - to include basic sanitary products; that UBI will cover; and then take the average cost over 3 supermarkets for that.
Local authorities can easily get data on average cost of housing (which would be the most dependant on location). You then look at what percentage of the median average is covered.
Same for utilities.

Maths is reworked every year.

Each household gets that based on the number of people in the household (some categories would need less or more, such as disabled, differently aged kids etc). With increased automation and fewer jobs available, this may need to become more generous.
If you also want a car, or an iPhone, or £100 a month sports TV package, a week in Lanzarote - then work.

It CAN be pretty simple; it CAN be unworkably complicated


Getting a little off topic here though - my underlying point was that Starmer could "use" this to normalise some ideas of big government, to support the conservatives when they do good things, whilst holding them account for cock-ups "You say we have plenty of PPE - why is it not reaching the frontline" etc. He'll ned to largely keep his powder dry, especially on the usual petty party political stuff; but there's still plenty he can do beyond "support the NHS, and otherwise keep out of it"

You would have to lose basic tax allowance, although if that were set in bar with UI then it would mean you pay tax on anything else you earn.

I would look at the raft of tax measures that exist around self employment, some of it is just designed to pay less tax and contractors take the piss routinely.

More tax bands is not a bad idea. But I am wary of over taxing those at the top given how much of a proportion they pay now and how easy it would be for them to bugger off elsewhere.

Stom wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:Depending on what you want it to cover, UBI would be a relatively easy morph from the current income support programmes and universal credit.
And yes, paid for by closing tax loopholes; actually getting fair tax income from the likes of Amazon and Google (and Jacob Rees Mogg); increasing tax on the top earners - ideally by adding another bracket (TBH, I do'nt see why we can't move much closer to a sliding scale on income tax - why just the 3 brackets?) Oh, and UBI would see the end to the personal allowance at the "poor" end of the income scale, as everyone is getting enough to live.

Personally, I'd want UBI to be set low, and with local fluctuations.
Enough to cover housing costs, utilities, basic sanitation and basic level feeding.
A group of nutritionists can get together, and build a "weekly shopping cart for 1" - to include basic sanitary products; that UBI will cover; and then take the average cost over 3 supermarkets for that.
Local authorities can easily get data on average cost of housing (which would be the most dependant on location). You then look at what percentage of the median average is covered.
Same for utilities.

Maths is reworked every year.

Each household gets that based on the number of people in the household (some categories would need less or more, such as disabled, differently aged kids etc). With increased automation and fewer jobs available, this may need to become more generous.
If you also want a car, or an iPhone, or £100 a month sports TV package, a week in Lanzarote - then work.

It CAN be pretty simple; it CAN be unworkably complicated


Getting a little off topic here though - my underlying point was that Starmer could "use" this to normalise some ideas of big government, to support the conservatives when they do good things, whilst holding them account for cock-ups "You say we have plenty of PPE - why is it not reaching the frontline" etc. He'll ned to largely keep his powder dry, especially on the usual petty party political stuff; but there's still plenty he can do beyond "support the NHS, and otherwise keep out of it"

You would have to lose basic tax allowance, although if that were set in bar with UI then it would mean you pay tax on anything else you earn.

I would look at the raft of tax measures that exist around self employment, some of it is just designed to pay less tax and contractors take the piss routinely.

More tax bands is not a bad idea. But I am wary of over taxing those at the top given how much of a proportion they pay now and how easy it would be for them to bugger off elsewhere.

Why is it easy for them to bugger off elsewhere?

Sandydragon wrote:

Stom wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:
You would have to lose basic tax allowance, although if that were set in bar with UI then it would mean you pay tax on anything else you earn.

I would look at the raft of tax measures that exist around self employment, some of it is just designed to pay less tax and contractors take the piss routinely.

More tax bands is not a bad idea. But I am wary of over taxing those at the top given how much of a proportion they pay now and how easy it would be for them to bugger off elsewhere.

Why is it easy for them to bugger off elsewhere?

The super rich can move very easily. Many others can make use of tax havens (we could block them off) but those with them most money can very easily operate out of whatever country offers them the best tax breaks.

Stom wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Stom wrote:
Why is it easy for them to bugger off elsewhere?

The super rich can move very easily. Many others can make use of tax havens (we could block them off) but those with them most money can very easily operate out of whatever country offers them the best tax breaks.

You mean the people who've already done so?

Not many super rich are residents of the UK as is...

But the rich are, and they're unlikely to move, as their income is linked to wages, not investments and chairmanships.

Sandydragon wrote:

Stom wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:
The super rich can move very easily. Many others can make use of tax havens (we could block them off) but those with them most money can very easily operate out of whatever country offers them the best tax breaks.

You mean the people who've already done so?

Not many super rich are residents of the UK as is...

But the rich are, and they're unlikely to move, as their income is linked to wages, not investments and chairmanships.

Who is rich in your book? Most of the super rich in this country can up sticks without much difficulty.

If you are defining rich people as being those who earn over £70k per year then that’s not rich. They can be taxed more and will have to take that in the chin but how much more will and extra 5% tax really get you? If someone taxed me at say 80% above £50k then I’d change jobs in a heartbeat and go for a lower salary with less stress. Raising taxes doesn’t always turn out well for more revenue.

morepork wrote:Digby licks windows, not boots.

Stom wrote:Well it was a smear campaign, I don’t think you can deny that. But Corbyn handled it about as badly as is possible.

I’m certain Starmer will handle it much better when it comes.

cashead wrote:

Stom wrote:Well it was a smear campaign, I don’t think you can deny that. But Corbyn handled it about as badly as is possible.

I’m certain Starmer will handle it much better when it comes.

Oh for sure, he fucked it up from start to finish. Honestly, considering the complete absence of party discipline during his tenure as leader, he did well to last as long as he did in the first place.

Sandydragon wrote:

cashead wrote:

Stom wrote:Well it was a smear campaign, I don’t think you can deny that. But Corbyn handled it about as badly as is possible.

I’m certain Starmer will handle it much better when it comes.

Oh for sure, he fucked it up from start to finish. Honestly, considering the complete absence of party discipline during his tenure as leader, he did well to last as long as he did in the first place.

Is it possible for him to have enforced party discipline given his own record of voting against party leadership?

Mellsblue wrote:I do love this idea that articles about Corbyn’s dubious, at best, actions and acquaintances is a smear campaign but the articles about Boris’s actions and words are shining light on the truth. Both are highly flawed individuals, at best. One is not particularly clever and only knows how to argue against things. The other is intelligent, if not as intelligent as he thinks, but knows how to lead, or at least make the public think he can lead, and can sell a manifesto. Similar to the Brexiteers obsession with the evil EU, Corbyn has spent so long banging on about how evil capitalism and the legacy of the empire is, he’s no idea how to lead once he gets a chance. It’s no surprise one became the PM despite a revolt from his MPs and media revelations about a highly flawed past, and the other didn’t.

cashead wrote:

Digby wrote:Corbyn didn't simply get anti-semite thrown at him for saying Palestinians are people too, hopefully nobody directing Labour thinks in such precious, simplistic and ignorant manner

You honestly believe it was anything more than a coordinated smear campaign? I'd be hopeful we wouldn't get any further commentary and analysis from bootlicking cunts like you, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

Sandydragon wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:I do love this idea that articles about Corbyn’s dubious, at best, actions and acquaintances is a smear campaign but the articles about Boris’s actions and words are shining light on the truth. Both are highly flawed individuals, at best. One is not particularly clever and only knows how to argue against things. The other is intelligent, if not as intelligent as he thinks, but knows how to lead, or at least make the public think he can lead, and can sell a manifesto. Similar to the Brexiteers obsession with the evil EU, Corbyn has spent so long banging on about how evil capitalism and the legacy of the empire is, he’s no idea how to lead once he gets a chance. It’s no surprise one became the PM despite a revolt from his MPs and media revelations about a highly flawed past, and the other didn’t.

This. If you are the leader of a major political party, then the media will examine every potential flaw. Thats kind of their job.

Stom wrote:But that’s kinda the point. Corbyn Met with all kinds of people as he could get sucked into anything given a good “poor minority” story. But he did it all with the best intentions. He was just too stupid to actually deal with any of it. I don’t think he was anti-Britain, either, just so far gone in his anti-inequality shtick that he failed to spot quite important differences