Universal Income.

[Matthew Best]

It sounded like the Child Benefit gets reduced if your income was more than £50,000 so that "most people who earn more than £60,000 don't bother to claim it" (why wouldn't they bother to tick the box?).

Yes, that's what happens. What is unclear about this?

I guess the main difference is that UBI is not a tax rebate. (It could be structured as such but it would be more bureaucratically intensive to decide how much money is put in anybody's bank account or whether it is just a pure tax reduction).

Child Benefit is not a tax rebate either. It's a universal benefit.

 

[psionl0]

Yes, that's what happens. What is unclear about this?

That means the Child Care is means tested unlike the UBI.

 

[lionking]

It's a universal benefit.

Utter nonsense. Unless “universal” means all other than the well off.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

No tax rises is not referring to a subset of people or indeed any people but taxes. And no tax rises isn't referring to a subset of anything. it was quite clear.

But not if you read the body of work.

They wouldn't START taxing anything. It would already be taxed. Because tax is worked out on an annual basis but paid on an ongoing basis there is going to need to be some kind of reckoning at some point. If it isn't taxed at source then there is going to be a tax bill at the end of the tax year to be paid. I'm not sure if that's better or worse.

But why would they send you an income tax bill on income that isn't taxed?

I mean you are still going to have to wait up to a month until UBI day anyway.

Your regular payments would continue.

And you are still going to have to apply for other benefits to actually have a living amount of money.

Assuming for the sake of argument that this is true, it's irrelevant. Again, that it won't fix the whole system doesn't mean that the fixing of the part of the system it fixes is not worthwhile.

Possibly. But COVID is once in a century.

The point is that you don't know when a safety net is going to be needed, or by how many, therefore a safety net that won't break under stress is better than one that will.

It isn't though, is it? My UC payment is about half of my monthly mortgage bill.

Mortgages and benefits is a different question. It's also a different question as to whether or not you need to be able to afford a mortgage in order to continue living.

So would a properly designed welfare system though.

I'm not sure it would. Especially as it would rely on the integrity of every government for the rest of time. Altering the benefits system to make people fall through the cracks is a hell of a lot easier than taking away a UBI would be once everybody is used to it.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

But not if you read the body of work.

The 'body of work' seemed to be obnoxious snarking at people for not being able to count for pointing out that OF COURSE UBI is going to need tax raises to function.

The point was quite clear and I quoted it and now I'm being told they didn't really mean what they clearly said. Repeatedly. Really?

But why would they send you an income tax bill on income that isn't taxed?

The income would need to be taxed if you are over the earnings threshold for the year for it to be taxed.

Let's say you earn £80k a year and you get UBI of £10k. You tax code would be set up so that you paid back the £10k a year over the course of the year? Correct? that would be calculated based on the assumption you would be earning £90k a year.

Now if you lose your job half way through the tax year you have still earned £40k and been paid £5k in UBI. You have another 5k of UBI to receive. That UBI isn't and won't be tax free. You would still have to pay the tax on it commensurate with someone who had a job that paid £40k in the tax year. Your total earnings for the year will be £50k and you will be taxed on them.

Until you put specific figures for the tax bands there you can't tell what the impact is going to be but for some it's going to mean a tax bill at the end of the year. For others it will mean a refund.

Your regular payments would continue.

Assuming for the sake of argument that this is true, it's irrelevant. Again, that it won't fix the whole system doesn't mean that the fixing of the part of the system it fixes is not worthwhile.

The point is that you don't know when a safety net is going to be needed, or by how many, therefore a safety net that won't break under stress is better than one that will.

Fair enough. But UBI isn't the only way to improve part of the system. If people are behind it and happy to implement it then good, but it seems like it's actually going to take a lot of heavy lifting to convince people while there might be other simpler changes that could also improve the system.

Mortgages and benefits is a different question. It's also a different question as to whether or not you need to be able to afford a mortgage in order to continue living.

You need somewhere to live in order to continue living. Unless you are going to magic up council houses for people then you are only arguing whether the UC doesn't give you enough to pay your rent or doesn't give you enough to pay your mortgage. Either way you still don't have enough money to live on. And if you lose your job during a pandemic I think most people would argue that not losing their house is quite important.

I'm not sure it would. Especially as it would rely on the integrity of every government for the rest of time. Altering the benefits system to make people fall through the cracks is a hell of a lot easier than taking away a UBI would be once everybody is used to it.

Again possibly. But getting a UBI in place in the first place in the face of governments who don't want to help the poor and people who don't want to pay more taxes to help the poor and others who don't understand the system seems like a big ask. Until you win the 'tax the rich to help the poor' argument i don't think it matters much what systems you propose. And that's the reason why I get irked about some of these handwavy comments that suggest it isn't about taxing the rich to help the poor. Because if it isn't then it's useless.

I think we are kind of on the same page on that last paragraph and if UBI is the way to achieve it then great. But it's ONLY really great to the extent to which people are prepared to raise new money to distribute to those who need it. there might be some other marginal admin benefits but I don't see them as a justification for the system.

ETA: also worth maybe remembering that if we win the tax the rich argument there are things that could be done TOMORROW to make the welfare system better that don't need UBI. For example, people on benefits shouldn't be making less than minimum wage or less than a pensioner. They shouldn't have to wait 9 months for housing benefit. these are 'stroke of a pen' improvements.

 

[psionl0]

Let's say you earn £80k a year and you get UBI of £10k. You tax code would be set up so that you paid back the £10k a year over the course of the year? Correct? that would be calculated based on the assumption you would be earning £90k a year.

Wrong again. That person would be taxed on £80k a year, If it were to be cost neutral then the tax bill would have to be £10k higher. This would be achieved by a combination of adjusting the marginal tax rate and removing the tax free threshold.

Now if you lose your job half way through the tax year you have still earned £40k and been paid £5k in UBI. You have another 5k of UBI to receive.

Correct.

That UBI isn't and won't be tax free. You would still have to pay the tax on it commensurate with someone who had a job that paid £40k in the tax year. Your total earnings for the year will be £50k and you will be taxed on them.

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

[Dupe]

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

The 'body of work' seemed to be obnoxious snarking at people for not being able to count for pointing out that OF COURSE UBI is going to need tax raises to function.

If that's all you've read, then I can only suggest doing more reading.

The income would need to be taxed if you are over the earnings threshold for the year for it to be taxed.

Not if UBI isn't taxable income.

But UBI isn't the only way to improve part of the system.

I didn't say it was. You asked what the benefits were, and I listed some of them.

You need somewhere to live in order to continue living.

Right, but that "somewhere" doesn't need to be a house that you pay a mortgage on, does it?

Unless you are going to magic up council houses for people then you are only arguing whether the UC doesn't give you enough to pay your rent or doesn't give you enough to pay your mortgage.

I'm actually not arguing over those things. UC doesn't cover them, and treats each differently.

And if you lose your job during a pandemic I think most people would argue that not losing their house is quite important.

"Quite important" and "enough to live on" are two different quantities.

But getting a UBI in place in the first place in the face of governments who don't want to help the poor and people who don't want to pay more taxes to help the poor and others who don't understand the system seems like a big ask.

Has anybody claimed it would be easy?

 

[Matthew Best]

Utter nonsense. Unless “universal” means all other than the well off.

It's not nonsense, it's the way it is. Everyone can claim and get Child Benefit. That makes it a universal benefit.

It's just that the rich pay more in tax so claiming the benefit doesn't actually result in them having more money at the end of the year.

Isn't this exactly what we keep being told will happen with UBI?

 

[Matthew Best]

That means the Child Care is means tested unlike the UBI.

No, it's not means tested - everyone can get it. It's just that the rich pay more in tax to make up for it. That seems to be what you're suggesting would happen with UBI.

 

[psionl0]

No, it's not means tested - everyone can get it. It's just that the rich pay more in tax to make up for it. That seems to be what you're suggesting would happen with UBI.

Make up your mind. Either Child Care cuts off after £60,000 or you continue to receive it but your tax bill rises to cancel out the benefit. In the latter case, you would still need to claim the Child Care otherwise you would be paying extra tax for nothing.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Wrong again. That person would be taxed on £80k a year, If it were to be cost neutral then the tax bill would have to be £10k higher. This would be achieved by a combination of adjusting the marginal tax rate and removing the tax free threshold.


Correct.


Wrong, wrong, wrong.

It isn't wrong at all, its how the UK tax system works. Stop posting drivel it's only distracting.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Not if UBI isn't taxable income.

Can you show your working please so we can see where we are differing? it doesnt matter if ubi is technically taxable or not all that matters is that your earnings and tax balance at the end of the year.

If you've earned enough in a year that your UBI should have been recouped then its going to have to be recouped. As I say the exact workings of the system are going to matter but the principle of the tax system still holds.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Make up your mind. Either Child Care cuts off after £60,000 or you continue to receive it but your tax bill rises to cancel out the benefit. In the latter case, you would still need to claim the Child Care otherwise you would be paying extra tax for nothing.

Or option 3 it works as Matthew has described

 

[Matthew Best]

Make up your mind. Either Child Care cuts off after £60,000 or you continue to receive it but your tax bill rises to cancel out the benefit. In the latter case, you would still need to claim the Child Care otherwise you would be paying extra tax for nothing.

Yes, that's what I said. If you claim the Childcare Benefit and earn more than £60,000 the money gets clawed back in increased tax. This is what I've said consistently from the start so I have no need to "make up my mind".

 

[psionl0]

Yes, that's what I said. If you claim the Childcare Benefit and earn more than £60,000 the money gets clawed back in increased tax. This is what I've said consistently from the start so I have no need to "make up my mind".

So the Child Care doesn't cur off at £60,000?

 

[psionl0]

It isn't wrong at all, its how the UK tax system works. Stop posting drivel it's only distracting.

The UK doesn't pay UBI yet.

 

[Matthew Best]

So the Child Care doesn't cur off at £60,000?

That's correct. Child Benefit is a universal benefit, as I've been saying from the start. The only qualification is that you have to be the parent or guardian of a child. Your income doesn't affect your ability to claim it.

 

[lionking]

That's correct. Child Benefit is a universal benefit, as I've been saying from the start. The only qualification is that you have to be the parent or guardian of a child. Your income doesn't affect your ability to claim it.

Again utter nonsense.

The Age Pension in Australia is a “Universal Benefit” but you can’t get it if you earn over a certain amount.

Oh, you can claim it but you won’t get it.

Do you realise how ridiculous you sound?

 

[Belz...]

That's correct. Child Benefit is a universal benefit, as I've been saying from the start. The only qualification is that you have to be the parent or guardian of a child. Your income doesn't affect your ability to claim it.

Universal for parents only.