Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Recommended Posts

On 04/07/2020 at 21:08, xxxx said:

The equivalent group of renter voters have not been protected for many, many years.  Do you honestly think they will be concerned about these?

 Renters can like it or lump it,  not much elasticity of demand for FTB type basic housing - no mass boycotts of rental agencies or millions handing back their keys in protest. They just pay rent and/or claim housing benefit for decades and continue vote for the same, seduced by the myth that low taxes somehow actually made generation rent wealthier.

 Looking at the value of uk housing, around £8 trillion,  even with our eye watering national debt,  property is the new Gold standard, also it is finite, unlike BoE cash.  Some can be fed back into the system in taxes, care fees, helping kids get onto the ladder, retirement bunce etc.  

 The former always accepted as 'just how it is', the latter will be avoided at all costs now by any government now society increasingly relies upon the rent serfdom / wealth secured by property model. 

Homeowners tend to be less Marxist in their voting habits too.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 320
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Just now, Social Justice League said:

Yeah you're probably right with this statement too.  What we don't really want to see is social breakdown because millions don't even have the basics, like food, water and shelter.

60" TV and smartphones are not what I'm talking about when I talk about the basics.

Everyone who's mentally ...sane already HAS food and shelter. You'd be hard pressed to find anyone who doesn't and isn't a junkie or suffering from serious mental issues.

You may not be talking about smartphones, but if we visited a random council estate, how many people without smartphones do you think you'd find there? 5%? 3%?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, flb said:

Everyone who's mentally ...sane already HAS food and shelter. You'd be hard pressed to find anyone who doesn't and isn't a junkie or suffering from serious mental issues.

You may not be talking about smartphones, but if we visited a random council estate, how many people without smartphones do you think you'd find there? 5%? 3%?

 

Seems to be millions going to food banks but maybe they're wasting their money on other things.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Social Justice League said:

Seems to be millions going to food banks but maybe they're wasting their money on other things.

Of course they go to food banks, why wouldn't they? It's free. Do you think they're on benefits because they mind free stuff?

Edited by flb
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, flb said:

Of course they go to food banks, why wouldn't they? It's free. Do you think they mind free stuff?

  Lol,  I believe that for 'clients' to get a carrier bag full of out of date junk food they firstly need to be referred to the food bank, not just any Tom, Dick or Ahmed can get free stuff . 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, flb said:

Eastern Europe, soviet satellite. In year 1 (school) they were teaching my colleagues about why not everything is always great. It was...the enemies of the people. They kept infiltrating our welcoming nation and sabotaging the socialist efforts. I know that because they pointed at me. I had unhealthy origins (my grandfather fought alongside the Germans at Stalingrad and as any good socialist knows, it's genetic).

I do believe that should tell you enough.

Croatia fought with the Germans too... so I'm with you. it's fascinating to hear accounts of what it was like to live in socialist countries... they're usually the first to issue dire warnings when western countries start down that path... Given the current economic climate, it feels like UBI is the first step down that road.

 

Edited by warpig
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Megadebt said:

Lol,  I believe that for 'clients' to get a carrier bag full of out of date junk food they firstly need to be referred to the food bank, not just any Tom, Dick or Ahmed can get free stuff . 

Does it matter? It's not like they've got somewhere to be. It's the same with benefits - you had to go to JC once a week. Did that stop people from signing on?

1 hour ago, Social Justice League said:

Too many right wing people on this thread.  I'm off. ;)

It is indeed dangerous. You wouldn't want to risk learning something - you'd then be in danger of being able to answer questions in the future :)

Good chat, eh.

Edited by flb
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, flb said:

Don't be ridiculous, of course they paid for it. What you're saying is that a random government took that money (i.e stole it) because they could. How does that change the fact that the people paid for it in the first place?

That is what they're doing now. It's not working, because people would rather eat less and not work (legally) or work in the underground/cash-in-hand "industry" to get more.

If you don't mind me saying, you lost the right to discuss "market forces" when you started talking about interfering with pay and giving away free money.

State pensions being paid into.😆😆  That was the point I was explained was the rabbit hole and the one you want to go down. Ok, at 65 the UBI stops and then you get a state pension...same diff. 

You know a lot about what people want. I am not a convinced people would rather work less. A lot of people I know can’t do without a nice car never mind eat less. 

Thanks for the market forces nod....I have a lot to learn. 😉

Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay... So to summarize, there seems to be three general plans.

1. The Soviet. Everybody is given enough UBI to live off (£10k pa), as well as a free/cheap place to live. However, there is no real incentive to work or better oneself. The scheme is funded by taxing the rapidly shrinking useful part of the economy into oblivion, or by printing money. Expect long queues to hand over your weekly allowance for a loaf of bread.

2. The Simple Concept. The current welfare and pensions system is scrapped, and the money currently spent is split evenly between the population. No arguments, no exemptions, no special cases. I calculated earlier that would be £87pw for the entire population, or £111pw if only over-18s received it. Not really enough to live off, so if you are unemployed, or unfortunate enough to be unable to work (though disability, old age) you are in trouble. Which leads on to Plan 3....

3. The Gordon Brown. Start with Plan 2, but add expansions for certain categories. The elderly get additional money (we could call it a "pension"). If you are disabled and unable to work, you can get a top up, but of course this would require a government agency to assess and check who is deserving of the top up. Maybe an additional payment for those who have recently lost their job, or those with children?  The wealthy - do they really need their UBI? Suddenly, the scheme is back to where we are now, either with people paying higher taxes only to have it returned as UBI (less the government worker handling fee), with the UBI reduced to a nominal £10 pw.

Link to post
Share on other sites

UBI sounds interesting in theory, but it's a complete non-starter.

If everyone was given £1000 per month or whatever, there is nothing to stop council tax, utilities and food from tripling from where they are today. Infact, it would be guaranteed, as UBI is inherently highly inflationary.

Nah, what we'll see is everyone's living standards plummet, apart from the wealthy. The UK today doesn't fair badly when compared with a lot of third world places, so there is a long way down yet. Eventually, lots of people will be roughing it in tents or worse, but things won't get to those levels of bad during the lifetime of anyone on this board.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@A17 - you are omitting the fourth, perhaps most widely conceptualised version of UBI - the £10K per annum (or whatever amount) that is your only benefit - i.e. no free house or housing benefit, no JSA, tax credits, child benefit or whatever.  Depending on your political stance you could characterise it as a payment from the state as compensation for being a citizen, not being guaranteed any land on which to live nor secure housing or employment.  Or just a way of maintaining peace in a post-scarcity future.

The first counterargument is that it is inflationary and all costs would increase to swallow any benefit from UBI and people would end up in the same position as before.  It would be useful to examine how likely this would be given market pressure (could all landlords whack another £500 on the rent overnight?).  If there was no increase in the money supply, more of a redistribution, how would that become inflationary?  I don't pretend to know, I'm coming at this as a thought experiment.

Anyone read Bullchit Jobs by David Graeber?  Four out of ten people think their jobs add nothing to humanity and shouldn't really exist.  While that topic is another discussion (though the person asking about non-jobs upthread might want to take a look) there are a few pages given to UBI as a potential approach to a post-scarcity world (remember when people a hundred years said we would only need to  work for fifteen hours a week max in the future?). 

UBI wouldn't necessarily change mass human behaviour or the status hierarchy of society.  Indian parents would still hope for their children to become doctors, people will still try to climb the corporate ladder for prestige and status.  You won't get that Audi estate with roof rack for cycling holidays at your second home in Devon on UBI.  The argument that a significant mass of people will turn to all-day Playstation chavs for only 8-10K a year seems a little thin.  Not everyone will quit their jobs to write a novel, and even those that do will mostly give up when they quickly realise they don't enjoy writing and can no longer pay the mortgage.  But maybe more great novels would get written, more effective charities would be started (and some people might donate part or perhaps all of their UBI to charitable causes, and the government could stop pumping billions into the charitable sector), more useful shed inventions would be created by tinkerers with an idea.

Would people still clean toilets?  If it helped them save up for a better house or their kid's further education or even just for more fags and booze maybe they would.  What it would mean however is that people might be able to say no to soul-destroying jobs, to walk out on exploitative bosses, to have an element of discretion in seeking employment opportunities - potentially the biggest shift in power towards labour since the Black Plague.  Even the capitalist arguments of creating better consumers and improving opportunities for private enterprise (less risk for starting a business) are mildly compelling.

But then it has no realistic chance of being implemented both honestly and as originally conceived (basic and universal) so this all amounts to idle pub discussion...

Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Jolly Roger said:

UBI wouldn't necessarily change mass human behaviour or the status hierarchy of society.  Indian parents would still hope for their children to become doctors, people will still try to climb the corporate ladder for prestige and status.  You won't get that Audi estate with roof rack for cycling holidays at your second home in Devon on UBI.  The argument that a significant mass of people will turn to all-day Playstation chavs for only 8-10K a year seems a little thin.  Not everyone will quit their jobs to write a novel, and even those that do will mostly give up when they quickly realise they don't enjoy writing and can no longer pay the mortgage.  But maybe more great novels would get written, more effective charities would be started (and some people might donate part or perhaps all of their UBI to charitable causes, and the government could stop pumping billions into the charitable sector), more useful shed inventions would be created by tinkerers with an idea.

Would people still clean toilets?  If it helped them save up for a better house or their kid's further education or even just for more fags and booze maybe they would.  What it would mean however is that people might be able to say no to soul-destroying jobs, to walk out on exploitative bosses, to have an element of discretion in seeking employment opportunities - potentially the biggest shift in power towards labour since the Black Plague.  Even the capitalist arguments of creating better consumers and improving opportunities for private enterprise (less risk for starting a business) are mildly compelling.

But then it has no realistic chance of being implemented both honestly and as originally conceived (basic and universal) so this all amounts to idle pub discussion...

Wildly optimistic... and where does the £10k/year come from? Why not make it £50k and then we can all go on holiday twice a year.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Jolly Roger said:

@A17 - you are omitting the fourth, perhaps most widely conceptualised version of UBI - the £10K per annum (or whatever amount) that is your only benefit - i.e. no free house or housing benefit, no JSA, tax credits, child benefit or whatever. 

That would solve absolutely nothing, as it wouldn't even cover housing for a lot of people currently on benefits (it comes down to 833.(3)/month; that's LESS than what a lot of them are getting now and definitely LESS than what it costs to house some of them).

It would only result in seeing real inflation for some real products, commonly used by the poor.

As such, it would absolutely NOT guarantee "peace" or the "status quo". Nope. They'd still be skint, but this would also devalue our savings, since obviously who the hell would want to buy the pound when they're throwing away 10,000 pounds/year to basically everyone?

2 hours ago, Jolly Roger said:

The first counterargument is that it is inflationary and all costs would increase to swallow any benefit from UBI and people would end up in the same position as before.  It would be useful to examine how likely this would be given market pressure (could all landlords whack another £500 on the rent overnight?). 

Yes, of course it would. Suddenly I'd have some extra 833/month. I might as well buy a second place and rent it - right now (in reality, it wouldn't work; by the time I'd get my first check, the price of a house would go up by 400k, as it's a real/useful asset, much unlike "money")

2 hours ago, Jolly Roger said:

Anyone read Bullchit Jobs by David Graeber?  Four out of ten people think their jobs add nothing to humanity and shouldn't really exist. 

Nonsense. It's AT LEAST 9/10. The other 5 were either too stupid to understand the question or they were lying or not paying attention.

Part of my job is automating things. I constantly find those 9/10 that are perfectly useless in any place. Whoever said it's just 4/10 is full of sh!t.

2 hours ago, Jolly Roger said:

Indian parents would still hope for their children to become doctors, people will still try to climb the corporate ladder for prestige and status.  You won't get that Audi estate with roof rack for cycling holidays at your second home in Devon on UBI.  The argument that a significant mass of people will turn to all-day Playstation chavs for only 8-10K a year seems a little thin. 

In your scenario (10k/year, nothing else), you'd have today's society, pretty much. You can get ~833/month today, when you add everything up (housing benefit, whatever). Hell, it's not even hard.

2 hours ago, Jolly Roger said:

Not everyone will quit their jobs to write a novel,

Ehm, I'd say almost nobody would quit their jobs to write a novel with 10k/year. It's just not enough for that. Even if you live in a really cheap place, you've still got 300-350 in bills (including council tax here) and the rest in rent and transportation. You can't even buy food. Nah.

2 hours ago, Jolly Roger said:

But maybe more great novels would get written,

That's great, but who exactly has been complaining that this is Britain's problem - the lack of great novels lately? It's a bit steep to pay 10k/year to tens of millions of people hoping to get great novels. I mean, can't we just buy the rights to a few books instead, scan them and put them online for whoever's interested?

2 hours ago, Jolly Roger said:

more effective charities would be started (and some people might donate part or perhaps all of their UBI to charitable causes, and the government could stop pumping billions into the charitable sector),

But charities are extremely effective. It's just that you misunderstand their purpose - which is not to help others, but to line the pockets of some of those 9/10 people doing non-jobs. This includes employees of said charities (and you're welcome to take a look here to see how much they were getting 20 years ago) and their friends who create an advertising agency and suddenly get a contract with such a charity and then get millions to let you know that, well, you know, children/dogs/refugees/women/godzilla need help. Hell, someone always needs help.

Then you've got those kickbacks from the right entities (you don't think those nice posters just HAPPEN to be on the bus, on the underground, in X specific location etc, do you?).

This is all a huge misunderstanding caused by the idiots who believe charities are meant to help "people in need". No, they're not - well, one could argue that their directors DO have needs. For example, according to the table below (you know what, I'll just add a screenshot in case the link stops working) in 2003, Nicholas Young of British Red Cross needed 125,000/year. I believe we can all agree that it wasn't too shabby. I mean, it was 20 years ago; plus expenses/benefits. I mean, surely you couldn't expect of him to take the bus, as it were, right? Or to live in, I don't know, Hackney.

image.thumb.png.6b83e2c3e1ac7217834b3cf8e0b83029.png

Oh, by the way, this is from last year (September 2019).

image.thumb.png.b98b4c99fab4d0ac95e55e57890c35e1.png

I do hope you find it useful or at the very least enlightening. 

I laugh my ass off when I hear about someone who texted whatever to donate 3 pounds to some random charity which receives 2 pounds after payment processing, network costs etc (and if you think those networks/payment processors were chosen based on their performance, boy, have I got news for you...). Well done, you! Just 250,000 more of you and we'll almost cover the salary of that director - excluding benefits and bonuses, of course. 50,000 more and we may even cover the salary of one of his mistresses - the ugly one who only got a 100k job with the charity. Obviously you can't expect a good looking one to lower her price THAT much...

2 hours ago, Jolly Roger said:

and the government could stop pumping billions into the charitable sector

Ah, you think they just happen to pump billions "into the charitable sector", right? 

As a man who worked for the government (and might do it again), I envy your innocence. Bless you

But enough about me. Let me tell you about a friend of a friend of a friend. Purely anecdotal, make of it what you will, really.

So there's this guy - a friend of a friend of a friend - who, like me, happened to work for some government agencies.This was in a different country, absolutely NOT in the UK. So, before he was brought in, these guys needed a project done, so they discussed it with one of those large consultancies - you know, the size of Atos, Accenture etc (entities that are completely unrelated to this story). They received a few quotes. The project would require 25-30 people for 2-3 years, at 3000 pounds/day per person.

However, some things were happening at that government agency at the same time and somehow, this wasn't blindly approved, as it usually was. In fact, one of the bosses made a big deal out of it, claiming that "we can't just throw millions on this, it's absurd". The audacity of that cretin, acting as if it was his money; as if the money didn't come from the endless magic money tree which does actually exist - it's called the taxpayers' pocket.

So the middle management scrambled for solutions. Their solution was to try to get a few independent contractors in and see if they could perhaps get that project moving. They needed contractors, you see, because hiring was and always is frozen there. No funds, you see.

This friend of a friend of a friend happened to be one of them - he keeps happening to be one of them, as he actually delivers projects...and he's not getting 3000/day, obviously.

It took him a week to get 1/3 of the project done. It wasn't completely DONE, as it were, but hey, it was SOMETHING, more progress than they had made in the past 18 months. In all fairness, he could've probably done it in two weeks in total, it wasn't anything complex. A lot of random people on the internet might even argue that it could be done in a week, but let's just say that this friend of a friend of a friend gets easily distracted and tends to be a bit lazy, too.

So he started working on the rest of it. Alas, the middle management couldn't simply deliver the damn thing in one month, it would have spoken volumes about their previous projects, the mounting costs, the unexpected costs and the timelines...and perhaps it would explain how some of them could afford that kind of lifestyle on a pathetic government salary (and trust me, it IS pathetic).

So what happened was that the middle blokes just kept pushing back. Requirements were constantly changing, conflicting even. One day it had to be white, the next day it had to be black - and so on. The people he'd report to would change from week to week sometimes - all of them apparently not "in the know" and even more clueless than the people before. It's funny how they all reported to the same 2 people up the ladder, though.

The project had been ready for 3 months, but they couldn't just implement it or deliver it. Long story short, eventually he was moved to other "urgent" projects (which are never going to happen) and the original project was finally given to a proper consultancy who could get the job done, unlike independent contractors who had once again proven to be a waste of time (and money). This friend of a friend of a friend has no doubt that it will eventually be delivered - in about 5 years, but with some extra unexpected costs; at which point they're going to discover that hmmm, it would've been great 5 years ago, but it doesn't deliver the desired results today, as society is evolving so fast, so we're just going to scrap it and start a new project. This friend of a friend of a friend fully expects the new project to require 50 people over 3 years. It's unlikely that they'll come that cheap - I mean 3000/day is chickenfeed when you're talking about specialists.

It's going to be something like this or something like this or like this or whatever.   

Oh, the funny part? They paid 3000/day for this friend of a friend of a friend anyway; well, obviously not to him, but to a certain agency; he didn't even get a quarter of it. Obviously he's not in a position to complain, but one can only wonder what happened to the other 3/4 and why that specific rate. As a coincidence, one of the middle managers' wives has this cleaning company, which has a maintenance contract with that agency. Unlike her husband - a poor public servant - she does make quite a bit of money. It's just a coincidence, I have no idea of why this came to mind right now.

As for that cretin (big boss) complaining about the costs and whatnot, he got a different assignment elsewhere, where he won't get a chance to stand in the way of progress again. The country is turning digital, baby. Yes, Prime Minister, the country will be served. I wonder, do you ever wonder how some government-related entities in some countries - whether local or national - always seem to be out of money and can never get enough? You could basically give them 30 bn extra / year to plug a 20 bn hole and the next year they'd be 50 bn in the red again. It's almost as if bad luck keeps chasing them; it's fortunate that at least the right employees have fast cars, so bad luck can't possibly catch up to them too.

It would be funny if someone looked at it, but alas, nobody can actually look at it. Because you see, everyone working on these projects first has to sign certain papers, papers that will send them to jail pronto if they disclose ANY information to anyone. That's before even knowing what they're supposed to do. Well, silence is golden, isn't it, so this friend of a friend of a friend isn't going to complain. In fact, chances are he's going to take another contract these days - again, working for the government. Obviously he knows he can expect the same deal again, so he's mildly depressed about it, but eh, nobody else pays that well, so what can one do...

Oh, I almost forgot,  you won't believe this, it's so weird. Those people for which that consultancy was (and is) charging 3000/day? Yeah, it turns out most of them are on like 50k/year. Well, they're not in a position to complain either, those tier 2 visas are considered golden tickets in some countries. Some of them can't even speak the language of that specific country properly - never mind doing any actual work. My friend asked one of them whether he wanted to join him for lunch (which involved a 3 pounds sandwich) and that guy was too ashamed to admit that he couldn't afford it. It's just bizarre, really, you'd think at 3000/day, he could get some symbolic allowance at least.

We're fortunate that these things happen in other countries and not in Britain, though, so let's abandon the subject.

I'm not entirely sure of what I was trying to say here, but I think my point was that you shouldn't worry about billions - government employees are not ineffective. They're extremely effective. It's just that you don't always understand every little detail in the big picture - much less when it comes to charity, which is not the kind of thing anyone would question. Morals and principles and all that.

2 hours ago, Jolly Roger said:

Would people still clean toilets?  If it helped them save up for a better house or their kid's further education or even just for more fags and booze maybe they would.

No, they wouldn't. 

In the first phase, they'd keep looking for a better/more decent job, seeing how they've "now" got money to "get by" in the meantime.

Then, once inflation hit, 99% of them would go back to their old jobs (if they could), while the remaining 1% might actually do something more meaningful - the 1% that struggle to get out of poverty anyway, regardless of the system.

2 hours ago, Jolly Roger said:

to walk out on exploitative bosses, to have an element of discretion in seeking employment opportunities - potentially the biggest shift in power towards labour since the Black Plague.

This, mate, is what I'd call bullsh!t. They've always had that power and they still do.

Let's prove that, shall we?

1. We've got people working in London on the minimum wage.

2. The minimum wage is not enough to get by in London. You've got to do other stuff.

3. Those people could EASILY walk out and move elsewhere, to a cheaper place, where they'd get more bang for their buck. Think of places like Hull or parts of Newcastle or whatever, where you can basically buy a 3 bed house for 50k. You're literally able to get a mortgage for that on the minimum wage. Owning your own home.

4. As they're on the minimum wage, they'd get roughly the same deal in Hull or wherever; it's not like employers there pay below the minimum wage. So they wouldn't lose out in terms of money.

Yet...they don't do it. They could, but they don't. They were in London 10 years ago, they're in London today, they'll probably be in London when they retire, still sharing a room or depending on that second income in the family or on charity or whatever.

They DO have the power to walk out - and if enough of them walked out, London employers would have no choice but to offer higher salaries & better working conditions - but....nope. They'll always be there, waiting for that one shot, that one opportunity, skipping lunch. Someone's gotta clean those toilets you mentioned, eh?

Edited by flb
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Jolly Roger said:

@A17 - you are omitting the fourth, perhaps most widely conceptualised version of UBI - the £10K per annum (or whatever amount) that is your only benefit - i.e. no free house or housing benefit, no JSA, tax credits, child benefit or whatever.  Depending on your political stance you could characterise it as a payment from the state as compensation for being a citizen, not being guaranteed any land on which to live nor secure housing or employment.  Or just a way of maintaining peace in a post-scarcity future.

The first counterargument is that it is inflationary and all costs would increase to swallow any benefit from UBI and people would end up in the same position as before.  It would be useful to examine how likely this would be given market pressure (could all landlords whack another £500 on the rent overnight?).  If there was no increase in the money supply, more of a redistribution, how would that become inflationary?  I don't pretend to know, I'm coming at this as a thought experiment.

Anyone read Bullchit Jobs by David Graeber?  Four out of ten people think their jobs add nothing to humanity and shouldn't really exist.  While that topic is another discussion (though the person asking about non-jobs upthread might want to take a look) there are a few pages given to UBI as a potential approach to a post-scarcity world (remember when people a hundred years said we would only need to  work for fifteen hours a week max in the future?). 

UBI wouldn't necessarily change mass human behaviour or the status hierarchy of society.  Indian parents would still hope for their children to become doctors, people will still try to climb the corporate ladder for prestige and status.  You won't get that Audi estate with roof rack for cycling holidays at your second home in Devon on UBI.  The argument that a significant mass of people will turn to all-day Playstation chavs for only 8-10K a year seems a little thin.  Not everyone will quit their jobs to write a novel, and even those that do will mostly give up when they quickly realise they don't enjoy writing and can no longer pay the mortgage.  But maybe more great novels would get written, more effective charities would be started (and some people might donate part or perhaps all of their UBI to charitable causes, and the government could stop pumping billions into the charitable sector), more useful shed inventions would be created by tinkerers with an idea.

Would people still clean toilets?  If it helped them save up for a better house or their kid's further education or even just for more fags and booze maybe they would.  What it would mean however is that people might be able to say no to soul-destroying jobs, to walk out on exploitative bosses, to have an element of discretion in seeking employment opportunities - potentially the biggest shift in power towards labour since the Black Plague.  Even the capitalist arguments of creating better consumers and improving opportunities for private enterprise (less risk for starting a business) are mildly compelling.

But then it has no realistic chance of being implemented both honestly and as originally conceived (basic and universal) so this all amounts to idle pub discussion...

That is basically the Soviet plan. It would be a huge increase in government spending, which would have to be funded either through taxes, borrowing or the printing press. On day one a working couple would have an additional £20k per year - what would the first thing that people would think of? We can afford a bigger house! The same as everybody else thinking that at the same time.

With respect to the unnecessary jobs - I sometimes wonder what our lives would be like if we went back to the standard of living of the past. If we were only to work 15 hours a week, could we have what would have been a good standard of living in 1990? Mobile phones probably unaffordable, no internet, four channels on television, but houses with central heating and foreign holidays available. Or could we only afford a 1950s standard of living? Or even further back?

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Social Justice League said:

we have 10's of millions of people with no money, no food and no shelter over the coming year. 

And that is tragic. I have long been saying that there is a lot of misery coming down the line for a lot of people.

More government intervention can only make that worse for more people, for longer.

 

If someone thinks UBI will make life better for poor people generally, it is either because they do not understand money, value or labour, or they are straight up evil. 

The fact is that for money to have value, people have to be creating things or services and using that money as a medium

of exchange. Simply handing out money or pushing it around at gunpoint does absolutely nothing. In fact, it causes less work to be done and so poor people end up poorer as a group.

21 hours ago, Social Justice League said:

UBI is one suggestion to stop mass social unrest.  If you have a better plan, let's hear it.

Cut taxes, spending and regulation. Of course, you might first have to collapse faith in Government by making incompetent decisions and constantly U turning...oh wait.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, A17 said:

That is basically the Soviet plan. It would be a huge increase in government spending, which would have to be funded either through taxes, borrowing or the printing press. On day one a working couple would have an additional £20k per year - what would the first thing that people would think of? We can afford a bigger house! The same as everybody else thinking that at the same time.

With respect to the unnecessary jobs - I sometimes wonder what our lives would be like if we went back to the standard of living of the past. If we were only to work 15 hours a week, could we have what would have been a good standard of living in 1990? Mobile phones probably unaffordable, no internet, four channels on television, but houses with central heating and foreign holidays available. Or could we only afford a 1950s standard of living? Or even further back?

Not a UBI point, just more a ‘have we progressed?’ point...and off thread. My mumbling rather than an add to the debate. 

It’s a funny one but in the 1970’s things were economically bad with power cuts, inflation etc. I lived in a nice town but the materialism we had today didn’t exist (to the same extent).

The poshest person (ie one in the whole street) might have a company Cortina, maybe a colour TV. But the bar was low and the joys in life were derived from other things. Now I was young and rose tinted glasses and all....but we just didn’t need or want stuff. To be fair that has stuck with me and literal has made me at times feel totally free. It’s a wonderful feeling knowing you have everything you need. I know others with more than me still aren’t satisfied....is it ever enough? 

Whilst not wishing to sound like an old f4rt we genuinely had the very best times with weekend at the river, fishing, football on the street.

I would liken it to emails at work...initially it was amazing and we could do our work in a fraction of the time. But within a few years we were getting 100 emails and 100 tasks a day....commercially totally understandably the right thing but it didn’t deliver what the workers thought it might. I get the same impression today.....advancement of technology is superb, a smart phone is a brilliant game changer but the problem is how we then use these things. 

Apologies...nowt to do with UBI.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Dreamcasting said:

UBI sounds interesting in theory, but it's a complete non-starter.

If everyone was given £1000 per month or whatever, there is nothing to stop council tax, utilities and food from tripling from where they are today. Infact, it would be guaranteed, as UBI is inherently highly inflationary.

Nah, what we'll see is everyone's living standards plummet, apart from the wealthy. The UK today doesn't fair badly when compared with a lot of third world places, so there is a long way down yet. Eventually, lots of people will be roughing it in tents or worse, but things won't get to those levels of bad during the lifetime of anyone on this board.

How I see it.....prices and rents would rise to meet the basic income, then people will be asking for an increase in basic income.....so it goes on and on and on.

Landlords and big business would love it.....much of the ubi will be used for paying taxes, increase in VAT to pay for it....in one hand out the other.;)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Locke said:

The fact is that for money to have value, people have to be creating things or services and using that money as a medium

Fiat has no value as it is.  Bit's of plastic and computer digits that banks and governments can create at will, yet the masses have to waste their time working in non jobs for 45 years to 'earn'.....lol.

The whole system is hilarious at the moment.  Things will change, I have no doubt about that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesnt Saudi Arabia effectively have a UBI in place...ie everyone gets a house and car paid for by oil exports or something like that? That same industry in staffed for foreigners/immigrants and locals just have high ranking non-jobs.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Social Justice League said:

Fiat has no value as it is.  Bit's of plastic and computer digits that banks and governments can create at will, yet the masses have to waste their time working in non jobs for 45 years to 'earn'.....lol.

The whole system is hilarious at the moment.  Things will change, I have no doubt about that.

We need to return to some sort of hard monetary standard out of the control of politicians. It is where we will end up anyway eventually.  Will very likely be an extremely bumpy road getting there.

Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Social Justice League said:

Fiat has no value as it is.  Bit's of plastic and computer digits that banks and governments can create at will, yet the masses have to waste their time working in non jobs for 45 years to 'earn'.....lol.

The whole system is hilarious at the moment.  Things will change, I have no doubt about that.

Value doesn't even exist. Why should gold have value? How much do you pay for breathable air?

Fiat has value, because you are willing to accept it in exchange for your goods and services and other people will give you goods and services in exchange for it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, flb said:

Of course they go to food banks, why wouldn't they? It's free. Do you think they're on benefits because they mind free stuff?

Straight from the Daily mail, a learned opinion, not a fact. Only about 10%  of the unemployed think like that and many of those have mental issues.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, steve99 said:

Straight from the Daily mail, a learned opinion, not a fact. Only about 10%  of the unemployed think like that and many of those have mental issues.

I don't read that rag. I actively avoid ever clicking on any link that leads there.

It's got nothing to do with them. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 433 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.