Back

@ChrisMayLA6
I have no doubt there are some people getting benefits who shouldn't.
They are few and I never lose sleep over it.

What is important is that 100% of people who do need benefits receive them.

@leighms @ChrisMayLA6

Universal Basic Income for all.

Cheap and efficient to implement and it ensures that the safety net really works.

Any excess income (whether via earning or investments) would be repaid via taxation.

Unless I’m missing something, this would be fair, humane, and efficient and it would reduce the risks of harm through the pressures on mental health and malnutrition which would also save on the UK’s NHS.

Simples

@TCMuffin @leighms

I'm not saying I completely endorse this position, but: there might be an issue about incentives to work, innovate or take on less appealing tasks.... not to say this is an insurmountable problem, but neither would it be neligible

@ChrisMayLA6 @TCMuffin
I have been very lucky in my working life to mostly have had jobs that I have enjoyed and been interested in.
This is not the case for most people.

There have been times when I have done rubbish jobs purely for the money. There were people in those workplaces who had been there many years.

Back then the hot topic was automation taking over people's jobs. Increasing automation driven by AI replacing more unskilled roles; warehouse, delivery, self-,checkout and many more are going to limit the opportunities for unskilled folk. Even more skilled sectors are being replaced by AI.

Maybe the idea of this basic universal benefit could be revisited.

A brutalist approach might be that there needs to be a driver to push the population trend downward. With fewer people able to find employment there is going to be less tax income to support benefits.

Perhaps we are at or close to this point.

@leighms @TCMuffin

Have you read Kurt Vonnegut's Player Piano... you might find it of some interest

@ChrisMayLA6 @TCMuffin
TBH haven't read any of his.
Will add it to my reading list