5.2 million people in Britain own more than one property.
use the creation
of ubi to start a
NOW it’s a haiku
But markets already take advantage of the vulnerable, it’s not something that would suddenly happen with UBI - pay day loans, bad debt, premium utilities prices for the lowest percentiles etc. plus loads of other well documented effects of so-called ‘class politics’
Implementation and safeguard are key of course but let’s not pretend that the principle of UBI would create these problems which are really just the problems of capitalism
Obviously this includes 3rd homes, 1000th home whatever.
Having somewhere to live should be a basic human right and it’s ridiculous that the wealth gap is allowed to increase due to this right not being available
Well this is the centre of, at least, contemporary thought on it. Firstly you have to acknowledge that UBI is always going to be incredibly expensive. Universal welfare always is (see the UK State Pension as an example). So in the first instance it is a railroading of the principle of the UK Welfare State at least of “each according to their need”.
The counter to this is that UBI makes means-tested, needs-based welfare irrelevant because it is set at a level which means that everyone can access right levels of housing/healthcare etc. regardless of need. Which of course creates administrative savings to a large degree.
Two reasons behind this.
- See @anon5266188’s post at the top. The (potential) automation apocalypse coming in the next decade or two could mean there’s no longer meaningful employment for a large swathe of the current workforce and capital gravitates to the owners of robots and AI rather than most people. UBI is seen as a possible (at least partial) remedy for this.
- As @BodyInTheThames alludes in his opening post, UBI could theoretically replace large swathes of the welfare state; No more pensions, no more unemployment benefit, no more housing benefit etc. In addition the knock on effect of people not having to work to exist is a reduction in stress, depression etc - meaning less of a burden on health and social services as well.
Whether this would work out is as yet unproven, obvs
I think you were reading a bit to much into what I was saying there.
What I’m saying is that implemented on it’s own, without fixing broken markets as well, UBI would give those markets further incentive to prey on the vulnerable even harder.
Could make it even simpler - abolish income tax completely & just put the entire tax burden on capital
One of the (rightly) critiqued elements of Universal Credit is the paying of welfare directly to individuals, who may have educational needs with regards to budgeting and dealing with money etc. It is difficult to see how these issues get weeded out of UBI, which I assume will work on at least a similar mechanism.
So someone receives their monthly UBI payment, and they immediately spend it all on, say, paying off debt accrued the previous month. What happens then?
Yeah, just wanted to make the point that there is no real capacity for markets to be more veraciousthan they are now, just with UBI it’ll be the same veracity but with more liquidity
How many buy to let properties are there in the UK?
I know working class families with two homes. They have little income, no savings. A grandparent or children live in the other home. You would destroy their livelihoods if you take that home away. It’s the only way they’ll survive in retirement.
Then there’s funds and individuals that own hundreds of properties.
The capitalist system wants you to take shots at the people next to you. The people that have a second home and are lucky enough to be able to make ends meets and afford a retirement. The people earning £60k a year etc. It deflects attention away from the people who actually hold the wealth and is counter-intuitive
Capital gains on literally everything?
I’m liking it
We’d have to get some deprecation and amoritisartion specialists on board to stop people playing the system
council tax doubles for every home you own
there we go. problem solved.
2.5 million buy to let landlords with an average of 1.8 buy to let properties each so just the 4.5 million properties
Well at some point either robots and software are going to have to pay income tax or their owners are going to have to so let’s make it straightforward
And that gets passed onto the tennant
Or fags, booze and a big screen TV. Quite.
Again, this is where I would say that it’ll only work with an interventionist government who are willing to take steps to try and address root causes. Financial literacy is something that I’d argue that Blair’s government missed in their educational reforms… you can’t force someone to spend their money “wisely” (and who defines what’s wise anyway), but we could certainly better equip people to make more rational decisions.
From a government report a few years ago:
- 89% of landlords were private individual landlords responsible for 71% of all private rented dwellings, with a further 5% of landlords being company landlords responsible for 15% of dwellings
- 78% of all landlords only owned a single dwelling for rent, with only 8% of landlords stating they were full-time landlords
What happens now?
Person just gets deeper & deeper in debt shitting themselves that the company they have a zero hours contract with hasn’t called them in three weeks and that they don’t have money for the kids’ school uniforms or dinner without taking out another loan or putting on the credit card?
I dunno, I think it’s a bit off to come at this from the angle of ‘not everyone knows about money, they’ll be spending it wrong/they aren’t deserving’ …at least not on a micro level. There may be some macro effects worth considering in this though - not least what repercussions UBI would have in the debt/finance industry