Sobers appears to think that he can win an argument by repeating things which are not just untrue, but he knows to be untrue, from the comments here:
1) There's a difference between working because you want to (and enjoy it) and because you have to pay the bills. I don't have to work, but I do. But equally I know I don't have to so there is never the stress of having to. Its entirely different. Give people who currently have to work the chance not to, even for a slight pay cut, and many will grab it.
Duh.
We are not talking about a "slight pay cut", we are talking about the loss of your entire net earnings, as you would keep the UBI either way.
With the current welfare system, the difference in net income between a low/median paid job and a full-on maximum benefit claim (if you can wangle it) is negligible.
So a UBI would be a lot less of a disincentive to work than the current system. By some twisted logic, he is claiming exactly the opposite.
A sensible UBI would be somewhere between £70 - £120 a week, similar to current benefit levels (depends on what you do with Housing Benefit). I think just about everybody would prefer more than that.
2) They are usually working in the black economy while claiming benefit, so such work is untaxed and unofficial, so not necessarily relevant to a UBI argument. Would such people take official taxed employment if they received a UBI instead of illegally claiming benefits? Maybe, maybe not. Particularly not if the marginal tax rates were higher - the incentive to continue in the black economy would be greater than today.
Kick off with a crass generalisation, which is not true.
How and whether we can collect tax from people currently working cash in hand is a quite separate topic and not relevant to the debate.
Having looked at the numbers in depth, like everybody else interested in the debate, Sobers knows perfectly well that there would be no overall increase to marginal tax rates, so I don't even know why he says that.
And clearly, with a UBI and no means-testing, the total marginal withdrawal rate would fall from 80% - 90% at present to nothing more than the basic rate of tax plus NIC (call it 32%).
Which in itself, is less of an incentive to work cash in hand.
3) While it's possible, it's not very nice, and would involve giving the State a massive control over your life.
Total and utter crap. Most parents receive Child Benefit, nearly all pensioners get a state pension, cash in the bank every month, job done.
If on the other hand you could stay exactly where you were living, and have a UBI drop into your account each month with no strings attached and no hassle of dealing with the benefit system (which is a job in itself at times), then the work/not work calculation is far easier, it comes down purely to £££ vs leisure time etc, than a complete life upheaval (which going onto the current benefits system would entail).
Somebody on welfare, whether that's £71.30 p/w Income Support or £71.30 p/w UBI has plenty of "leisure time" and is pretty much struggling at the margins. Most of them would prefer to have paid work.
4) So? My argument is that if you set a UBI too high many people will choose to live on it and stop paying any taxes, thus meaning those who do must pay higher taxes to compensate, and so on in a downward spiral.
That appears to be his Killer Argument. "If you set it too high", FFS. Nobody has ever suggested anything other than set it at a sensible/affordable amount i.e. in the range £70 - £120 p/w.
5) Again so? If loads of people stop paid work, live on their UBI and do voluntary work, the tax take again drops, and taxes have to go up on those still working, as above.
IF IF IF IF
The current welfare system discourages work (paid or otherwise). A UBI is neutral about it. Ergo, with UBI more people would be in work (paid or otherwise).
My argument has nothing to do with puritan ideals, I'm not arguing that people should work for the good of their souls, I'm arguing that a UBI set too high will necessarily destroy itself. Its an entirely practical, not moral argument.
Again the "too high" mantra. This is the third time he has trotted this out.
This is a futile argument, you might as well argue against having a minimum voting age on the basis that if you set it "too high", only a few old age pensioners will be allowed to vote and if you set it "too low" then parents of young children will effectively get extra votes. Or against speed limits, on the basis that if set "too high" they will have no effect or set "too low" the country will grind to a halt.
Debate Magazine
