ESRI Universal Basic Income.....Bonkers

Last edited:
T McGibney said:
Issuing a press release to publicise their recent work is hardly media manipulation.

New ESRI research examines the international evidence on universal basic income (UBI) and identifies key issues for consideration in the design of any future UBI pilot for Ireland

www.esri.ie www.esri.ie
Click to expand...


Interesting to note that The ESRI was in such a hurry to issue that press release that it omitted to include the comment from The Chairperson of the Low Pay Commission (the body that has funded the study) at the end! :p

Or maybe he was rendered speechless when he read it!
 
Itchy said:
Could you expand on that?

Some existing payments can only be received if you are habitually resident in the state.
Click to expand...
Is "cutting residency ties" in the Alaskan sense the same as "habitually resident" in the state?

Look at the mess with child benefit being paid outside the state.
 
odyssey06 said:
Is "cutting residency ties" in the Alaskan sense the same as "habitually resident" in the state?
Click to expand...
I'm not sure. I thought your point was in relation to social payments that have to be paid to EU citizens on an equivalent basis to IE citizens. However, that only seems to be relevant for 'Family benefits' and the Supplementary Welfare Payment, where you don't have to meet the HRC.

odyssey06 said:
Look at the mess with child benefit being paid outside the state.
Click to expand...

Not really au fait. It looks likes 1.2% of Child benefit expenditure was paid outside the state but is still considered low-risk scheme.

With a UBI fully taxable, it brings everyone (who qualifies at least) under the tax net, which could have benefits from administration/fraud prevention point of view.
 
Itchy said:
With a UBI fully taxable, it brings everyone (who qualifies at least) under the tax net, which could have benefits from administration/fraud prevention point of view.
Click to expand...
How would that be so? The guy selling drugs down the park at night isnt going to quit just because they're getting a UBI payment on top of their "earnings".
 
Groucho said:
Interesting to note that The ESRI was in such a hurry to issue that press release that it omitted to include the comment from The Chairperson of the Low Pay Commission (the body that has funded the study) at the end! :p

Or maybe he was rendered speechless when he read it!
Click to expand...
the low pay commission is another government organisation so basically one government funded organisation funded another government organisation to fund this study, I wondered is it costed ? how much did it cost to carry out this study?
I heard a former government minister Regina Doherty basically rubbishing the study on radio this evening and saying not a chance any of it would be implemented. It would stop people going to work and be too costly she said
The question has to be asked is there anyone doing quality control on what studies should be done, all this costs taxpayers money. If the ESRI are spending their time and resources on this they are not spending it on stuff that is relevant and realistic and could be of benefit to the government and the public
 
joe sod said:
the low pay commission is another government organisation so basically one government funded organisation funded another government organisation to fund this study, I wondered is it costed ? how much did it cost to carry out this study?
I heard a former government minister Regina Doherty basically rubbishing the study on radio this evening and saying not a chance any of it would be implemented. It would stop people going to work and be too costly she said
The question has to be asked is there anyone doing quality control on what studies should be done, all this costs taxpayers money. If the ESRI are spending their time and resources on this they are not spending it on stuff that is relevant and realistic and could be of benefit to the government and the public
Click to expand...

On the contrary, carrying out this sort of research is exactly what the ECONOMIC and SOCIAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE is for!

And if the matter isn't properly researched and costed then how can anyone conclude whether it's a feasible option or is completely off the wall?

If you don't like the idea then I suggest that you take it up with your Green TD because they were the 'brains' behind that particular review being included in the Programme for Government.
 
Last edited:
It's an insane concept. 40% tax on those that work with no tax credits to pay for this. Probably higher tax rates on higher earners.
We've just seen what happens when paying people to stay at home - a lot of them don't come back and there's labour shortages throughout the economy.

Of course the Greens support it. They want everyone sat at home and not out being productive, using transport etc. What'll be saved in Co2 emissions will be countered by an increase in methane!
The more people dependant on the State, the happier the Left are.

There'll be no savings in admin either. Do any of you really think all forms of welfare supports will disappear? There'll still be a complex system in place with an army of Civil Servants running it and Politicians looking to bypass the rules and get preferential treatment for their most persistent constituents. You only have to see the mess that Disability payments are in this country.

Workers especially high earners would flee. Immigration which is already out of control would go into overdrive. Drug and alcohol use and other social ills would increase exponentially.

Lunacy
 
@Delboy

I am no fan of UBI.

However, most proposals suggest a single income tax rate, so there would not be a higher rate also.

Yes, the labour supply might fall, this is a very good point, and as a large-scale UBI has never been implemented, this issue is very uncertain.

Yes, all other forms of welfare will disappear, AFAIK.

Migration is an issue, yes.
 
Groucho said:
On the contrary, carrying out this sort of research is exactly what the ECONOMIC and SOCIAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE is for!

And if the matter isn't properly researched and costed then how can anyone conclude whether it's a feasible option or is completely off the wall?

If you don't like the idea then I suggest that you take it up with your Green TD because they were the 'brains' behind that particular review being included in the Programme for Government.
Click to expand...

This isn't physics.

Economic & social 'science' research is not value-free factual information.

It's just opinion serving an ideological purpose.
 
It's an insane concept. 40% tax on those that work with no tax credits to pay for this.
Click to expand...

Haven’t seen the Green Party proposal but the report refers to them proposing to abolish tax credits and replace taxation with a single 40% tax rate.

The Green Party proposal shows that, following the introduction of the proposed UBI along with the abolition of tax credits and the replacement of the 20 per cent tax rate with the 40 per cent rate, a person earning €40,000 would receive the same yearly net increase in their disposable income (€150) as a person earning, for example, €275,000. Given that the average yearly earnings in Ireland in 2019 was €40,000, it is not clear that the proposed policy could be perceived as equitable and fair. This underscores the difficulties in designing, and funding, such a policy in a fair and equitable way.
Click to expand...

So in fact, their proposal results in a net increase of €150 p.a. for all higher earners. Hardly worth fleeing the country over, if accurate.

In any event, the tax system is flexible enough to accommodate such a payment to make it cost neutral at a certain income level, whatever it may be, say €60k.

For example: Remove tax credits, €2k. Charge 10% USC on it, €1.5k. Reduce the standard threshold by €15k, that’s 40% tax on it, €6k. PRSI of 5% say that it’s increased to 10% (to satisfy my maths and the lefties ), €1.5k. All in that’s €11k of it recovered back to the tax coffers, for those earning over €40k, without any structural changes to the taxation system. Add in some capital/property taxes, a bit of tinkering with USC/PRSI and remove preferential income taxation for pensioners and we’re a million miles away from €50bn. Might be worth a green paper on the economics of it!

It seems like it would be inordinately difficult to unwind the convolution of benefits and entitlements that the system is built around.
 
I wonder would the labour supply fall as has been suggested. The current welfare system is also a disincentive to work for some as they would lose a lot of benefits by taking on a job so it may not be worth it. Under the UBI as I understand it they would retain the basic income so that risk is removed.
 
Nermal said:
Economic & social 'science' research is not value-free factual information.

It's just opinion serving an ideological purpose.
Click to expand...

It could better be described as a forensic study of a(n ideological) proposal to see whether or not it's viable.

And the report isn't simply an 'opinion' - it's a factual presentation of the costs and implications of the proposal and sets out the assumptions used to arrive at its conclusions.

For me, the ESRI study provides me with a firm, analytical basis to decide whether or not to support or reject this proposal, something that I didn't have before the study was performed.

But if you prefer to get your opinions from the knee-jerkers and the pub bores then away you go. Just don't expect to be taken too seriously by anyone other than your fellow knee-jerkers and pub-bores!
 
Groucho said:
For me, the ESRI study provides me with a firm, analytical basis to decide whether or not to support or reject this proposal, something that I didn't have before the study was performed.
Click to expand...

You're assuming that the underlying assumptions and methodology used in compiling the report are both beyond reproach. That's quite a big assumption.
 
odyssey06 said:
Who is going to deliver these services?
Who will be signing up to be the delivery drivers, hairdressers, cleaners, waiters, security staff, barmen in this model?

A market where there are few workers won't work either.
Click to expand...
Automation etc will take care of part of it and the idea that no one will want to work is not correct. We are talking about a basic amount of income nothing more yes there will be some people who will be happy with that, but give people more free time and they'll need more money to spend on it. I'd expect most people will probably work 50-60% or so.
 
Jim2007 said:
Automation etc will take care of part of it and the idea that no one will want to work is not correct. We are talking about a basic amount of income nothing more yes there will be some people who will be happy with that, but give people more free time and they'll need more money to spend on it. I'd expect most people will probably work 50-60% or so.
Click to expand...
This is a strawman. I didn't say nobody would want to work.

I listed a set of jobs.

So, in the jobs I listed? In the shifts I listed? And at what wage?

As for automation, for the types of jobs I listed, I'll believe it when I see it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top