http://www.theguardian.com/politics/...compass-report
Quote:
|
Labour is considering backing the idea of a universal basic income – a radical transformation of the welfare state that would ditch means-tested benefits in favour a flat-rate payment.
|
This would mean everyone gets a flat-rate payment from the Government in lieu of any benefits. It's popular amongst people who want to detoxify the concept of benefits as it's universal.
Personally I don't like it. I think it's a massive waste of money and would rather that money be directed at those who need it, in higher amounts, rather than giving people like me a flat-rate payment.
I mean I would take it but I wouldn't vote for it.
The only idea where this makes sense is here:
Quote:
|
A universal basic income (UBI) is regarded by some on the left as a response to the robotisation of the workforce, which it is feared could replace lower-skilled jobs and exacerbate inequality. It would be paid to everyone, whether or not they were in work.
|
For now I don't think it works but there is a theory that more and more jobs will be taken over by computers and AI in which case we would come to a real crisis point where unemployment soars to unsustainable levels. Who keeps the profits of a fully automated workforce? Does the concept of profits even make sense if all our needs can be addressed by automatisation?
Weird times.