Hello.

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

By all these lovely tokens
September days are here,
With summer’s best of weather
And autumn’s best of cheer.

Helen Hunt Jackson - September
The breezes taste
Of apple peel.
The air is full
Of smells to feel-
Ripe fruit, old footballs,
Burning brush,
New books, erasers,
Chalk, and such.
The bee, his hive,
Well-honeyed hum,
And Mother cuts
Chrysanthemums.
Like plates washed clean
With suds, the days
Are polished with
A morning haze.

John Updike, September
Learn English in September

Do you think Universal Income is a good idea?

TeachTeach Your TeacherHomePosts: 10,482 mod
edited March 2019 in English Lessons
Watch this video before making up your mind, and give a reason (one or two sentences) for your choice.

Post edited by Teach on

Do you think Universal Income is a good idea? 15 votes

Yes, because ...
46%
mheredgeZomArturVokwalterjuancarlos_lopezAlexa 7 votes
No, because ...
33%
Practical_SeverardAlexsandroneminute94Rob_Negreteyoussefabi1990 5 votes
I don't know, because ...
20%
HermineXanthippeNour 3 votes
«13456789

Comments

  • VokVok Posts: 2,143 ✭✭✭✭
    Yes, because ...
    I'm having difficulties in joining the dots between the question and video. Are you sure this is the right video @Teach ?
  • XanthippeXanthippe Posts: 2,090 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I don't know, because ...
    Yeah, this is the video "Easily manage your team tasks" :(
  • mheredgemheredge Posts: 44,838 ✭✭✭✭
    Yes, because ...
    @Vok I have to say I'm as confused as you are. I thought universal income would mean something very different from time or project management systems!
  • TeachTeach Your Teacher HomePosts: 10,482 mod
    Curses! YouTube downloaded the advert from before the video played. I will fix it.
  • TeachTeach Your Teacher HomePosts: 10,482 mod
    @Vok @Xanthippe @mheredge - I have found the right video. I had no idea that YouTube did that. Sorry. :o
  • mheredgemheredge Posts: 44,838 ✭✭✭✭
    Yes, because ...
    I actually do think it is a good idea. It is not a large amount of money, for the unemployed or low income earners that qualify for all sorts of government funding, it certainly would make the process much simpler. I think the idea in Scotland was that the cost of running the system would be met to a large extent by savings in streamlining the old system.

    It is such a limited amount, that the majority of people would not want to live off this along, so would carry on in their jobs. For them, it might seem more like a tax break, perhaps or perhaps the government could include it as taxable income for all those who have other income and get some of it back from those who don't need it so much.

    However, dream on! Finland was to have tried it out for two years but money problems meant they abandoned it after the first year.

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/shortcuts/2018/apr/24/finland-given-up-on-the-basic-income-dream

    I don't know what became of the Scottish pilot study around the same time.

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/dec/25/scotland-universal-basic-income-councils-pilot-scheme
  • VokVok Posts: 2,143 ✭✭✭✭
    edited March 2019
    Yes, because ...
    I think it's a good idea because people will become freer. They'll be able to choose a job they like rather than a job as a means to an end. However, I believe that the basic income should be allowed to be spent only on food, clothes and bills. No one should be able to withdraw money and use them as cash.
    Post edited by Vok on
  • ArturArtur Posts: 7
    Yes, because ...
    I agree with Vok, but a lot depends on the individual. Some people will use Universal Income to develop themselves and benefit others. Others will just sit back. Probably, the Universal Income should be given at intervals in time, for example, in a year.
  • walterwalter Posts: 693 ✭✭✭
    Yes, because ...
    I think that is great idea but for some time. At that way you can really help people to live a better life. But also I can to add that government must to create some programs for that people. At other words that money must to using first to meet basics needs, and then for advancement people skills for finding a job, develop personally skills and something like that. Also the period of using this money must be limited, for example 5 or 10 years I don`t know. Also I think that different people should to get a different amount of money. For example if someone have more children, if someone don`t have a own house and something like this. I am for that idea but only if people spend that money for some purpose.
  • Practical_SeverardPractical_Severard Posts: 2,811 ✭✭✭✭
    No, because ...
    I think UBI to be a bad idea because I believe that any individual of a community has obligations towards the community. Having a job or a business is fulfilling the obligations, and the associated income is the reward from the society. I’d support public works rather than the UBI or unemployment benefits. I don’t think that AI could change this, since human needs can grow however big. We wouldn’t be satisfied with what was considered enough in Middle Ages or antiquity, and the future generations won’t be with what we have today. There going to be a lot of jobs, folks!

    Also:
    a) I believe in people, in particular that most of them are able to win their bread and shelter
    b) before we distribute money we have to have earned them.

    I can also remember the account of a Russian emigrant to the US: "I came there being able to say in English only: 'my name is …' I did dishwashing for living at times and but now I’ve grown up to a leading engineering position, which is well-paid… So I have zero respect to a native English speaking youth who is whining about the unemployment from his parents' basement."

  • AlexsandrAlexsandr Posts: 63 ✭✭
    No, because ...
    I think it is a bad Idea because it could slow down the economy of the USA and as I know, every month the government of the USA will have to pay 327 million dollars to their citizens. It is a very difficult issue. Better, to create workplaces for the people and use this money.
  • mheredgemheredge Posts: 44,838 ✭✭✭✭
    Yes, because ...
    I totally agree with your view about drop-outs who scrounge off the state and some measures would be needed to ensure that they don't take advantage of the system without finding a way to make a living @Practical_Severard. I think @walter has a good point suggesting that there should be a time limit. Also I think proof of showing willing in trying to find work or training is necessary too.

    I am especially concerned about homeless people who in many cases are in dire straits due to no real fault of their own. Once with no address, in most places it then becomes impossible to get a job.
  • GemmaRowlandsGemmaRowlands Moderator Posts: 10,331 mod
    I think it sounds like a good idea in theory, however after some trialling of it in the UK I can say for sure that it is more complicated than you might think, and lots of people have been struggling with it.
  • mheredgemheredge Posts: 44,838 ✭✭✭✭
    Yes, because ...
    I think many people are going to think that it will encourage laziness @GemmaRowlands. The problem is that the unemployed who don't want to work are still receiving money though various benefits, so I don't think it would make much difference to these people. But it certainly would simplify things and would help those that need help, like the homeless or low income earner in the poverty trap that sometimes can make it hardly worth working.
  • Shishio13Shishio13 Posts: 172 ✭✭✭
    It would be interesting to see how UBI works in African or Latin-American countries where so many people are not able to cover basic needs like food or shelter. I think that UBI would help to reduce criminality and it would improve quality for poor people but it's difficult to implement it due to many of these countries have governments and politicians in extreme corrupt.
  • Practical_SeverardPractical_Severard Posts: 2,811 ✭✭✭✭
    edited March 2019
    No, because ...
    mheredge said:

    I totally agree with your view about drop-outs who scrounge off the state and some measures would be needed to ensure that they don't take advantage of the system without finding a way to make a living @Practical_Severard. I think @walter has a good point suggesting that there should be a time limit. Also I think proof of showing willing in trying to find work or training is necessary too.

    I am especially concerned about homeless people who in many cases are in dire straits due to no real fault of their own. Once with no address, in most places it then becomes impossible to get a job.

    AFAIK about the American situation, they have hereditary spongers in the cities, as well as in some states the number of jobs offered is bigger than the number of the welfare receivers. Probably, the UK is no different in this. Therefore I believe that apart from a very brief period (up to three months) the principal measure of support should be public works. It would help to cut the costs and might provide funds for sheltering in converted army barracks or something like that. This would improve the tenants' chance for finding an official job by giving them an official address. But, I must say, that an unofficial job is still an option in a dire situation and, I believe, that even in the UK it can be found (delivering pizza, working on sink in McDonalds or moving heavy objects at a construction site or working for a farmer). I don't advocate for this, but for an individual in such situation it's a chance to save sum money and to try a better chance.

    Here most homeless people are alcoholics/drug users who have morally degraded to the condition where addiction is stronger than their will, common sense and responsibility. Though I have been told that in the USA some people become homeless shortly after they have lost their jobs, while other homeless people do have one, but still spend nights under a bridge since they don't make enough to pay a rent. But homeless people are rare in the agricultural states.


  • Practical_SeverardPractical_Severard Posts: 2,811 ✭✭✭✭
    edited March 2019
    No, because ...
    Some ten years ago so-called 'antisocial' posters were popular on this part of the Internet. They were styled like the Russian Civil War Soviet "bourgeoisie vs the working class" propaganda posters, but the characters had changed their luck.
    Here's one of them:

    The words read:
    Bums lie around in the mud
    Don’t play about with your life.

    Post edited by Practical_Severard on
  • Practical_SeverardPractical_Severard Posts: 2,811 ✭✭✭✭
    edited March 2019
    No, because ...
    Shishio13 said:

    It would be interesting to see how UBI works in African or Latin-American countries where so many people are not able to cover basic needs like food or shelter. I think that UBI would help to reduce criminality and it would improve quality for poor people but it's difficult to implement it due to many of these countries have governments and politicians in extreme corrupt.

    Methinks these countries just aren't wealthy enough to afford anything like that. Venezuela tried though, and it hasn't succeeded.
  • GemmaRowlandsGemmaRowlands Moderator Posts: 10,331 mod
    mheredge said:

    I think many people are going to think that it will encourage laziness @GemmaRowlands. The problem is that the unemployed who don't want to work are still receiving money though various benefits, so I don't think it would make much difference to these people. But it certainly would simplify things and would help those that need help, like the homeless or low income earner in the poverty trap that sometimes can make it hardly worth working.

    I think everyone should feel as though it is worth working, or as you say it does just encourage people to be lazy.
  • mheredgemheredge Posts: 44,838 ✭✭✭✭
    Yes, because ...
    I would have thought that the black economy would be a way homeless people could get some work too @Practical_Severard but it seems that it is not so simple. And working in many places, you need to keep up appearances which can be tough if you are living out on the street.

    It would be good if Britain had disused barracks or similar, but I don't think there are many such buildings that could be used in this way. I admire Macron for making it a condition now for all new housing projects in France to include a certain percentage of 'social' housing to make it more affordable for people on very low incomes.

    I think that there are many genuine hardship cases who unfortunately get tarred with the same brush as the scroungers and layabouts who don't want to work.
  • GemmaRowlandsGemmaRowlands Moderator Posts: 10,331 mod
    mheredge said:

    I would have thought that the black economy would be a way homeless people could get some work too @Practical_Severard but it seems that it is not so simple. And working in many places, you need to keep up appearances which can be tough if you are living out on the street.

    It would be good if Britain had disused barracks or similar, but I don't think there are many such buildings that could be used in this way. I admire Macron for making it a condition now for all new housing projects in France to include a certain percentage of 'social' housing to make it more affordable for people on very low incomes.

    I think that there are many genuine hardship cases who unfortunately get tarred with the same brush as the scroungers and layabouts who don't want to work.

    The problem is exactly what you say at the bottom - being able to distinguish between those who won't work, and those who can't.
  • mheredgemheredge Posts: 44,838 ✭✭✭✭
    Yes, because ...
    I don't think it would be impossible to tell the genuine from the fraudster @GemmaRowlands, but then again after watching Ken Loach's 'I Daniel Blake' maybe not.
  • Practical_SeverardPractical_Severard Posts: 2,811 ✭✭✭✭
    No, because ...
    mheredge said:

    I would have thought that the black economy would be a way homeless people could get some work too @Practical_Severard but it seems that it is not so simple. And working in many places, you need to keep up appearances which can be tough if you are living out on the street.

    I'm not saying this is easy but the public concerned ought to exert themselves a bit to get out of this situation.
    mheredge said:


    I think that there are many genuine hardship cases who unfortunately get tarred with the same brush as the scroungers and layabouts who don't want to work.

    This is a part of the price to pay.

    I really think that public works is a better option, it might be something alike to the ones in the 30es' USA. A constuction project can provide temporary accomodation and sanitation facilities, the economic effect could pay back a good part of the expenses, and the people working there would be regarded better. They could even save something for a fresh start.

  • mheredgemheredge Posts: 44,838 ✭✭✭✭
    Yes, because ...
    Interestingly, the news mentioned that the UK is experiencing its lowest unemployment in years @Practical_Severard. It was recorded at 4% (November 2018) but looks set to increase to 5% soon, probably due to some of the job losses from companies moving out of the UK due to Brexit and a slow down in the economy.

    Ironically only yesterday The Guardian was able to report of a 44 year low despite Brexit. However "Observers said companies were likely to have hired workers to meet demand, instead of investing in productivity-boosting technology – paving the way for weaker growth in future."

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/mar/19/uk-unemployment-falls-brexit-jobless-rate
  • Practical_SeverardPractical_Severard Posts: 2,811 ✭✭✭✭
    No, because ...
    mheredge said:


    Ironically only yesterday The Guardian was able to report of a 44 year low despite Brexit. However "Observers said companies were likely to have hired workers to meet demand, instead of investing in productivity-boosting technology – paving the way for weaker growth in future."

    Well, at least some people have benefited from Brexit, even if it's for a short term. But chances are they'll have these jobs for longer. And, indeed, 4% unemployment is pretty low for a modern first world economy.
    Here we have 4.8%m but there is such thing as a black labour market.

  • mheredgemheredge Posts: 44,838 ✭✭✭✭
    Yes, because ...
    When you break it down by region, you can see it's just over 2% in London but over 5% in the north-east @Practical_Severard.

    However low jobless figures hide the grim truth about the British economy.

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/mar/03/record-job-figures-hide-true-story-of-uk-economy

    https://www.statista.com/statistics/297167/unemployment-rate-in-great-britain-by-region/
  • GemmaRowlandsGemmaRowlands Moderator Posts: 10,331 mod
    mheredge said:

    I don't think it would be impossible to tell the genuine from the fraudster @GemmaRowlands, but then again after watching Ken Loach's 'I Daniel Blake' maybe not.

    I shouldn't really say this, but I know of two people (a married couple) who have managed to fake illnesses to claim benefit money. I think if you're determined to commit fraud, people can find a way, unfortunately.
  • mheredgemheredge Posts: 44,838 ✭✭✭✭
    Yes, because ...
    But surely they must have managed to deceive the doctor too @GemmaRowlands?
  • Practical_SeverardPractical_Severard Posts: 2,811 ✭✭✭✭
    edited March 2019
    No, because ...
    mheredge said:
    This article isn't very objective because:
    Agency, self-employment etc, are a common world trend in the developed countries;
    Women aren't 'forced' to work longer for retirement, that's a reality they've created themselves having not beared enough children to take over their workplaces. Men are no less guilty of this, of course. Everything has the dark side, the careless childless/few children life is no exclusion;
    There are a lot of other issues in the article which aren't relevant.
    On the other hand, if Mrs May is making a fuss just of the number of jobs rather than the unemployment rate than she's misleading public and the author is right to blame her.
Sign In or Register to comment.