4 ms·

> Anyone receiving the "dividends" would not be able to claim any tax allowances, which the RSA says would act as a disincentive to wealthier earners wanting to

> Anyone receiving the "dividends" would not be able to claim any tax allowances, which the RSA says would act as a disincentive to wealthier earners wanting to apply for the handout. This is an obvious way to align incentives that I haven't seen before. Negative income tax (NIT) is also something that might be worth looking into: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax#Implementation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax#Implementa...

albertgoeswoof 9y ago
They'll need to also block this for people earning over £113k, as you start losing your tax free allowance at 100k and it's fully gone at 123k
- rocqua 9y ago
  Maybe they meant tax deductible expenses? That feels like it hits the rich harder than just the flat deduction.
OscarCunningham 9y ago
Does "tax allowances" just mean the tax-free Personal Allowance of £11500? No one pays £10000 of tax on £11500, so it doesn't seem like it would actually stop anyone from claiming. If the government is saying the cost will be £14.5B then they must think only 1.5M people will sign up, a tiny portion of the population. I don't quite see how they're expecting this to work.
- djaychela 9y ago
  I think they mean more that if you're already above the tax threshold then you wouldn't get £10k, you'd get £10k minus the prevailing rate of tax - so if you already earned £11500-£34500 then you'd get £8000 (£10k-20%). If you earned £34500-£150,000 then you'd get £6000(£10k-40%), and over £150k you'd get £5500(£10k-45%).
  - OscarCunningham 9y ago
    Do they really mean "We're going to make this money so tedious and bureaucratic to apply for that a middle class person wouldn't bother to do it even for £6000"?
    - napa15 9y ago
      Wow, now that is out of touch. If you think 6000 isnt enough money to do some paperwork then you're exactly the kind of person that shouldnt be allowed to have the money.
  - GordonS 9y ago
    That's hardly 'universal' then, is it? It seems this is more a way of changing how benefits are paid to low earners, rather than a real attempt at UBI. Which is a shame; 10k could still make a significant difference to someone earning, for example, £35k (not a high earner by any stretch) - starting a business, paying for childcare etc.
  - amygdyl 9y ago
    The National Audit Office must publish the model for this system, forthwith. Only then can debate begin. And political parties must be compelled to publish their proposals both normalised to the NAO model specification and atomically for the inputs and outputs of specific effects of the rules, especially of housing rules. In this way I could throw about ideas like my"basement benefit" contribution to a ring fenced home deposit scheme for all mature children living with parents whilst in work. This could be extended for those with parents over the age of fifty five, to build a capital cushion cover for care for parents, meeting with needs such as home modification and such things as mobility. Specifically I like the idea of subsidy for a station wagon or similar practical vehicle, for the adult carer if parents who are willing to give up their driving license.
  - mseebach 9y ago
    That can't be it either. Giving 65 million brits even £5,500 would cost £357b EDIT: oh, what's a million or a billion between friends?
- benashford 9y ago
  > If the government is saying the cost will be £14.5B then they must think only 1.5M people will sign up It's not a government proposal. It's not even a proposal of the opposition, or anyone who would potentially be in a position to actually enact it. The headline isn't wrong, but the prominence the BBC has given it could trick people into thinking its an official (or at least serious unofficial) proposal.

albertgoeswoof 9y ago

They'll need to also block this for people earning over £113k, as you start losing your tax free allowance at 100k and it's fully gone at 123k

rocqua 9y ago
Maybe they meant tax deductible expenses? That feels like it hits the rich harder than just the flat deduction.

OscarCunningham 9y ago

Does "tax allowances" just mean the tax-free Personal Allowance of £11500? No one pays £10000 of tax on £11500, so it doesn't seem like it would actually stop anyone from claiming. If the government is saying the cost will be £14.5B then they must think only 1.5M people will sign up, a tiny portion of the population. I don't quite see how they're expecting this to work.

djaychela 9y ago
I think they mean more that if you're already above the tax threshold then you wouldn't get £10k, you'd get £10k minus the prevailing rate of tax - so if you already earned £11500-£34500 then you'd get £8000 (£10k-20%). If you earned £34500-£150,000 then you'd get £6000(£10k-40%), and over £150k you'd get £5500(£10k-45%).
- OscarCunningham 9y ago
  Do they really mean "We're going to make this money so tedious and bureaucratic to apply for that a middle class person wouldn't bother to do it even for £6000"?
  - napa15 9y ago
    Wow, now that is out of touch. If you think 6000 isnt enough money to do some paperwork then you're exactly the kind of person that shouldnt be allowed to have the money.
- GordonS 9y ago
  That's hardly 'universal' then, is it? It seems this is more a way of changing how benefits are paid to low earners, rather than a real attempt at UBI. Which is a shame; 10k could still make a significant difference to someone earning, for example, £35k (not a high earner by any stretch) - starting a business, paying for childcare etc.
- amygdyl 9y ago
  The National Audit Office must publish the model for this system, forthwith. Only then can debate begin. And political parties must be compelled to publish their proposals both normalised to the NAO model specification and atomically for the inputs and outputs of specific effects of the rules, especially of housing rules. In this way I could throw about ideas like my"basement benefit" contribution to a ring fenced home deposit scheme for all mature children living with parents whilst in work. This could be extended for those with parents over the age of fifty five, to build a capital cushion cover for care for parents, meeting with needs such as home modification and such things as mobility. Specifically I like the idea of subsidy for a station wagon or similar practical vehicle, for the adult carer if parents who are willing to give up their driving license.
- mseebach 9y ago
  That can't be it either. Giving 65 million brits even £5,500 would cost £357b EDIT: oh, what's a million or a billion between friends?
benashford 9y ago
> If the government is saying the cost will be £14.5B then they must think only 1.5M people will sign up It's not a government proposal. It's not even a proposal of the opposition, or anyone who would potentially be in a position to actually enact it. The headline isn't wrong, but the prominence the BBC has given it could trick people into thinking its an official (or at least serious unofficial) proposal.