Will a basic income grant give people a reason not to work?

[Ockie]

I think the research in other countries showed that people did not stop working. They perhaps changed jobs to something they really want to do because they have security via the UBI. Of course a lot also depends on how much money the UBI will actually give you, but I for one would not stop working.

 

[grok]

Most people just work to survive. If you have enough to survive then there’s nothing wrong with not wanting to work. If you’d like to aspire to more then you’re welcome to continue working.

There definitely is if others have to carry the burden of paying for your lazy ass to survive, while paying all their own survival expenses..

 

[konfab]

Yes.
Simple question you need to ask. If we put this program in place for 10 years, then cut it off. What will the proponents of the system say then? They will argue that people are entirely dependent on it for their daily lives.

I can ask this question of the existing welfare state in South Africa, which is already unaffordable. Lets say we get rid of free electricity, because there is no spare electricity in South Africa. What will the proponents of free electricity say about that? They will say that the people who use it are entirely dependant on it, and that getting rid of it will ruin their lives.

The only, and I mean absolutely only way you can do UBI is to privatise pretty much every function of the state other than the military and judiciary. Police, fire services, water, roads, healthcare everything, and rather hand that money over to people to spend it in the way they see fit.

 

[rietrot]

No. R350 isn't enough to be lazy on for anyone currently employed.

It doesn't help the unemployable though. It reinforces current unemployment

 

[Jet-Fighter7700]

SA isnt Denmark or a nordic country,
giving people money for Mahala is a recipe for disaster.

 

[noxibox]

If there were numerous unfilled jobs in the country then you'd have evidence of a high percentage of people choosing to live off grants instead of working. I don't think that applies to South Africa.

Welfare should come with support other than money. There is no point simply giving people money when their circumstances mean there is no chance of them ever being employable. Certainly not in a country where you have a tiny income tax base and hordes of unskilled people.

The child grant is certainly open to abuse. Undoubtedly there are people having children for the sole purpose of getting the grant. That in turn means neglected and abused children.

You have to be careful not to make your welfare system so complicated that the bureaucracy incurs huge costs.

 

[noxibox]

Yes. We live in a country with entitled lazies.

So would that make you an entitled lazy?

 

[Other Pineapple Smurf]

No

It's about addressing poverty.

As small as it is, there will be some who will stop working if the grant exceeds their take-home wages but we won't see mass amounts of people resigning to sit at home.

With the high unemployment in our country, for every unskilled person that leaves, there are many standing in queue for that vacancy.

A small shift will happen, but it will go unnoticed.

 

[3WA]

Probably more then one kid.

I always say our system is flawed. Dont give the grant per kid.
Give more for less. So if you have 1 kid you get R1000, if you have 2 kids you get R800 for both. 3 kids you get R600 for all 3 and so on.

I think by the second kid, you must start paying additional tax in to government. That'll sort out the problem quickly.

Either that or else kids raised on social grants pay a higher tax load as adults so that the system becomes sustainable long term.

 

[ShaunSA]

I can't see people leaving their jobs for this tbh

Will help out as a supplement though

 

[konfab]

And anyone thinking that it would just be R350 is deluded. They would push it up the moment they see their popularity waning.

 

[blah99]

Yes.
Simple question you need to ask. If we put this program in place for 10 years, then cut it off. What will the proponents of the system say then? They will argue that people are entirely dependent on it for their daily lives.

I can ask this question of the existing welfare state in South Africa, which is already unaffordable. Lets say we get rid of free electricity, because there is no spare electricity in South Africa. What will the proponents of free electricity say about that? They will say that the people who use it are entirely dependant on it, and that getting rid of it will ruin their lives.

The only, and I mean absolutely only way you can do UBI is to privatise pretty much every function of the state other than the military and judiciary. Police, fire services, water, roads, healthcare everything, and rather hand that money over to people to spend it in the way they see fit.

So would that make you an entitled lazy?

No I have a job and don't sponge on taxpayers.

 

[Nod]

Grants should be accompanied by some kind of training program to up-skill the person on grants.
The grant should then become less over time, unless the person can show that they are really putting in effort to up-skill, and get off grants after the training period.

 

[Sensorei]

Probably more then one kid.

I always say our system is flawed. Dont give the grant per kid.
Give more for less. So if you have 1 kid you get R1000, if you have 2 kids you get R800 for both. 3 kids you get R600 for all 3 and so on.

Incentivise them a bit. Offer free sterilisation plus an extra R400 per month and a 6pc of chicken licken.

 

[3WA]

Grants should be accompanied by some kind of training program to up-skill the person on grants.
The grant should then become less over time, unless the person can show that they are really putting in effort to up-skill, and get off grants after the training period.

Then you need trainers (government wage bill balloons). And you need authorities to vet the trainers, otherwise I will be training 5 million people a month by myself. Government doesn’t have the capacity to upskill the whole unemployable adult demographic. Doing that would basically require building an entire new education system the nearly same size as the public school system.

 

[Kosmik]

Other.

In reality No because the grant won't even cover the basic food basket.

 

[Nod]

Then you need trainers (government wage bill balloons). And you need authorities to vet the trainers, otherwise I will be training 5 million people a month by myself. Government doesn’t have the capacity to upskill the whole unemployable adult demographic. Doing that would basically require building an entire new education system the nearly same size as the public school system.

True, but we should start somewhere.
Incentives could be given to the private sector for on-the-job training / internships.
Might not be able to train every unemployable person out there, but they could at least start with a certain age range, and work from there.

 

[Randux]

People will continue to look for work if basic income is something like the covid 350. There is so little you can do with such a small amount but it does help responsible citizens.

 

[3WA]

Incentives could be given to the private sector for on-the-job training / internships.

That's pretty much the only feasible way. I know something like this has existed in the past, where a company gets a tax break for employing an intern. Expanding and optimising that programme would be a million times better than a BIG.

Still means that older people who have never worked will fall through the cracks.

 

[Barbarian Conan]

No at R300 it will not, what will happen is they will take the R300 and work piece jobs or not work, basically whatever they were doing before the grant came into effect but with R300 extra a month.

Sadly, in some cases you are wrong.

My dad's previous domestic worker's son is the case in point. He quit his job at Pep because it paid to little. Life is much better sponging on his mom's government pension.