People wearing protective masks to help curb the spread of the coronavirus take usually crowded escalators at a shopping arcade in Tokyo on Saturday. Photo: AP/Eugene Hoshiko
business

Universal basic income proposal by Suga adviser may be hard sell in Japan

148 Comments
By Satoshi Iizuka

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© KYODO

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

148 Comments
Login to comment

This has been needed ever since the private sector adopted its wage-suppression model a few years back, wherein record-high corporate profits vastly outpaced wage growth and has come to rely heavily on non-regular workers who get no benefits. Income and corporate performance have become uncoupled as a result, so the govt needs to step in.

 70,000 yen be paid every month to each citizen.

The money should go to residents, ie, those who legally work here and pay taxes, not based on what kind of passport one holds.

27 ( +42 / -15 )

The insanity of ideas like universal basic income is truly breathtaking - even without the pandemic induced global recession. Nothing good can possibly come from disincentivizing work. As a general rule of thumb- if you don’t work you don’t eat.

Hair-brained ideas like this further shifts the labor burden onto fewer and fewer people leading to a shrinking tax base, resentment, and related social maladies. Enough people are perfectly willing to exist on subsistence levels of income to destroy growth ensuring a permanently declining standard of living. It’s happening already in Japan because of widespread social welfare policies, a large national debt and an aging society. This idea will help to greatly shrink the middle class. It’s stupid. Don’t do it.

-25 ( +25 / -50 )

WolfpackToday  06:54 am JST

The insanity of ideas like universal basic income is truly breathtaking - even without the pandemic induced global recession. Nothing good can possibly come from disincentivizing work. As a general rule of thumb- if you don’t work you don’t eat.

Hair-brained ideas like this further shifts the labor burden onto fewer and fewer people leading to a shrinking tax base, resentment, and related social maladies. Enough people are perfectly willing to exist on subsistence levels of income to destroy growth ensuring a permanently declining standard of living. It’s happening already in Japan because of widespread social welfare policies, a large national debt and an aging society. This idea will help to greatly shrink the middle class. It’s stupid. Don’t do it.

Are you sure that being given a UBI will cause you to not work? Perhaps that is your personal projection since the evidence (from places where UBI has been trialled) shows that people want to work and contribute period.

22 ( +38 / -16 )

I don't yet have a solid position over UBI. Further inquiry and discussions in media and public levels should be encouraged. A pilot study is also necessary prior to full implementation.

One thing I'm sure is that there is no free lunch. UBI is usually aimed and introduced at expense of other welfare programs. Regardless of UBI proposals, many of Japan's current programs namely its pension scheme is almost collapsing, need soon to be overhauled.

19 ( +22 / -3 )

Show me the money!

-1 ( +8 / -9 )

A professor emeritus at Keio University and the chairman of staffing services firm Pasona Group Inc, Takenaka expressed the hope that the system would be launched "in four or five years," 

There won’t be a chance of it happening then.

12 ( +15 / -3 )

Are you sure that being given a UBI will cause you to not work? Perhaps that is your personal projection since the evidence (from places where UBI has been trialled) shows that people want to work and contribute period.

It's projection. Those of us who aren't lazy know that we wouldn't be satisfied with UBI, and would be motivated to work out of wanting to be more productive and live a richer life.

Lazy people think that everyone would be lazy.

23 ( +34 / -11 )

Wealthy people do not need welfare in the form of a universal income. Save this type of welfare for those on low incomes, especially single parent families.

14 ( +21 / -7 )

If both hard working successful people get this alongside people who make bad choices in life or who have no desire to work hard then perhaps it's not a terrible idea.

However as a previous poster mentioned, de incentivising hard work, self control, bettering oneself, innovation and the drive for success would lead to negative results and be detrimental to Japanese business. So I think it's an unworkable idea.

-6 ( +9 / -15 )

Universal?

Why universal?

The guy down the street with the Ferrari and million dollar house gets it too?

Ridiculous.

Only people who need it should get it.

0 ( +19 / -19 )

@burning bush.

That guy down the street with the ferrari is paying the lions share of the tax that this money is coming from.

8 ( +22 / -14 )

That guy down the street with the ferrari is paying the lions share of the tax that this money is coming from.

So, he doesn't need it.

His share should be distributed further to the needy.

Rich people should NOT be getting this.

6 ( +20 / -14 )

That guy down the street with the ferrari is paying the lions share of the tax that this money is coming from.

Is he really ? He may have a very good accountant

8 ( +16 / -8 )

Are you sure that being given a UBI will cause you to not work? Perhaps that is your personal projection since the evidence (from places where UBI has been trialled) shows that people want to work and contribute period.

Yes - I am sure. If I was given a check every month when I was young I never would have been forced to learn a strong work ethic. There are studies showing that disincentives for work lead to less work. There are many instances in which people who are given something, soon lose it do to their inability to put out the effort to keep it.

The problem with public policy studies these days is that there is no such thing as an objective study. All are either sponsored by, or conducted by, those with a stake in the studies outcomes. Even universities, being so captured by the Leftist echo-chamber are usually ideologically unable to publish a study against the prevailing politically correct result. Those that do risk being shamed, protested against, or in some cases, ousted from their position all together.

-12 ( +8 / -20 )

One advantage for UBI is its simplicity and high transparency. It can cut large red-tapes.

Many of Japan's systems have already become very complicated and unreasonable over time, away from the original intent. They give rise to the cleavage between haves and have-nots, depending on how much you know about systems' loopholes. Excessive complexity serves for interest groups and agencies, not for wider public. An UBI can be solution to the obsolete system complexity though it could also impose a threat to some groups of people.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

It's projection. Those of us who aren't lazy know that we wouldn't be satisfied with UBI, and would be motivated to work out of wanting to be more productive and live a richer life.

I am not projecting. I have worked all of my adult life and before. That should be the norm but it isn’t. There are a shocking number of able bodied people who are satisfied with a subsistence lifestyle. You likely know or even have someone like that in your own family. Work ethic is cultural and learned. Many find excuses for not working. Universal basic income would be one such excuse.

-10 ( +8 / -18 )

Is he really ? He may have a very good accountant

I don’t know the stats for Japan but in the US close to 50% of working age adults don’t pay any Federal taxes. Zero. A dumb way to run a social safety net and it’s failing spectacularly as proven by the size of the national debt.

-4 ( +8 / -12 )

Rich people should NOT be getting this.

Then it would not be a universal benefit. It would be a welfare program.

3 ( +10 / -7 )

@wolfpack

my point exactly - I’m sure the % amongst the wealthy would be higher

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

Give it to the wealthy too. The higher taxes they pay will more than balance out the amount they receive. It's not universal if it's not universal.

4 ( +10 / -6 )

My son is doing a masters in business. During one of the classes a question was should people get paid according to how much money they need. He asked me about it after because he said, besides him, only 3 other students said no. He was wondering if he was on the wrong track.

He is on the right track.

1 ( +8 / -7 )

Give it to the wealthy too.

Why give it to the rich at the expense of the poor?

Why give a millionaire an extra 70,000 yen each month while single mothers struggle to put food on the table.

If there's money to dish out, give it to the poor, not to the rich.

1 ( +11 / -10 )

There are a shocking number of able bodied people who are satisfied with a subsistence lifestyle.

Rhetoric. Not based in reality.

You likely know or even have someone like that in your own family.

The right knows only how to motivate through fear.

0 ( +13 / -13 )

This would be fantastic for Japan. End poverty and poverty wages, encourage entrepreneurship. Its own data experiments with UBI have all been successful. Would reduce healthcare costs as well, divorces, and suicides.

The problem isn't the math but the political will. It just establishes a floor not a ceiling.

-3 ( +8 / -11 )

Yes that guy, the one who probably pays more tax in a year than most people earn.

The guy down the street with the Ferrari and million dollar house gets it too?

8 ( +11 / -3 )

yeah make it universal, it's income so can be clawed back if making more than a certain amount. That way there's no worry about having a bad year if previous income was high. That way the UBI floor protects everyone

As COVID propels automation, UBI is being discussed around the world. It's coming.

-1 ( +7 / -8 )

All the those who argue against a UBI repeating there is no "free lunch" are silent when it comes to QE-quantitative easing- and financial bailouts like in 2008 and now which are a socialized safety net for corporations that has cost all taxpayers ,including the less fortunate, trillions.

This regressive taxation, including corporate welfare like GoTo, can be made progressive by a form of UBI.

In some proposals this can also be paid for by a form of value added tax on tech corporations that are currently paying very little, such as Amazon.

0 ( +6 / -6 )

How much does one actually need and how much is rich?

0 ( +3 / -3 )

It won't happen, there isn't the imagination, but I think this is a good idea.

I would start with parents of under threes. It would make more sense to pay parents to look after children than pay much more in subsidies for a facility to look after them. The incentive should not be to leave a baby with someone else.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

For the uninformed, UBI is like playing monopoly. You pass Go you collect $200 (UBI). Paid for by the economy of the nation. Everyone else bought properties and enriched themselves. How did you play? To spend, to upgrade, to establish yourself.

Naysayers would have us believe that everyone will just pay rent and go around in circles doing nothing else. Which of course is ridiculous. I suppose they never played so have no idea what they're talking about

-2 ( +5 / -7 )

The tired arguements against "leftism and socialism" show ignorance about the terms. Currently we have lavishly funded socialist safety nets mitigating risk for corporations, banks and the wealthiest and naked capitalism for those less fortunate that says "if you don"t work , you don"t eat". Populations are tired of having the meager rewards for their labor taxed to cover for the bad choices and risk taking of bloated financial institutions.

4 ( +10 / -6 )

Every dollar (or yen) given to the rich is one less to give to a person who actually needs it.

I can't understand why people don't want to prioritize needy people.

3 ( +13 / -10 )

This idea that welfare just causes people to not work is true for a very small minority. It is absolutely demeaning to be on welfare and feel like there is no way out. The truth is that most people don’t want to be there. The reason some people don’t want a UBI is because when everybody is treated the same it removes something they think they have over those who are less fortunate.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

Why give it to the rich at the expense of the poor?

It's given at the expense of the rich not the poor.

1 ( +10 / -9 )

Every dollar (or yen) given to the rich is one less to give to a person who actually needs it.

I can't understand why people don't want to prioritize needy people.

The rich have already received trillions in socialized corporate welfare and the needy much, much less. Time to even it out.

-2 ( +5 / -7 )

Every dollar (or yen) given to the rich is one less to give to a person who actually needs it.

No it isn't.

2 ( +9 / -7 )

At the very least it should be voluntary. If you don't feel you need it, you should be able to tick a box to refuse it and have it given to another person who needs it more instead.

3 ( +8 / -5 )

Under Eisenhower in the US there was a 90 percent maximum tax rate and unprecedented growth.

Now Warren Buffett has to come out asking why his secretary pays a higher tax rate than he does.

https://money.cnn.com/2013/03/04/news/economy/buffett-secretary-taxes/index.html

Making a more fair, progressive taxation scheme could go far to providing a UBI.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Basic income, first introduced by Milton Friedman and his disciples in the neoclassical school of economics, is a globalist idea designed to help achieve a “small government” so that big businesses can maximize their profits while minimizing social security costs. No wonder people like Takenaka are trying to sell the idea.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

A program that pays 70,000 yen a month would cost the government more than 100 trillion yen annually, accounting for more than 80 percent of social security costs, such as welfare and public pension benefits, totaling about 121 trillion yen in fiscal 2018, according to the latest available government data.

Tax will increase again for this program.

7 ( +7 / -0 )

The reason some people don’t want a UBI is because when everybody is treated the same it removes something they think they have over those who are less fortunate.

The good old classic: “I’m better than you”. Which is why the world is such a mess.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

The 1% and 0.1% already massively benefit from society the way it is. It would be wrong to think UBI would be the first time they would be getting something from the taxpayer.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

@burning. Right on. I desperately need it, but my partner is OK. We manage our finances separately, so out of embarrassment I can’t meet their friends in cafes as just one coffee costs ¥450.

0 ( +5 / -5 )

I heard somewhere that Japan's recipients of "seikatsu hogo" welfare money are 20 to 30% of those entitled. They do not go to offices ashamed of becoming on welfare. Newspapers occasionally report about people who died of hunger without receiving welfare.

7 ( +8 / -1 )

The good old classic: “I’m better than you”. Which is why the world is such a mess.

Yep.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

There's a lot of people in Japan living close to poverty, from kids to elders. A basic rent would definitely help them to eat and get warm in winter. It should be basic human compassion, if anything.

Sure, there would be people that would run with that check to their local pachinko. Maybe some control measures would be in order. Like giving supermarket money, or bills payments, instead of just cash.

The "I work so I eat" mentality is a fallacy, and the most privileged are usually the most vocal about it.

I am not projecting. I have worked all of my adult life and before. That should be the norm but it isn’t. There are a shocking number of able bodied people who are satisfied with a subsistence lifestyle. Work ethic is cultural and learned. Many find excuses for not working. Universal basic income would be one such excuse. 

Just because you were taught to work hard doesn't mean that everyone can/want to do it. Do you stand a higher moral ground because of your work habits? It's quite selfish, similar to what old guys at companies in Japan want to transfer to the next generations, as in "I didn't have any holidays so you should not have them", or "I worked 100 hours a week so you must also do it"

1 ( +5 / -4 )

"universal income is great... but shouldnt include the rich."

Such a great stance.

If it ever became a thing, it would spell the end of employee insurance and pension benefits, salaries will hit rock bottom, and inflation will run riot.

From a Jgov perspective it makes complete sense. Companies dont want to pay benefits, the pension system is unsustainable, and universal income is the only way to make sure people have any money to keep up consumption.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Basic income, first introduced by Milton Friedman and his disciples in the neoclassical school of economics, is a globalist idea designed to help achieve a “small government” so that big businesses can maximize their profits while minimizing social security costs. No wonder people like Takenaka are trying to sell the idea.

You have a good point here. However, as proponents of UBI such as UK economist Guy Standing and Andrew Yang point out, UBI is a stop gap measure to stem unnecessary human suffering, like most good social welfare programs, and would be a bridge to a fairer and juster society by promoting opportunities and innovation.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

I can't understand why people don't want to prioritize needy people.

Ask your fellow conservatives given they are the ones who constantly put their boots on the necks of the needy whilst proclaiming to be moral authorities of the christian variety.

6 ( +11 / -5 )

Wow, I like it, but in my opinion it would cause huge labour shortage as people wouldn't want to do certain jobs. Why should they work in farming or factory if it's physically demanding. Everyone would start to look for easy jobs if not they would just survive with universal income.

That means either higher immigration or higher prices so the producers can pay better wages.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

At the very least it should be voluntary. If you don't feel you need it, you should be able to tick a box to refuse it and have it given to another person who needs it more instead.

People already have the ability to give money to whatever cause they feel is right. If they don’t want the money then I agree they should be able to refuse it, but there doesn’t need to be the extra administrative step of having it given to someone else.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

The money should go to residents, ie, those who legally work here and pay taxes, not based on what kind of passport one holds.

Uhm, dont know if you know this, but the government already does!

4 ( +4 / -0 )

When I was a child, we wondered what would happen in the future, what would happen when there were robots to do the work for us, what benefits computerisation would bring.

Now we can consider what has happened. Do people have any easier life, do they work less, or do they have a harder life and work longer hours?

It seems it is becoming harder to survive for many. Does your country have more homeless now than it did when you were a child? Were there homeless children, as there are now in so many so-called advanced countries, when you were a child? Do you have more free time than your parents did when you were a child? Have the benefits of computerisation and automation trickled down.

For a vision of the future, let's consider Amazon. Bezos is incredibly rich. His employees are work very hard to make him richer, to make him earn more every day than he can possibly spend in a lifetime. Even so, what is the future for such employees? Will they be replaced by robots? Will the delivery drivers be replaced by drones? How many people will be left to buy what he is selling? Where will the future lead?

Look at the US. Is it a capitalist heaven or hell? Your answer may depend on whether you work for Wall Street or Walmart. Wall Street has received huge amounts of welfare in times of trouble. Many Walmart employees have to live on food stamps. Compare the US with the Scandinavian countries and their socialism, their much more egalitarian societies. Consider how the Scandinavian countries redistribute wealth.

UBI seems to me to be an excellent idea. It seems an efficient way of sharing, redistributing wealth. It seems to be something that a wealthy country could afford. It seems to be an excellent way for a government to spend money.

It is good that Japan is thinking about it. Coronavirus seems to provide an excellent opportunity to test it. How much has the government handed out in benefits to business, the travel industry with GoTo Travel, the restaurant industry with GoTo Eat? Let's not forget each household got a mere ¥100,000.

5 ( +9 / -4 )

70,000 yen be paid every month to each citizen under the basic income program, financed by a reallocation of part of the public pension and welfare budget.

I'm not a citizen, but I pay into the pension here. I can see this scheme pushing pension payments up, and if I don't receive any benefit as a resident, that will be really unfair. Anyway, UBI in Japan is never going to happen.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

 Let's not forget each household got a mere ¥100,000.

Not household. Person. My household received ¥400,000

10 ( +10 / -0 )

UBI is now the only way to save the system of capitalism in developed economies because as the Prince avers in the famous Italian novel, "The Leopard", by Giuseppe Tomasi di Lampedusa, “If we want things to stay as they are, things will have to change.”

This pandemic will certainly help concentrate our minds so that what we humans have so far refused to contemplate the ravages of Covid will force us to reconsider. In human history viruses have acted as vectors of change so it's not all bad news since reforms to the sociopolitical and mental landscape of Japan are long overdue.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

@ TokyoJoe

That guy down the street with the ferrari is paying the lions share of the tax that this money is coming from.

As in the case of Amazon/Google & Apple we know that this is NOT the case!

The rich dodge as much tax as they can ..hence they are rich!

8 ( +10 / -2 )

Sounds great 700000yen per month X 6 in my family = 420000 per month that is nearly the same as what I earn per month sweet I can quit my job focus on gardening and getting a few cows a couple pigs and a sheep or three I can sell my house and company building get some land on the west coast do all those projects I have wanted to do for free electricity wind solar water (if I can get somewhere with a small river nearby) can get some of those wood cabins built for reasonably cheap and even in the countryside I can always sell and preserve excess produce. can still have all the moddern items like phone car (electric of course) computer coffee maker microwave fridge freezer washer etc.

7 ( +9 / -2 )

All of the world's instability problems (including the invasion of the US Capitol) today are caused by the huge inequality in income levels. Working class people work hard all day, but the "owners" of the companies get all the money and they remain dirt poor. Even descendants of the founders live on huge estate trusts, and never have to work a day in their lives. The same thing started in Japan after PM Koizumi lessened employment rules that supported employees. So even though Japan has one of the fairest Gini indexes in the world, it has been getting worse since Koizumi. So expect the same kind of events to happen here too in 10 years.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

70,000 yen be paid every month to each citizen under the basic income program, 

The translation of 住民 into 'citizens' causes confusion. For example, the original 100,000 yen of Abe money paid out last year to each resident, was labelled as for '住民 in the Japanese plans, but was translated in the English language newspapers as 'citizens', and caused the mistaken belief that foreign residents were excluded, (which was the never plan, it was just the way it was reported in English). The Japanese articles I've read for this UBI idea also say 住民 instead of 国民. In reality, as many foreigners have paid into the pension scheme for more than the minimum number of required years, and have an individual pension number with a record of payments, and projected amounts expected back in pension payments, then it would be difficult for the government to scrap the pension system, etc, and not include foreign residents that have already paid into the system. Especially as several foreign residents I know that have been here 20+ years are already recently retired and receiving the pension.

However, I fully expect there will be some technicalities, such as the Vietnamese 'interns', being excluded from any UBI system.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

@dan

you are talking about the select few richist companies in the world. The example before was about a guy living down the street who has worked all his life, been sensible and successful and now has enough money to buy a ferrari and his own house. He has likely paid more in tax per year than the average person earns. You think he should be penalised for hard work, he's already given more financially to the country through tax.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

There's a lot of people in Japan living close to poverty, from kids to elders.

1 in 6 in Osaka according To Japanese media.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

I guess it is great news for the 1 million Hikikomori. This would ensure they never have an incentive to ever leave their bedrooms again until their parents die.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

This is socialism, don't get side tracked with smaller issues would be my advice.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

The classic move of changing the hypothetical once the original was refuted. Awesome critical discourse skills.

Silly non point. No body refuted anything. Where was amazon, apple etc mentioned in the original post? It wasn't, narrative changed to the world's richist billionaires rather than the guy down the street. Try posting something constructive.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

"hard to sell" sounds nicer than "I don't want people to have decent living standard, who would clean the trash otherwise ?!"

1 ( +3 / -2 )

My son is doing a masters in business. During one of the classes a question was should people get paid according to how much money they need. He asked me about it after because he said, besides him, only 3 other students said no. He was wondering if he was on the wrong track.

Karl Marx: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"

We already know how that turns out.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

I bet there is huge crossover between people who oppose this and oppose welfare in general.

One benefit of UBI is that is stops people gaming existing benefits. There will be people on the single parent benefits and seikatsu hogo with hidden savings and cash in hand incomes. Any scheme with rules to qualify can be gamed. If some people are happy to live with an unreported corpse to continue receiving that person's pension, you can sure fire bet there will be more people doing what they can to get on other benefits. Even if its just a divorced father pretending not to pay support so his ex-wife qualifies as destitute. Existing benefits help many needy people of course, but they also help the crafty and the dishonest. For every x old people on seikatsu hogo, there will be y with money under the futon and z who could have saved for retirement but wasted all their money. People who save or pay into pension schemes should not come out as losers.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

UBI is a stop gap measure to stem unnecessary human suffering, like most good social welfare programs, and would be a bridge to a fairer and juster society by promoting opportunities and innovation.

That makes sense, except the problem is that "stop-gap" measures taken by governments almost always become permanent. In the way of promoting opportunity, all the government needs to do is get out of the way. Stop taxing the middle class to reward zombie corporations and the wealthy. Stop putting up obstacles to small businesses such as high taxes, excessive licensing requirements, over-regulation, etc.

People are naturally innovative, and will do what it takes to survive and even prosper. If they are allowed to.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Firstly review Finland impact assessments below...

UBI, and American economist Milton Freidman permanent income hypothesis is a theory, nothing more than a classroom/lecture hall debate to pose alternative analysis of/to conventional monetary policy tools.

To forge a clear theoretical study on an individual's liquidity as a factor of a households management of income/spending.

Universal basic income seems to improve employment and well-being

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2242937-universal-basic-income-seems-to-improve-employment-and-well-being/#ixzz6jCUEWnvJ

I want to elaborate, run of of time though, try again later.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

¥70,000 you still would have to work. But the financial pressure of working and still being in in poverty might be alleviated.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

How is this not going to cause inflation? Do you really think the cost of living won't go up by 70,000 yen a month?? This will effectively move many people from middle class to low class, and from low class to poverty.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

"...experts say that it is unlikely that the Japanese public would agree to a scheme that would cause existing social welfare programs to be scaled down...." existing social welfare programs? like driving a taxi or working as a janitor?

1 ( +3 / -2 )

At the very least it should be voluntary. If you don't feel you need it, you should be able to tick a box to refuse it and have it given to another person who needs it more instead.

Or the person could donate it to a charity of choice or whatnot.

All sorts of possibilities.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

As far as I understand from Japanese news, the idea is very much based around getting people now on welfare off even if it means they only work part time and get 70,000 to boost their income.

For those that do not understand the incentive here is a bit more about why some may feel this is better than welfare.

In Japan welfare is a very very difficult life, unlike many developed countries the amount given is very low and those on welfare are subject to draconian regulations, inspection of their homes, limits on what they can own they are even barred from driving that means not even using a friend or other family member's car.

So part of the idea/plan is that many people on welfare would prefer to lose the stigma and gain more freedom by at least being able to work part time or lower wages and have the same or slightly higher income.

My problem with this is I suspect the vast majority would be women with young children and those not old enough to collect pension but also to old to secure a good job due to the very present age discrimination.

But with some tweaks it could be used well but it all depends on tweaks and proper implementation.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

The insanity of ideas like universal basic income is truly breathtaking - even without the pandemic induced global recession. Nothing good can possibly come from disincentivizing work. As a general rule of thumb- if you don’t work you don’t eat.

This was common sense just 5 years ago or so.

Its not surprising that the young and indoctrinated are hyping universal income now. They have no economic literacy. But its shocking that a Japanese economic advisor floats the idea.

Its a cute little package otherwise known as socialism. And theres a reason why it ended in tragedy everywhere it was implemented in the 20th century.

-4 ( +6 / -10 )

Where would all the money come from to pay for UBI? Nobody has been able to adequately explain this.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

There is that socialism tag again, we live in a society made up of multiplayers so trying to help those less fortunate is bad? Socialist? Communist? Nazi? How about this the disenfranchised get a leg up. They need to work for wages below the poverty line why not give them a buffer. If you do nothing else with your life 1 thing you can do is help a human. Don't think it's socialism, just being a nice person.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Its a cute little package otherwise known as socialism.

Ahh, the right-wing call to the boogeyman, that they name "Socialism".

I think it's clear now that right-wing ideology is equivalent to Communism. Has some good ideas, and sometimes seems like it could be a good idea, but has never turned out anything other than a complete failure.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

As itsonlyrocknroll pointed out, Milton Freedman, one of the heroes of conservative economics, was sympathetic to the idea of UBI.

Is anyone going to argue Freedman was a socialist?

I’d be more inclined to take Freedman seriously, a man very literate on the subject of economics, than the usual drama queens squealing ‘socialism’ from their hymn sheets.

Hysterical, but entirely and boringly predictable.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Where would all the money come from to pay for UBI?

Taxes, bonds, and sale of resources. Same as the money to fund other social welfare programs like the military, and big-business bailouts.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Where would all the money come from to pay for UBI? Nobody has been able to adequately explain this.

Except for Andrew Yang and Guy Standing and value added tax plans that would make companies currently using a panoply of tax avoidance schemes and offshoring of profits pay a fair share . Also reducing the gross amount of corporate welfare and financial bailouts.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Ahh, the right-wing call to the boogeyman, that they name "Socialism".

As I posted, they do tend to get a bit hysterical. Mention UBI, and they start conjuring up images of Mao and Stalin. Too emotional and one-dimensional to discuss things rationally.

I’m not convinced it’s the right way to go but I’m willing to listen to the argument.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

"Change." The hardest thing to sell to any Japanese politician.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

If I can get it, I support it.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Where would all the money come from to pay for UBI? Nobody has been able to adequately explain this.

Actually many, many, many have.

Just because some don't want to take the time to look and read doesn't make the above true.

And in most cases it is not universal and varies from country to country depending on their needs and systems.

As I pointed out in Japan a good part would come from the present welfare system by providing BUI someone on welfare with all its very restrictive regulations could get off it, gain freedom, build self-respect, confidence, etc...

70,000 yen is far lower than the welfare payment so there is just one place.

In nearly every country even the most open and socialised being on welfare has a stigma it is even more pronounced in Japan.

I can see many older people on welfare and single parents seeing this as a chance to get off.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

StrangerlandToday  12:13 pm JST

Where would all the money come from to pay for UBI? 

Taxes, bonds, and sale of resources. Same as the money to fund other social welfare programs like the military, and big-business bailouts.

This might work if we axed corporate welfare (as a pro-freemarketer, I think corporate welfare is a steaming pile of you-know-what) and closed tax loopholes for everyone - individuals, NPOs and corporations, and perhaps set a lowish flat tax rate on profits and income to ensure there is incentive for people to work and businesses to invest and grow. Remembering that tax incentives are different to tax loopholes/avoidance. There would need to be flexibility in the system because unless all countries adopt a UBI - I don't think this is realistic - there would be capital flight to places with lower tax regimes. And bonds? There would have to be interest rates worthy of investment. I don't see that happening for the forseeable future, but that could change. Sale of resources? Again, it would have to be a low rate to keep prices competitive. States in Australia, and I assume elsewhere like Norway on its oil, already collect royalties - essentially a tax - on resources as it is. The question of how much tax is the issue.

Perhaps one way a UBI could be beneficial is if it replaces several other forms of welfare and the costs of administering them, thereby streamlining provision. Governments already waste enormous amounts of our money - the money we pay as taxes - on unnecessary layers of public service bureaucracy. This could hep to shed costs, although I doubt governments would have the stomach to slash the public service.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

If the government can afford to give everybody 70,000 then I suggest a different program.

Double it to 140,000 and give it to people who are either under 20, over 60 or sick/disabled.

Healthy young single men should not be getting this, nor should the rich.

If you give it to me, I'd just donate it to the Trump reelection campaign. Is that what you want? Is that a good use of government funds?

Give it to people who need it.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

Where would all the money come from to pay for UBI? 

Taxes, bonds, and sale of resources.

In other words, that magic money tree in everyone's backyard!

(re: "economic illiteracy")

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

Perhaps the names of those paying huge amounts into the pension system should be published so we can thank them. (I am talking about Japan only)!

As their salaries go up so does their payments into the pension and health system, unlike in America.

These people should be thanked.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

...a guy living down the street...

With a Ferrari!

That must be a very nice neighborhood y'all reside in.

...has worked all his life, been sensible...

and, no doubt has been lucky if not dishonest...

He has likely paid more in tax per year than the average person earns.

so we don't need to commiserate with him and his financial "burden".

Still what has this hypothetical example of a lucky, "self-made" man got to do with UBI which would allow low-earners and the indigent to consume the fruits of capitalism, maintain their health and plough the dough back into the economy to circulate and nourish the hardened arteries of capitalism and keep it in its present aging, adipoid condition from falling on even less favorable forms of life support?

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

and, no doubt has been lucky if not dishonest...

This is why unsuccessful people remain unsuccessful. The very idea of hard work and smarts is a foreign idea. Even mythical.

-1 ( +5 / -6 )

Very soon the working class will start to suffer once AI takes a hold in the work place. Already, on construction sites there are robots doing the work once done by people.

The greatest industrial revolution since steam.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

@antiquesaving

In Japan welfare is a very very difficult life, unlike many developed countries the amount given is very low and those on welfare are subject to draconian regulations, inspection of their homes, limits on what they can own they are even barred from driving that means not even using a friend or other family member's car.

Very interesting comment! Are you sure about this? Wikipedia says cars are allowed if deemed necessary for work so it makes sense to me that the municipality would help you get rid of unecessary "luxury" items but let you keep the useful ones. But what you describe seems indeed over the top.

Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_in_Japan

0 ( +1 / -1 )

I’m not convinced it’s the right way to go but I’m willing to listen to the argument.

I see. So you can agree that UBI is a bad idea, but ONLY you have listened to the arguments.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

One of the major benefits would hopefully be financial stability for single mother families with children assuming that the children got the benefit as well - and so they should.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Why 70,000yen , why not 700,000yen and then just make working optional ?

C'mon now why not ? ......................................

1 ( +4 / -3 )

For an old person, seikatsu hogo is much higher than kokumin nenkin. For a single mother, I think its slightly higher than some full-time salaries, like non-seishain at a hoikuen.

Another advantage of UBI is that it does not punish people for working like regular welfare. If you have income on seikatsu hogo, the amount you receive is reduced by the amount you earn. If you earn too much as a dependent spouse, you lose the benefit altogether. It's a big reason why lots of married women only have little jobs.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

financed by a reallocation of part of the public pension and welfare budget

So this would replace the pension?

Or be in addition to it?

Or in addition to part of it?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

I’m not convinced it’s the right way to go but I’m willing to listen to the argument.

I see. So you can agree that UBI is a bad idea, but ONLY you have listened to the arguments.

I didn’t say that. I’m just looking at your responses and it’s the usual hymn sheet responses - drama queen hysterics about 20th century socialism, working hard, money trees etc. Boringly predictable pull-toy stuff that you can just wheel out in many situations.

I’ve spent a bit of time listening to and reading the arguments including conservative cases for it ( these are not the hysterical conservatives - I do avoid them ). As mentioned earlier, Milton Freedman was quite sympathetic to the idea. You talk about economic illiteracy. No offense, but I’d say he’s more literate than you on the subject of economics.

Andrew Yang is good on this and he’s extremely intelligent, but he does have political ambitions and selling a very a very rosy case.

Who have you been reading or listening to on this?

1 ( +3 / -2 )

 During one of the classes a question was should people get paid according to how much money they need. 

This teacher's "challenging" question sounds about par for the level of intellectual rigor of many a Bizness School. But the serious business of UBI has no bearing on that silly question and it's patently clear that most objections to UBI schemes are merely excuses masquerading as arguments.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

In my country, you get money if you don't work, as long as you want. Not much but largely enough for many.

It does not bring any good and more go for it, and then they go for other non declared revenues. So system get rotten.

Taxes are supposedly paid to help for the common interest.

Problem as explicited by many, the rich get much richer than what work brings as revenues. That is the issue.

I have cousins so rich (dozens of millions of pounds) they did not even wish to do any studies so they ended up doing what they want. Not creating anything. Not waking up early. No need to travel for work ever long distance.

They are now even richer just because they allocate their fortune to the right economy part when needed. Zero effort.

From logistics business then real estate and now selling online.

As for me, I believe having a role in society much needed, like many. But reward is scant compare to effort.

That is the issue. Get work paid the effort, especially menial jobs.

You should be able to get a rough over your head and a hot soup a day by working little. And the more your effort, the more you easily get.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Rough -- roof

1 ( +1 / -0 )

@Burning Bush

Double it to 140,000 and give it to people who are either under 20, over 60 or sick/disabled.

I agree with your proposal. My family and I are doing ok. I fully disagree with giving it to the Trump campaign however. I would probably find a way to get it to someone who needs it.

About 15 years ago a group of us knew a single mother divorced from an abusive husband. A friend of mine who has since left Japan would arrange for groceries for her and ask us to all chip in what we could. He never told the lady who we were but he did tell us that the groceries and some other help were the difference between the lady having to work a night job as well.

In this case I think giving the 70,000 Yen to me is foolish, wasteful of resources, and misdirected. I would much rather the amount be higher for people that really need it and nothing for those that do not.

At that point it is no longer a universal basic income however.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

I didn’t say that. I’m just looking at your responses and it’s the usual hymn sheet responses - drama queen hysterics about 20th century socialism, working hard, money trees etc. Boringly predictable pull-toy stuff that you can just wheel out in many situations.

Ya did. Its right up there.

Andrew Yang is good on this and he’s extremely intelligent, but he does have political ambitions and selling a very a very rosy case.

Intelligent, maybe. Wise? No.

His guaranteed income for every American over the age of 18 - $12000 would devastate the economy and is NOT what Friedman suggested.

Friedman advocated for a negative income tax, which replaces levies on low-income individuals with supplemental funds from the government. Friedman's plan consequently ensures that everyone in society receives a guaranteed minimum income, but it doesn't redistribute money to people who don't need it.

And as much as I admire Friedman, I disagree with him on even this. It still rewards people to stay home and contribute nothing.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

AI has entered the work place along with robots. A Universal Basic Income will be paid for by taxing the AI and robots just has people are now.

AI and Robots can operate 24/7

Dam built by robots? Japan's Obayashi tests it out

https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Engineering-Construction/Dam-built-by-robots-Japan-s-Obayashi-tests-it-out

Japanese construction robot demonstrates the future of building

https://newatlas.com/aist-construction-robot-humanoid-hrp-5p/56585/

Construction robots weld, bolt, lift to beat worker shortage

https://apnews.com/article/996f133c773c4f3c9fcfa6d60e50e0ea

2 ( +3 / -1 )

UBI. The word B A S I C, determines the intent. The monthly income provides a very minimal amount of money, that combined with a low-wage paying job avails one of basic necessities. Though 70,000 yen seems rather miserly. 100,000 yen would improve the 'quality' of life allowing low wage earners a degree of comfort, hardly a measure of luxury. However, reducing social services or other beneficial programs as a balance to spending is ridiculous. As a means of ensuring a healthy society both are necessary and current programs should be retained and improved & well-funded.

The economics and financial aspects are easily available, as the yen is a fiat currency. The money would flow back into the economy, if not, it rests in Japanese banks. Contrariwise to the propaganda that attends to the very Christian protestant ethic, mind numbing, wearying, excessive hours of work are not the essence of a divine plan for humanity. Unknown if there is a god and rather moot if there is, THE DIVINE PLAN, if there is or was one, is not the 40 hour week with overtime, along with low-pay and essentially working oneself to death which is incredibly dumb & stupid. The world is a wonderous place, life is an incredible gift and having the good grace and opportunity to find joy in each and every moment, ever so simple, can be found in meaningful work, be it at service to others or crafting that which is beneficial & beautiful, which is more in line with any manner of why we are here. UBI can be a mainstay to not only allowing folks to live a decent life, but to simply enjoy it.

Economics is treated as if it was book-keeping. It is a creative art and imaginatively applied can enrich the many. Unfortunately, its use seems to be a means to justify exploitive policies that are harmful to the multitude or create a magic cookie jar for those empowered to use it as if a thief. Creating a Universal Basic Income, is a welcome advance to creating a more holistic society and buffering obvious poverty which causes grievous harm. The 100,000 yen was an exemplary idea and though small, was helpful.

One can see the forces of opposition, most clearly, reflected in a place like the USA and its progenitors on the right and in the neoliberal policies that advocate austerity, among such as Joe Biden and McConnell, both men of incredible privilege who have handed princely sums to their benefactors, but ignore the plight of the people. The same exists in Japan among the ruling classes. Such individuals care not for the common good. They lack humanity. And austerity is for everyone, but themselves and the obscenely wealthy they actually represent. Japan needs to follow its own path and quit mimicking the bad economic policies and strategies that reinforce that Japan is a client state to the US. UBI is a wonderful idea and will benefit society as a whole.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

UBI encourages people to feed your mouth without working. There should be only one rule, if you work you will eat !

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

Hey Bob. There are no nation states that practice Open Market Capitalism. The USA practices a form of statism. Calling it 'capitalism', is amusing. Take a good look at the US budget. Essentially, the budget props up large corporate entities. Privatization of schools. Start there.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

There should be only one rule, if you work you will eat !

Sounds like Communism.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

Are we looking for a new social paradigm here .... going beyond the commy/red neck divide? Its about time to look at what could be after the money bubble.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

If UBI is introduced, it will cause a decline in labor motivation, and as a result of the decline in tax revenue, UBI itself will not be possible.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Many have much less now and will be very thankful. It also could take away many psychological burdens, future or existence fears, suicidal thoughts and the like. Give it an experimental try phase , a few years only for example and then adjust it according to the then current situations.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Universal basic income will become a global norm sooner or later not only due to Corona virus, but also due to AI taking over many jobs and automation in offices and factories. More and more people will find themselves out of work.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

UBI becomes possible when the robots and AI are taxed.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

UBI makes me think of this proverb: GIVE A MAN a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach him how to fish and you feed him for his life time. — Italian proverb.

I think instead of money, people should be given personalized support: training, certification, counselling, social support, relocation support... based on what they can and want to do and the needs of the market and their personnal situation. Otherwise as some people stated here, the money will be misused by some beneficiaries.

Not everything is about money, the important part is also skills and having professional advice.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

I used to be in favour of this, but after witnessing such poor performance by staff at Japanese corporations, I think it might actually be a very bad idea. Maybe it'd be good during a war or something, but having everyone dependent on the government does not seem like a good idea

0 ( +3 / -3 )

"Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach him how to fish and you feed him for a lifetime" is a quote from the Chinese philosopher Lao Tzu, founder of Taoism.

Not Italian.

But that idea in modern times does not translate to how we live.

Few work for themselves and depend on a job supplied by others.

As a single father for over a decade it becomes suddenly very real that companies are not interested or supportive. It is even harder in many cases for single mothers,

With age discrimination that is direct or subtle everywhere that long long long ago idea has died.

How is a single parent expected to work full time and somehow also get back in time to pickup children from daycare that ends earlier on top of it all the cost of daycare or after school care.

The same applies to lower wages dual income families.

Add that even now there aren't enough jobs for all those looking and many jobs available are again low low wage and rarely full time, etc...

Welcome to 2021 we are no longer 6 century BC.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

They are now even richer just because they allocate their fortune to the right economy part when needed. Zero effort.

Now this situation is what I would call a real disincentive for making any effort or showing any enthusiasm for working in a boring, low-paid, menial occupation. Gimme some UBI!

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

*GIVE A MAN a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach him how to fish and you feed him for his life time.** — Italian proverb.*

That's all well and good, but what if most the fish in Italy are swimming in ponds and rivers owned by Berlusconi and his ilk?

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

The second step to UBI is abolishing money altogether.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

The second step to UBI is abolishing money altogether.

Well, if you don't have to work for it, money loses its meaning.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

having everyone dependent on the government does not seem like a good idea

It's a great idea if you are the government and you want total control over the populace.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

The US tops the list in terms of the number of PhDs in AI or the most AI talent by a huge margin, followed by China and the United Kingdom. 

Japan is about 6th

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Universal basic income is a red herring, an attempt to reinvent the wheel, economically and politically.

A smoke screen, if you will, a failure to fully address how a country, a society, a Government commits to a monetary policy/system that provides a safety net to the most venerable in our communities.

We could disappear up our collective backsides and mull over the intricacies of and into Friedman, Keynesian economic theory.

Neither will pay the bills or provide food on the table.

The reality is the failure of Government to complete the promised reforms, the elusive third arrow.

Bluntly stated, a business has two employees, both carrying out identical duties.

However, contractually worlds apart.

One on a temporary retainment, the other full time.

The difference to their remuneration is stark, up to 33%.

Now, how would a Universal basic income, redress the clear disparities?

How would a Universal basic income improve productivity?

If one was to remove the Universal element, the impact on the present social security and welfare system would be severe

How would Universal basic income affect aggregate demand? Essential to Japan economy.

Aggregate Demand has a mathematical formula.

AD = C + I + G +(X-M)……  C = Personal Consumption, I = Gross Private Domestic Investment, G = Government Consumption, (X-M) = Net Exports of Goods and Services. No escape here.

Margret Thatcher spent all her time in office worshiping at the alter of Friedman blinkered brand of monetarism.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Rock’roll will never die. Money better has to evolve.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

GIVE A MAN a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach him how to fish and you feed him for his life time.

The Terry Pratchett one is better. “Light a man a fire and he’s warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he’s warm for the rest of his life “

6 ( +6 / -0 )

I think UBI would be good for "QUALIFIED" single parents and not to those who work. I think it those mothers who are stiffed by dead beat dads or mothers who don't want to pay for child support. Its not that these mothers can't work they are part of a system that prevent women from working and if they do work it basically what the government would probably give them for a working wage. Child care is expensive so perhaps even if they do work at least that UBI could offset some of the cost!

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

The pandemic provided the perfect opportunity to implement this scheme, if they proposed and implemented this concurrently with lockdowns I don't think many would have opposed it.

The problem is it needs money, lots of it. Where to get it?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

They can even trial it first without calling it ubi, just give a monthly stimulus paycheck to everyone and see if the hoped for benefits will actually be realized.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Govt is having problems paying pensioners so now somebody proposes to pay everyone instead?

Sounds crazy to me but I won't oppose it if I'm included.

Where do I sign up? =)

2 ( +2 / -0 )

This thread is full of every talking point against UBI, all stated as if there were conferred upon fact.

When in reality, it's the same gibberish the broken right have been telling each other along.

This is an example of right-wing cancel culture. Start mentioning UBI, and they start trying to cancel you.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

This is a good start. Nevertheless the Universal Basic Income should go further as follows:

The Japanese Government should provide an Unconditional Universal Basic Income of at least 3,245,550.00 yen (equivalent of $30,000 United States Dollars) to all of its citizens. Further, the amount should always be adjusted for inflation. If an Unconditional Universal Basic Income went into effect, it would enable anyone who ever falls on difficult times to have a cushion. The Unconditional Universal Basic Income would be the equivalent of throwing someone who is struggling to swim a life jacket. The Unconditional Universal Basic Income should also begin in neighboring countries like Taiwan, Mainland China and so forth and maybe even become a Worldwide Cushion/Life Jacket for everybody.

It is time to get rid of this whole nonsense with classes. There should be no Upper, Middle and Lower Class. Society would function much better as a Classless society. Everybody and Everything should be all equal. It would work much better if wealth and other necessities were distributed evenly. No one should ever be denied food, shelter, water, money and fun. No-one should have more than anyone else as everybody's needs are equally important. No one is special and/or better than anyone else. We are all human and live and breath in the same World. Governments should make sure that everyone's needs are being met and as a result, Universal Basic Income for Eternity would be a milestone and also a cornerstone for making sure everybody's needs are being met.

This is really infuriating how we have individuals who live a lavish lifestyle by owning multiple mansions in various cities/countries, multiple luxurious vehicles, buying designer goods that are necessary and then we have individuals who cannot afford a room. It is time to get rid of indulgence and learn to live with less. Why does someone need multiple gigantic mansions???? Why can't they just be satisfied with a basic/ordinary home????? Rather than having extreme wealth and extreme poverty, it is much better if everyone had their fair share instead so everyone can live a high quality life. Universal Basic Income for Eternity would at least allow for everyone to have the basic necessities and have fun, not be denied any chances in life whether it be professionally or personally. Basic Income would also ensure no one ever gets rejected socially.

In conclusion, if Unconditional Universal Basic Income went into effect for eternity, everyone would be able to sleep better at night, have less stress and therefore have a better quality of life.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This should have been done a long time ago. Without the Plaza Accord in 1985 we could have done UBI without having to think about the cost.

Even a small amount of money given to every Japanese, at the end of the year it amounts to something Big.

Enough to get your own place.

Enough to invest for the first time.

Buy stocks for the first time.

Go on a vacation outside of Japan for the first time.

Little bit of money to loyal citizens, hard working people who follow the rules and laws, serve the country, Japanese citizens deserve UBI!!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

StrangerlandToday  08:21 am JST

There are a shocking number of able bodied people who are satisfied with a subsistence lifestyle.

Rhetoric. Not based in reality.

You likely know or even have someone like that in your own family.

The right knows only how to motivate through fear.

Oh, you are so wrong here, as usual.  But what can one expect from binary thinking?  That's what happens when one is last in line when brain cells were given out. Welfare and food stamps, just as UBI, can take away the incentive to work. Of course, some people need welfare and food stamps at certain times, but generations in one family on welfare? They will often say, “Why should I work when I get just as much from welfare”? It would be the same for UBI. Here is why this is encouraged by politicians and the left. They want the votes, yes, we are talking of Democrats. People on welfare for years and years are bought by these politicians. Even Biden alluded to it when he said “If you vote for Trump, you ain’t black”. This indicates their votes are bought by the Democratic Party and these people will never have a future.  This is financial slavery. But for people on the left, this is acceptable.

Here is what should be done to help people. When a child is born, the child is automatically given a onetime fixed sum by the government, maybe $5,000. This money is held in trust in an account for the child until retirement. It cannot be touched for any reason by the child or by the relatives. It is held by a financial institution, or the government itself. This money is invested for the child. By the time retirement comes around, sixty years or so, this onetime gift will have grown substantially due to compounding and appreciation. In this way, at least they won’t be hurting financially in retirement, or at least not so much. Too many elderly are poor and lack the financial means to live with dignity. This will help dramatically. Will this suggestion get down votes?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Current arrangements for social security, welfare, pensions, a minimum standard living, child care, free day nurses, quite a list, cannot be discounted when costing and assessing a UBI.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Oh, you are so wrong here, as usual. But what can one expect from binary thinking? 

Heh, I'm one of the balanced few who thinks that the idea of UBI has potential, but can't be done willy-nilly. You know, the nuanced non-binary response.

But binary thinkers project as everyone being binary, because it's the only mindset they know.

Anyways, calling my thinking binary doesn't change this:

The right knows only how to motivate through fear.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Japan’s social welfare systems desperately need drastic reform because they are likely to fail those that need assistance in future.

The systems as they were created decades ago are not sustainable.

so the govt needs to step in.

The govt already has its fingers all over the place, it is government that legislated the two tier labour system into place.

Therefore, I do not believe that more government interference in society is the likely solution to the problems exist, unless it realizes that what govt has done is the cause and undo the mess created.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

"...what govt has done is the cause"

No it isn't. If the private sector and its neoliberal practices are the cause. If they paid wages that were in line with their record-high profits, then this would be a non-issue. The reality is that a smaller and smaller share of corporate income is going workers, while a bigger chunk goes to executives and other corporate "stakeholders." Something needs to be done, and the govt is the only one that can do that.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

70,000/month is not enough for anyone to live off so is unlikely to make people feel lazy to work as some suggested.

People also seem to feel that this should be better redistributed to cover only those who really need it but that would defeat the whole point of UBI. Sure, someone who is making 20+m a year won't really notice the 70k, but the whole point is for it to be given to everyone as a basic living budget and it would be provided from residents tax payments anyway.

This said, I don't see Japan being the first nation to implement this. Japan has shown to be trailing behind in these kind of forward-thinking developments on occasion.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Here is another take on it:

https://www.socred.org/s-c-action/social-credit-views/social-credit-vs-a-basic-income/the-big-difference-between-a-basic-income-and-the-national-dividend

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I would like to see discussions going on as well about introducing a "living wage" be introduced, and equal pay for equal work, especially for women.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

@Osaka_Doug, you might not like the result if you are paid equally with women and you may end up unemployed and living in the street.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

The problem is it needs money, lots of it. Where to get it?

The same place they get it now - they borrow it. What could go wrong?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@Reckless. I was thinking the other way. Women's wages and others need to be raised.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If this were the case, I think people would spend more freely.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I'd hate to be a politician or government official who had to decide these things.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It should be implemented soon before to many people's lives are miserable for to long and depression sets in.

Because of its homogenous population and very low immigration this should be easy to implement in Japan.

"in Switzerland a proposal to introduce a scheme was voted down in a national referendum in 2016, with around 77 percent opposing it."

That is because they have a large number of immigrants and native Swiss didn't want this immigrants getting "free money"

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites