支持引入全民基本收入的英国人比例高出20个百分点
正文翻译
新闻：
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
（译注：支持者48%，反对者28%，多出20个百分点。）
Brits support universal basic income by 20-point margin
- A majority of voters in the UK support a guaranteed monthly income from the state in every region, in both major social classes and in all age groups under 65.
支持引入全民基本收入的英国人比例高出20个百分点
——在英国的每个地区，无论是主要的社会阶层还是65岁以下的所有年龄段，大多数选民都支持政府提供每月收入保障。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
- A majority of voters in the UK support a guaranteed monthly income from the state in every region, in both major social classes and in all age groups under 65.
支持引入全民基本收入的英国人比例高出20个百分点
——在英国的每个地区，无论是主要的社会阶层还是65岁以下的所有年龄段，大多数选民都支持政府提供每月收入保障。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
新闻：
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Nearly half of all British adults (48 per cent) would support the introduction of a universal basic income (UBI), according to a YouGov poll shared exclusively with the New Statesman.
根据舆观与《新政治家》独家分享的一项民意调查，近一半的英国成年人（48%）支持引入“全民基本收入”。
根据舆观与《新政治家》独家分享的一项民意调查，近一半的英国成年人（48%）支持引入“全民基本收入”。
（译注：支持者48%，反对者28%，多出20个百分点。）
A UBI would provide every UK resident with a guaranteed monthly income from the state. Unlike existing benefits such as Universal Credit, the payment would be made without means-testing or work requirements.
全民基本收入将为每个英国居民提供政府每月保证的收入。与通用福利金等现有的福利不同的是，这笔支付不需要进行经济状况调查或工作要求。
全民基本收入将为每个英国居民提供政府每月保证的收入。与通用福利金等现有的福利不同的是，这笔支付不需要进行经济状况调查或工作要求。
A plurality supported the policy in every region, in both major social classes and in all age groups under 65.
在每个地区，无论是主要的社会阶层还是65岁以下的所有年龄组，都有多数人支持这项政策。
在每个地区，无论是主要的社会阶层还是65岁以下的所有年龄组，都有多数人支持这项政策。
YouGov found that the policy also has broad support in Italy, Spain and Germany. Support in Germany and Italy was similarly split by party and age, though in Spain it was older age groups that were most supportive.
舆观发现，该政策在意大利、西班牙和德国也得到了广泛支持。在德国和意大利，支持度也同样因党派和年龄而分裂，而在西班牙，支持度最高的是年龄较大的人群。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
舆观发现，该政策在意大利、西班牙和德国也得到了广泛支持。在德国和意大利，支持度也同样因党派和年龄而分裂，而在西班牙，支持度最高的是年龄较大的人群。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
All groups polled in the UK agreed that a UBI would increase living standards and reduce poverty. However, Conservatives, Leave voters and pensioners expressed concern that the policy would reduce economic growth.
在英国接受调查的所有群体都同意全民基本收入将提高生活水平，减少贫困。然而，保守党、脱欧选民和退休人员担心该政策会降低经济增长。
在英国接受调查的所有群体都同意全民基本收入将提高生活水平，减少贫困。然而，保守党、脱欧选民和退休人员担心该政策会降低经济增长。
Indeed, the affordability of a UBI was the greatest concern for the general public, with 45 per cent believing that the government would be unable to pay for the policy (against 35 per cent who disagreed).
事实上，全民基本收入的支付能力是公众最关心的问题，45%的人认为政府将无力支付这项政策（35%的人持不同意见）。
事实上，全民基本收入的支付能力是公众最关心的问题，45%的人认为政府将无力支付这项政策（35%的人持不同意见）。
Last year, parliament’s Work and Pensions Committee advised the government against introducing a UBI, arguing the policy would be “extremely expensive, and would not target support at people who need it most”.
去年，议会的工作与养老金委员会建议政府不要引入全民基本收入，认为该政策将“极其昂贵，而且不会针对最需要的人提供支持”。
去年，议会的工作与养老金委员会建议政府不要引入全民基本收入，认为该政策将“极其昂贵，而且不会针对最需要的人提供支持”。
Estimates of the policy’s cost vary widely, owing to disagreement over the suitable level of payment. YouGov’s poll found that a majority of all social classes, age groups and regions in Britain think that a UBI should be enough to live on without any other form of income (54 per cent of all respondents), though a sizeable minority believe it should be set lower and supplemented by employment income or other benefits (41 per cent).
由于对适当的支付水平存在分歧，对该政策费用的估计差异很大。舆观的民意调查发现，英国所有社会阶层、年龄群体和地区的大多数人认为全民基本收入应该足够在没有任何其他形式的收入的情况下生活（54%的受访者），尽管相当多的少数派认为应该把全民基本收入设得更低，并辅以就业收入或其他福利（41%）。
由于对适当的支付水平存在分歧，对该政策费用的估计差异很大。舆观的民意调查发现，英国所有社会阶层、年龄群体和地区的大多数人认为全民基本收入应该足够在没有任何其他形式的收入的情况下生活（54%的受访者），尽管相当多的少数派认为应该把全民基本收入设得更低，并辅以就业收入或其他福利（41%）。
A 2017 study by the Institute for Policy Research examined a range of possible UBI schemes, examining their distributional effects and cost. The authors concluded that “such schemes either have unacceptable distributional consequences or they simply cost too much”.
Policy Research 2017年的一项研究调查了一系列可能的全民基本收入计划，考察了它们的分配效果和成本。作者总结道，“这样的计划要么带来了不可接受的分配后果，要么就是成本太高”。
Policy Research 2017年的一项研究调查了一系列可能的全民基本收入计划，考察了它们的分配效果和成本。作者总结道，“这样的计划要么带来了不可接受的分配后果，要么就是成本太高”。
However, a 2020 study estimated that a UBI could eradicate child and pensioner poverty at a cost of £67bn, similar to the cost of the Covid-19 furlough scheme. The researchers suggested the scheme could be paid for by getting rid of corporate subsidies and tax breaks.
然而，2020年的一项研究估计，全民基本收入可以消除儿童和养老金领取者的贫困，成本为670亿英镑，和新冠肺炎休假计划的成本差不多。研究人员建议，该计划可以通过取消企业补贴和税收减免来支付。
然而，2020年的一项研究估计，全民基本收入可以消除儿童和养老金领取者的贫困，成本为670亿英镑，和新冠肺炎休假计划的成本差不多。研究人员建议，该计划可以通过取消企业补贴和税收减免来支付。
In January this year, a report by the New Economics Foundation called for a mixed system, combining a minimalist UBI with a minimum income guarantee, which it calls a “Living Income”. The system would cost an estimated £137bn, which the think tank suggests could be raised by abolishing the personal tax allowance. It calculated that such a policy could lift 760,000 people out of poverty and boost the average income of the poorest 10 per cent of households by £2,000.
今年1月，新经济基金会的一份报告呼吁建立一种混合体系，将最低限度的全民基本收入与最低收入保障（即所谓的“生活收入”）结合起来。据估计，该体系将耗资1370亿英镑，该智库建议，可以通过取消个人所得税免税额来筹集这笔资金。据该机构计算，这样的政策可以使76万人摆脱贫困，并使最贫困的10%家庭的平均收入增加2000英镑。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
今年1月，新经济基金会的一份报告呼吁建立一种混合体系，将最低限度的全民基本收入与最低收入保障（即所谓的“生活收入”）结合起来。据估计，该体系将耗资1370亿英镑，该智库建议，可以通过取消个人所得税免税额来筹集这笔资金。据该机构计算，这样的政策可以使76万人摆脱贫困，并使最贫困的10%家庭的平均收入增加2000英镑。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Sam Tims, an economist at the New Economics Foundation told the New Statesman: “Strong and growing support for UBI demonstrates that we are moving away from the austerity-driven consensus of the last decade, the result of which is an inadequate social security system that fails to protect those who need it most.
新经济基金会的经济学家萨姆·蒂姆斯告诉《新政治家》：“对全民基本收入的强大和日益增长的支持表明，我们正在脱离过去十年导致了社会保障体系不完善，无法保护那些最需要它的人的紧缩驱动的共识。
新经济基金会的经济学家萨姆·蒂姆斯告诉《新政治家》：“对全民基本收入的强大和日益增长的支持表明，我们正在脱离过去十年导致了社会保障体系不完善，无法保护那些最需要它的人的紧缩驱动的共识。
“At its core, UBI ensures no one’s income falls below a set level and the concept of a decent minimum income should be welcomed and applied to the welfare state. But we don’t need UBI to begin eradicating poverty and reducing inequality. A ‘Living Income’ would provide a minimum income tied to the cost of living through a means-tested system.”
“全民基本收入制度的核心是确保没有人的收入低于设定的水平，体面的最低收入的概念应该受到欢迎，并应用于福利国家。但我们并不需要全民基本收入来开始消除贫困和减少不平等。‘生活收入’将通过收入调查制度提供与生活成本挂钩的最低收入。”
“全民基本收入制度的核心是确保没有人的收入低于设定的水平，体面的最低收入的概念应该受到欢迎，并应用于福利国家。但我们并不需要全民基本收入来开始消除贫困和减少不平等。‘生活收入’将通过收入调查制度提供与生活成本挂钩的最低收入。”
The poll comes just as the Welsh government begins its trial of a basic income for children leaving care. The scheme, which is set to run until 2025, will see around 500 18-year-olds offered an unconditional income of £19,200 per year for up to two years.
这项调查出炉之际，威尔士政府正在开始尝试为脱离抚养的孩子提供基本收入。这项计划将持续到2025年，届时将有500名18岁左右的青少年获得每年1.92万英镑的无条件收入，期限为两年。
这项调查出炉之际，威尔士政府正在开始尝试为脱离抚养的孩子提供基本收入。这项计划将持续到2025年，届时将有500名18岁左右的青少年获得每年1.92万英镑的无条件收入，期限为两年。
评论翻译
360Saturn
The irony that the only group who have a guaranteed income every week no matter what they do are the ones who don't support it for anyone else.
How small minded do you get??
具有讽刺意味的是，唯一一群无论做什么都能保证每周收入的人，正是那些不支持其他人也得到这种待遇的人。
你们的心胸到底有多狭隘？？
The irony that the only group who have a guaranteed income every week no matter what they do are the ones who don't support it for anyone else.
How small minded do you get??
具有讽刺意味的是，唯一一群无论做什么都能保证每周收入的人，正是那些不支持其他人也得到这种待遇的人。
你们的心胸到底有多狭隘？？
wherearemyfeetI
It'd be nice for this question to be asked if an actual realistic proposal (i.e. an actual £ figure for the monthly income for UBI, cost to the Treasury, how it'll actually be funded in detail including covering for recessions, changes to tax receipts as a result of the changes etc) so people could make a more appropriate conclusion. Currently, it's as good as saying "hey you, would you like free money??" and then being not being surprised when many say that, yes, they indeed would like free money. However if it was "would you like £150 a month from the Government, and all it'll take is this gargantuan tax receipt that will mean anyone earning over 50% of the median salary will have their taxes increase well in excess of that £150" then the figures will not be the same.
So this statistic is, unfortunately, useless.
如果能提出一个实际可行的建议（即全民基本收入每月的实际发放额，财政部的成本，它将如何详细地得到资助，包括覆盖衰退，税收收入的变化等等），这样人们就能推出更合理的结论了。但目前，这个提议就相当于说“嘿，你想要免费的钱吗？？”，然后当许多人说，是的，他们确实想要免费的钱时，你不会感到惊讶。然而，如果问题是“你想要从0英镑开始每月150英镑吗？这意味着任何收入超过中位数50%的人的税收都将大大增加，远远超过150英镑”，那么结果就不一样了。
所以，很不幸，这个民调数据是无用的。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
It'd be nice for this question to be asked if an actual realistic proposal (i.e. an actual £ figure for the monthly income for UBI, cost to the Treasury, how it'll actually be funded in detail including covering for recessions, changes to tax receipts as a result of the changes etc) so people could make a more appropriate conclusion. Currently, it's as good as saying "hey you, would you like free money??" and then being not being surprised when many say that, yes, they indeed would like free money. However if it was "would you like £150 a month from the Government, and all it'll take is this gargantuan tax receipt that will mean anyone earning over 50% of the median salary will have their taxes increase well in excess of that £150" then the figures will not be the same.
So this statistic is, unfortunately, useless.
如果能提出一个实际可行的建议（即全民基本收入每月的实际发放额，财政部的成本，它将如何详细地得到资助，包括覆盖衰退，税收收入的变化等等），这样人们就能推出更合理的结论了。但目前，这个提议就相当于说“嘿，你想要免费的钱吗？？”，然后当许多人说，是的，他们确实想要免费的钱时，你不会感到惊讶。然而，如果问题是“你想要从0英镑开始每月150英镑吗？这意味着任何收入超过中位数50%的人的税收都将大大增加，远远超过150英镑”，那么结果就不一样了。
所以，很不幸，这个民调数据是无用的。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
tomoldbury
I'd also love to know how a UBI doesn't risk further inflation.
Furlough was a pseudo-UBI and that combined with other cash injected into the economy without obvious 'source' is one possible reason that we are looking at high inflation now.
So it needs to be funded by taxation - but that's a whopper of a bill if it's actually going to substitute real income e.g. living wage at 37hr/week.
我还想知道全民基本收入如何避免进一步通胀的风险。
无薪休假就是一种伪全民基本收入，再加上其他没有明显“来源”的资金注入经济，这可能是我们现在看到高通胀的一个原因。
所以它需要通过税收来提供资金——但如果它真的要取代实际收入，比如每周37小时的生活工资，那就是一个弥天大谎。
I'd also love to know how a UBI doesn't risk further inflation.
Furlough was a pseudo-UBI and that combined with other cash injected into the economy without obvious 'source' is one possible reason that we are looking at high inflation now.
So it needs to be funded by taxation - but that's a whopper of a bill if it's actually going to substitute real income e.g. living wage at 37hr/week.
我还想知道全民基本收入如何避免进一步通胀的风险。
无薪休假就是一种伪全民基本收入，再加上其他没有明显“来源”的资金注入经济，这可能是我们现在看到高通胀的一个原因。
所以它需要通过税收来提供资金——但如果它真的要取代实际收入，比如每周37小时的生活工资，那就是一个弥天大谎。
SodaBreid
Those on the lowest incomes will generally see the biggest benefit from UBI There doesnt need to be a change in money supply if taxes are raised appropriately so this would negate inflation.
一般来说，最低收入人群将从全民基本收入中获益最大。如果适当提高税收，就不需要改变货币供应，这样就可以消除通货膨胀。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Those on the lowest incomes will generally see the biggest benefit from UBI There doesnt need to be a change in money supply if taxes are raised appropriately so this would negate inflation.
一般来说，最低收入人群将从全民基本收入中获益最大。如果适当提高税收，就不需要改变货币供应，这样就可以消除通货膨胀。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
qrcodetensile
If you want a minimum wage income, so about 19k a year. You'd have to spend a trillion, you'd save 300 billion by removing pensions and benefits. That's mean total government spending is £1.8 trillion. UK GDP is £2.2 trillion.
如果你想要最低工资收入，大约一年1.9万。那么你必须花费1万亿美元，你会取消养老金和福利，以节省出3000亿美元。这意味着政府总开支为1.8万亿英镑。而英国的GDP只有2.2万亿英镑。
If you want a minimum wage income, so about 19k a year. You'd have to spend a trillion, you'd save 300 billion by removing pensions and benefits. That's mean total government spending is £1.8 trillion. UK GDP is £2.2 trillion.
如果你想要最低工资收入，大约一年1.9万。那么你必须花费1万亿美元，你会取消养老金和福利，以节省出3000亿美元。这意味着政府总开支为1.8万亿英镑。而英国的GDP只有2.2万亿英镑。
polyenmuk
I think it's the main reason for inflation.
More money in the system is the definition of inflation.
我认为这是通货膨胀的主要原因。
通货膨胀的定义就是经济系统中有更多的货币。
I think it's the main reason for inflation.
More money in the system is the definition of inflation.
我认为这是通货膨胀的主要原因。
通货膨胀的定义就是经济系统中有更多的货币。
tomoldbury
More money without a "cause" for that money. Banks can create money (this has been a thing for decades) but it needs to have some productive basis to not result in excessive inflation. QE is unfortunately very toxic to economies in the long run, I suspect.
更多且没有“理由”存在的钱。银行可以创造货币（这种做法已经存在了几十年），但它需要有一些生产基础，以避免导致过度通胀。不幸的是，我怀疑，从长期来看，量化宽松对经济的危害非常大。
More money without a "cause" for that money. Banks can create money (this has been a thing for decades) but it needs to have some productive basis to not result in excessive inflation. QE is unfortunately very toxic to economies in the long run, I suspect.
更多且没有“理由”存在的钱。银行可以创造货币（这种做法已经存在了几十年），但它需要有一些生产基础，以避免导致过度通胀。不幸的是，我怀疑，从长期来看，量化宽松对经济的危害非常大。
Kaiisim
Current inflation is all covid supply chain based. As demand dropped, they cut off supply of everything.
Demand can return instantly, supply can't, especially not when corporations have cut their just in time supply chains so leanly they have zero resilience.
You are correct that UBI as a tool to fight cost of living crisis caused by inflation would be crazy.
当前的通货膨胀都是基于供应链。由于需求下降，他们切断了一切供应。
需求可以立即恢复，而供应却不能，尤其是当企业将迅速供应链削减到几乎没有弹性的程度时。
你是对的，拿全民基本收入作为一种工具来对抗由通货膨胀引起的生活成本危机是疯狂的。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Current inflation is all covid supply chain based. As demand dropped, they cut off supply of everything.
Demand can return instantly, supply can't, especially not when corporations have cut their just in time supply chains so leanly they have zero resilience.
You are correct that UBI as a tool to fight cost of living crisis caused by inflation would be crazy.
当前的通货膨胀都是基于供应链。由于需求下降，他们切断了一切供应。
需求可以立即恢复，而供应却不能，尤其是当企业将迅速供应链削减到几乎没有弹性的程度时。
你是对的，拿全民基本收入作为一种工具来对抗由通货膨胀引起的生活成本危机是疯狂的。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
JMacd1987
I'm not inherently opposed to it, but it's not going to solve the worst problems of poverty etc, because a lot of the poorest people are poor because they have substance abuse problems, developmental deficiencies etc, which no amount of money will mitigate for. lifting yourselves out of extreme poverty in the UK is pretty easy if you have an IQ of over 100 (relative poverty is another matter)
Though I would benefit I guess. I spent several years unemployed and didn't get a penny from the State because I saved up from jobs/student loan/some inheritance hoping for a house deposit, and if you save over 16k you basically get frozen out of getting unemployment benefits (funny though, home owners can still get benefits regardless of the value of their house). It's not even a particularly high amount because even on minimum wage I was still able to save nearly £1000 a month when I lived with parents.
我不是天生反对它，但它不会解决最糟糕的贫困问题等等，因为许多最贫穷的人之所以贫穷，是因为他们有药物滥用问题，发展缺陷等等，这是再多的钱也无法缓解的。如果你的智商超过100，那么在英国摆脱极度贫困是相当容易的（相对贫困是另一回事）
不过我想我会受益的。我失业了好几年，没有从政府那里得到一分钱，因为我从工作、学生贷款、遗产中攒了钱，希望能有一笔卖房子的存款，而如果你存了超过1万6，你基本上就无法获得失业救济金了（有趣的是，房主仍然可以获得救济金，不管他们的房子有多值钱）。这并不是一个特别高的数额，因为当我和父母住在一起时，即使拿着最低工资，我每个月也能存下近1000英镑。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
I'm not inherently opposed to it, but it's not going to solve the worst problems of poverty etc, because a lot of the poorest people are poor because they have substance abuse problems, developmental deficiencies etc, which no amount of money will mitigate for. lifting yourselves out of extreme poverty in the UK is pretty easy if you have an IQ of over 100 (relative poverty is another matter)
Though I would benefit I guess. I spent several years unemployed and didn't get a penny from the State because I saved up from jobs/student loan/some inheritance hoping for a house deposit, and if you save over 16k you basically get frozen out of getting unemployment benefits (funny though, home owners can still get benefits regardless of the value of their house). It's not even a particularly high amount because even on minimum wage I was still able to save nearly £1000 a month when I lived with parents.
我不是天生反对它，但它不会解决最糟糕的贫困问题等等，因为许多最贫穷的人之所以贫穷，是因为他们有药物滥用问题，发展缺陷等等，这是再多的钱也无法缓解的。如果你的智商超过100，那么在英国摆脱极度贫困是相当容易的（相对贫困是另一回事）
不过我想我会受益的。我失业了好几年，没有从政府那里得到一分钱，因为我从工作、学生贷款、遗产中攒了钱，希望能有一笔卖房子的存款，而如果你存了超过1万6，你基本上就无法获得失业救济金了（有趣的是，房主仍然可以获得救济金，不管他们的房子有多值钱）。这并不是一个特别高的数额，因为当我和父母住在一起时，即使拿着最低工资，我每个月也能存下近1000英镑。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Wisegoat
Problem with universal basic income we have no good data on the impact it would have on an economy as no country has ever properly committed to it. We don’t know how much inflation it would cause, the tax implications and peoples willingness to work.
Current studies where people receive it keep working but they know it’s a temporary study so likely just keep working and take the extra cash as a bonus.
I’d much rather another country take the risk first to be honest then assess it it’s worth testing 5-10 years later.
关于全民基本收入的问题，我们没有关于它会对经济产生何种影响的可靠数据，因为从来没有哪个国家对它做出过哪怕适当的承诺。我们不知道它会导致多大的通货膨胀、税收影响和人们的工作意愿。
目前的研究表明，人们会继续工作，但他们知道这只是暂时的研究，所以他们可能会继续工作，把额外的钱当作额外奖金。
说实话，我宁愿另一个国家先去承担这个风险，然后等上5-10年后再评估它是否值得测试。
Problem with universal basic income we have no good data on the impact it would have on an economy as no country has ever properly committed to it. We don’t know how much inflation it would cause, the tax implications and peoples willingness to work.
Current studies where people receive it keep working but they know it’s a temporary study so likely just keep working and take the extra cash as a bonus.
I’d much rather another country take the risk first to be honest then assess it it’s worth testing 5-10 years later.
关于全民基本收入的问题，我们没有关于它会对经济产生何种影响的可靠数据，因为从来没有哪个国家对它做出过哪怕适当的承诺。我们不知道它会导致多大的通货膨胀、税收影响和人们的工作意愿。
目前的研究表明，人们会继续工作，但他们知道这只是暂时的研究，所以他们可能会继续工作，把额外的钱当作额外奖金。
说实话，我宁愿另一个国家先去承担这个风险，然后等上5-10年后再评估它是否值得测试。
Arond2
UBI isn't a good idea and there is mean tested benefits for those who actually need it. As opposed to giving everyone a redisubeted income regardless of need. Which is pointless to some and others can enjoy slacking off from work, like they enjoyed during furlough. Of course it is popular before the tax payer has to foot the bill and actually understand the actual implications of said policy.
全民基本收入并不是一个好主意，对于那些真正需要它的人来说，它的好处需要经过严格检验。而不是不管需要给每个人一份再分配的收入。这对一些人来说是毫无意义的，而另一些人可以因此放松工作，就像他们在休假期间享受的那样。当然，在纳税人必须买单并真正理解上述政策的实际影响之前，它是受欢迎的。
UBI isn't a good idea and there is mean tested benefits for those who actually need it. As opposed to giving everyone a redisubeted income regardless of need. Which is pointless to some and others can enjoy slacking off from work, like they enjoyed during furlough. Of course it is popular before the tax payer has to foot the bill and actually understand the actual implications of said policy.
全民基本收入并不是一个好主意，对于那些真正需要它的人来说，它的好处需要经过严格检验。而不是不管需要给每个人一份再分配的收入。这对一些人来说是毫无意义的，而另一些人可以因此放松工作，就像他们在休假期间享受的那样。当然，在纳税人必须买单并真正理解上述政策的实际影响之前，它是受欢迎的。
BannedFromHydroxy
What are your thoughts on the future of automation in workplaces and the effect on society?
你对自动化在工作场所的未来和对社会的影响有什么看法？
What are your thoughts on the future of automation in workplaces and the effect on society?
你对自动化在工作场所的未来和对社会的影响有什么看法？
qrcodetensile
We've had issues of automation in the workforce since the industrial revolution. New technology simply creates different jobs.
自工业革命以来，我们一直存在劳动力自动化的问题。新技术只是创造了不同的工作。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
We've had issues of automation in the workforce since the industrial revolution. New technology simply creates different jobs.
自工业革命以来，我们一直存在劳动力自动化的问题。新技术只是创造了不同的工作。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Socrates_is_a_hackAberystwyth
In the past, automation has allowed less workers to do more work, by using machines, increasing the amount of work that can be done.
This is different to some kinds of current automation, which in place of providing better tools for the worker, instead allows the tool to do the job that the worker was doing with less supervision than the worker required.
The duties of the supervisory position might change, but the trend is towards less supervisors rather than more, so what do we do when the majority of jobs the population is qualified for are instead being done by machines that can do them faster, more competently, and all of the time?
Reserializing takes years, and there's no guarantee that by the time someone has the qualifications to do a new job, that job too has been automated away.
在过去，自动化通过使用机器，增加了可完成的工作量，让更少的工人做更多的工作。
这与当前的某些自动化不同，后者不是为工人提供更好的工具，而是允许工具在较少监督的情况下完成工人正在做的工作。
监控职位的职责可能会改变，但趋势是监控越来越少，而不是越来越多，所以当大多数人能胜任的工作被机器取代，而机器能更快、更称职、更持久地完成这些工作时，我们该怎么办？
重新序列化需要数年时间，而且不能保证当某人有资格从事一份新工作时，这份工作也已经被自动化取代了。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
In the past, automation has allowed less workers to do more work, by using machines, increasing the amount of work that can be done.
This is different to some kinds of current automation, which in place of providing better tools for the worker, instead allows the tool to do the job that the worker was doing with less supervision than the worker required.
The duties of the supervisory position might change, but the trend is towards less supervisors rather than more, so what do we do when the majority of jobs the population is qualified for are instead being done by machines that can do them faster, more competently, and all of the time?
Reserializing takes years, and there's no guarantee that by the time someone has the qualifications to do a new job, that job too has been automated away.
在过去，自动化通过使用机器，增加了可完成的工作量，让更少的工人做更多的工作。
这与当前的某些自动化不同，后者不是为工人提供更好的工具，而是允许工具在较少监督的情况下完成工人正在做的工作。
监控职位的职责可能会改变，但趋势是监控越来越少，而不是越来越多，所以当大多数人能胜任的工作被机器取代，而机器能更快、更称职、更持久地完成这些工作时，我们该怎么办？
重新序列化需要数年时间，而且不能保证当某人有资格从事一份新工作时，这份工作也已经被自动化取代了。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Arond2
I don't think automation is a serious problem and UBI wouldn't be a good solution to it anyway.
我不认为自动化是一个严重的问题，并且全民基本收入也不是一个好的解决方案。
I don't think automation is a serious problem and UBI wouldn't be a good solution to it anyway.
我不认为自动化是一个严重的问题，并且全民基本收入也不是一个好的解决方案。
]BannedFromHydroxy
What might be your thoughts on a good solution?
那你认为好的解决方案是什么？
What might be your thoughts on a good solution?
那你认为好的解决方案是什么？
Arond2
We should be creating a system which encourages the creation of worthwhile and in demand jobs, while further strengthening the safety net. Rather than creating a system where a huge percentage of the population inefficiently and costly receives handouts. UBI doesn't address underlying problems but is a populist narrative which seems good on the surface until people understand the actual implications of said policy. With it working to discourage productivity and labour supply.
Besides there is no actual evidence that automation or globalization are eliminating work as it is currently known, rather that the type of jobs available are changing.
我们应该建立一个能鼓励创造有价值的和有需求的工作，同时进一步加强安全网络的体制。而不是建立一个让很大一部分人口低效而昂贵地接受施舍的体制。全民基本收入并没有解决根本问题，而是一种民粹主义的说法，表面上看起来不错，直到人们理解了该政策的实际含义。它阻碍了生产力和劳动力供应。
此外，也没有实际证据表明，自动化或全球化正在消除人们目前所知的工作岗位，而是现有的工作类型正在发生变化。
We should be creating a system which encourages the creation of worthwhile and in demand jobs, while further strengthening the safety net. Rather than creating a system where a huge percentage of the population inefficiently and costly receives handouts. UBI doesn't address underlying problems but is a populist narrative which seems good on the surface until people understand the actual implications of said policy. With it working to discourage productivity and labour supply.
Besides there is no actual evidence that automation or globalization are eliminating work as it is currently known, rather that the type of jobs available are changing.
我们应该建立一个能鼓励创造有价值的和有需求的工作，同时进一步加强安全网络的体制。而不是建立一个让很大一部分人口低效而昂贵地接受施舍的体制。全民基本收入并没有解决根本问题，而是一种民粹主义的说法，表面上看起来不错，直到人们理解了该政策的实际含义。它阻碍了生产力和劳动力供应。
此外，也没有实际证据表明，自动化或全球化正在消除人们目前所知的工作岗位，而是现有的工作类型正在发生变化。
csppr
I'm generally in favour of the idea behind UBIs. Especially as automation continues to mature, and in preparation of technological advances inevitably automating white-collar jobs on top.
But what I never understood is how we can prevent all prices simply going up by the UBI income, and people being back to where they started (ie needing to top up their UBI income through work)? I'm looking at house prices, rent, food prices etc.. My assumption is that we need some heavy legislation first to prepare an environment in which UBIs can work?
我普遍支持全民基本收入背后的想法。特别是随着自动化的不断成熟，以及为技术进步做准备，白领工作不可避免地会自动化。
但我一直不明白的是，我们如何才能防止所有的价格仅仅因为全民基本收入而上涨，以及人们回到他们开始的地方（即需要通过工作来补充他们的全民基本收入）？我在关注房价、房租、食物价格等等。我的假设是，我们是不是首先需要一些严格的立法来为全民基本收入的运行环境做准备？
I'm generally in favour of the idea behind UBIs. Especially as automation continues to mature, and in preparation of technological advances inevitably automating white-collar jobs on top.
But what I never understood is how we can prevent all prices simply going up by the UBI income, and people being back to where they started (ie needing to top up their UBI income through work)? I'm looking at house prices, rent, food prices etc.. My assumption is that we need some heavy legislation first to prepare an environment in which UBIs can work?
我普遍支持全民基本收入背后的想法。特别是随着自动化的不断成熟，以及为技术进步做准备，白领工作不可避免地会自动化。
但我一直不明白的是，我们如何才能防止所有的价格仅仅因为全民基本收入而上涨，以及人们回到他们开始的地方（即需要通过工作来补充他们的全民基本收入）？我在关注房价、房租、食物价格等等。我的假设是，我们是不是首先需要一些严格的立法来为全民基本收入的运行环境做准备？
Grayson81London
enjoy slacking off from work, like they enjoyed during furlough
I know it’s anecdotal, but just about everyone I know who was furloughed would have rather been doing their normal job for their normal wages rather than getting a pay cut and a load of job uncertainty in return for free time at a time when it was illegal to socialise and you couldn’t go to the pub or go on holiday.
“因此放松工作，就像他们在休假期间享受的那样”
我知道这只是传闻，但几乎我认识的每一个被休假的人都宁愿做正常的工作，拿正常的工资，也不愿在社交是非法的、你不能去酒吧或度假的时候，拿减薪和工作的不确定性来换取自由时间。
enjoy slacking off from work, like they enjoyed during furlough
I know it’s anecdotal, but just about everyone I know who was furloughed would have rather been doing their normal job for their normal wages rather than getting a pay cut and a load of job uncertainty in return for free time at a time when it was illegal to socialise and you couldn’t go to the pub or go on holiday.
“因此放松工作，就像他们在休假期间享受的那样”
我知道这只是传闻，但几乎我认识的每一个被休假的人都宁愿做正常的工作，拿正常的工资，也不愿在社交是非法的、你不能去酒吧或度假的时候，拿减薪和工作的不确定性来换取自由时间。
wherearemyfeet
Again also anecdotal, but I saw almost completely the opposite: Loads of people who were furloughed loved the shit out of it, and described it as trial-running retirement. While I appreciated keeping my whole salary, I am a bit envious about not getting a few months off in Summer to just chill.
这也是一种传闻，但我看到了和你说的几乎完全相反的情况：许多被休假的人都非常喜欢它，并把它描述为“试退休”。虽然我很感激保留了我的全部工资，但我有点嫉妒没能（像那些被休假、减薪的人一样）在夏天休几个月的假来放松。
Again also anecdotal, but I saw almost completely the opposite: Loads of people who were furloughed loved the shit out of it, and described it as trial-running retirement. While I appreciated keeping my whole salary, I am a bit envious about not getting a few months off in Summer to just chill.
这也是一种传闻，但我看到了和你说的几乎完全相反的情况：许多被休假的人都非常喜欢它，并把它描述为“试退休”。虽然我很感激保留了我的全部工资，但我有点嫉妒没能（像那些被休假、减薪的人一样）在夏天休几个月的假来放松。
GordonGJones
So I disagree with it being pointless. With the newest report I’ve seen Lloyd’s have said most people have £500 or less in their savings accounts. This is attributed to cost of living rising so fast.
If these people were to lose their jobs tomorrow they wouldn’t be able to afford rent/food and basic necessities to live past the first week of unemployment.
However if UBI was in place these people are not going to be completely screwed and affords them time to get more work. It’s not about people not working it’s about security for families if someone loses their job. UBI is supposed to be enough to pay rent and essentials not just live without working.
所以我不认为这是毫无意义的。根据劳合社的最新报告，我看到大多数人的储蓄账户里只有500英镑或更少。这是因为生活成本上涨太快了。
如果这些人明天就失业了，他们连房租、食物和生活必需品都买不起，连失业的第一周都过不了。
然而，如果全民基本收入到位，这些人就不会完全完蛋，并给他们时间去获得更多的工作。这不是人们不工作的问题，而是如果有人失去工作，家庭的保障问题。全民收入应该足以支付房租和生活必需品，而不仅仅是没有工作的基本生活。
So I disagree with it being pointless. With the newest report I’ve seen Lloyd’s have said most people have £500 or less in their savings accounts. This is attributed to cost of living rising so fast.
If these people were to lose their jobs tomorrow they wouldn’t be able to afford rent/food and basic necessities to live past the first week of unemployment.
However if UBI was in place these people are not going to be completely screwed and affords them time to get more work. It’s not about people not working it’s about security for families if someone loses their job. UBI is supposed to be enough to pay rent and essentials not just live without working.
所以我不认为这是毫无意义的。根据劳合社的最新报告，我看到大多数人的储蓄账户里只有500英镑或更少。这是因为生活成本上涨太快了。
如果这些人明天就失业了，他们连房租、食物和生活必需品都买不起，连失业的第一周都过不了。
然而，如果全民基本收入到位，这些人就不会完全完蛋，并给他们时间去获得更多的工作。这不是人们不工作的问题，而是如果有人失去工作，家庭的保障问题。全民收入应该足以支付房租和生活必需品，而不仅仅是没有工作的基本生活。
Puzzleheaded-Ask3782
Only the economically illiterate want UBI.
...also, how long before they decide you only get your UBI if you take your mandatory vaccine schedule like good little cattle?
只有经济文盲才想要全民基本收入。
……并且，还有多久他们就会决定你只有在像牛一样接受强制接种疫苗的情况下才能获得全民基本收入？（随意对全民基本收入加门槛）
Only the economically illiterate want UBI.
...also, how long before they decide you only get your UBI if you take your mandatory vaccine schedule like good little cattle?
只有经济文盲才想要全民基本收入。
……并且，还有多久他们就会决定你只有在像牛一样接受强制接种疫苗的情况下才能获得全民基本收入？（随意对全民基本收入加门槛）
dasthewer
The issue with UBI isn't just the tax rise but the effect on people already receiving and needing benefits.
All the realistic versions of UBI have it replacing state pensions and benefits like job seekers, council flats and disability living allowance. UBI is great for people working minimum wage but all the suggested implementations are far less generous than the current system for people currently living without jobs as their benefits are replaced by UBI which is never as much as they are currently getting.
全民基本收入的问题不只是增税，还包括对已经领取和需要福利的人的影响。
所有现实版本的全民基本收入都将取代国家养老金和比如求职者、市政公寓和残疾人生活津贴之类的福利。全民基本收入对拿最低工资的人来说很好，但所有建议的实施方案都远没有目前对失业人员的制度慷慨，因为他们的福利会被全民基本收入取代，而全民基本收入从来没有他们现在得到的那么多。
The issue with UBI isn't just the tax rise but the effect on people already receiving and needing benefits.
All the realistic versions of UBI have it replacing state pensions and benefits like job seekers, council flats and disability living allowance. UBI is great for people working minimum wage but all the suggested implementations are far less generous than the current system for people currently living without jobs as their benefits are replaced by UBI which is never as much as they are currently getting.
全民基本收入的问题不只是增税，还包括对已经领取和需要福利的人的影响。
所有现实版本的全民基本收入都将取代国家养老金和比如求职者、市政公寓和残疾人生活津贴之类的福利。全民基本收入对拿最低工资的人来说很好，但所有建议的实施方案都远没有目前对失业人员的制度慷慨，因为他们的福利会被全民基本收入取代，而全民基本收入从来没有他们现在得到的那么多。
JayR_97
Do you want hyperinflation? Cos thats how you get hyperinflation.
你想要恶性通货膨胀吗？因为这就是恶性通货膨胀的原因。
Do you want hyperinflation? Cos thats how you get hyperinflation.
你想要恶性通货膨胀吗？因为这就是恶性通货膨胀的原因。
Socrates_is_a_hackAberystwyth
It would surely depend on how it's funded. If we do it just by printing more money, then sure. But if it's just redistributing some of the money already in the system, there shouldn't really be much of an inflationary effect.
If anything, the treasury might see an upturn in revenue, since the middle and working classes pay tax more proportionately, reliably and frequently than the rich currently do, so stimulating spending by guaranteeing the necessities could see economic growth as an added benefit to more tax income.
这当然取决于资金来源。如果我们只是通过印更多的钱，那么当然可以。但如果只是重新分配系统中已经存在的部分资金，就不会产生太大的通胀效应。
如果有什么不同的话，财政部可能会看到收入的增加，因为中产阶级和工人阶级比目前的富人更按比例、更可靠、更频繁地纳税了，所以通过保障必需品来刺激支出，可以看到经济增长（增加税收的一种额外好处）。
It would surely depend on how it's funded. If we do it just by printing more money, then sure. But if it's just redistributing some of the money already in the system, there shouldn't really be much of an inflationary effect.
If anything, the treasury might see an upturn in revenue, since the middle and working classes pay tax more proportionately, reliably and frequently than the rich currently do, so stimulating spending by guaranteeing the necessities could see economic growth as an added benefit to more tax income.
这当然取决于资金来源。如果我们只是通过印更多的钱，那么当然可以。但如果只是重新分配系统中已经存在的部分资金，就不会产生太大的通胀效应。
如果有什么不同的话，财政部可能会看到收入的增加，因为中产阶级和工人阶级比目前的富人更按比例、更可靠、更频繁地纳税了，所以通过保障必需品来刺激支出，可以看到经济增长（增加税收的一种额外好处）。
Grayson81London
all age groups under 65
So the people who are getting a basic universal income are the only ones against a universal basic income?
Depending on how many of them would like to abolish the state pension, it sounds like they’re specifically in favour of being the only ones getting a universal basic income and trying to exclude others from joining them…
“65岁以下的所有年龄段”
所以只有那些获得全民基本收入的人（65岁以上领养老金的人）才反对全民基本收入吗？
这取决于他们中有多少人想废除国家养老金，听起来他们特别喜欢成为唯一获得全民基本收入的人，并试图排除其他人加入他们……
all age groups under 65
So the people who are getting a basic universal income are the only ones against a universal basic income?
Depending on how many of them would like to abolish the state pension, it sounds like they’re specifically in favour of being the only ones getting a universal basic income and trying to exclude others from joining them…
“65岁以下的所有年龄段”
所以只有那些获得全民基本收入的人（65岁以上领养老金的人）才反对全民基本收入吗？
这取决于他们中有多少人想废除国家养老金，听起来他们特别喜欢成为唯一获得全民基本收入的人，并试图排除其他人加入他们……
BSBDR
50 years of contributing to the system means they are entitled to it.
50年的社会贡献意味着他们有权享有这个制度。
50 years of contributing to the system means they are entitled to it.
50年的社会贡献意味着他们有权享有这个制度。
chickenparmo
This isn't how state pensions work. The current working population fund the current pensioners. It's a huge Ponzi scheme
这不是国家养老金的运作方式。当前的工作人口为当前的养老金领取者提供资金。这就是一个巨大的庞氏骗局
This isn't how state pensions work. The current working population fund the current pensioners. It's a huge Ponzi scheme
这不是国家养老金的运作方式。当前的工作人口为当前的养老金领取者提供资金。这就是一个巨大的庞氏骗局
ExdigguserPies
They haven't contributed enough to cover their own pensions and care, that's why NI had to rise and we have to work longer.
然而他们并没有为自己的养老金和医疗保险做出足够的贡献，这就是为什么国民保险制度必须提高，我们必须工作更长时间。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
They haven't contributed enough to cover their own pensions and care, that's why NI had to rise and we have to work longer.
然而他们并没有为自己的养老金和医疗保险做出足够的贡献，这就是为什么国民保险制度必须提高，我们必须工作更长时间。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
SteeMonkey
The same will happen to the generations that have to support you as well
但同样的事情也会发生在那些将来必须给你养老的世代身上
The same will happen to the generations that have to support you as well
但同样的事情也会发生在那些将来必须给你养老的世代身上
很赞 0
收藏