A concept that has been steadily entering the public consciousness in recent years is that of Universal Basic Income (UBI) and the similar (but not synonymous) Negative Income Tax and Basic Capital Grant. It is an idea that has fascinated me for some time, and though (caveat emptor) I am certainly no economist or public policy expert, I feel that I have read enough of the literature on the topic to have a reasonable understanding of UBI.
So what is UBI? Crudely, it is an unconditional ‘welfare’ payment granted to every citizen, regardless of their economic or social position in society; an elderly unemployed male will get exactly the same grant as a young female lawyer, for instance. Opinion of the level of income provided of course varies, but most authors seem to agree that it should ensure, in the words of Guy Standing (2017), “basic security” – i.e. enough so that the individual can operate in that society at a basic level without recourse to other forms of income.
At first glance, this policy sounds, to put it mildly, rather odd. So distanced is it from our modern conceptions of welfare and the economy, in many ways it appears downright mad and utopian – I certainly thought so when I first heard about it. However, I believe that UBI has a lot going for it, and though it is certainly not without issues, the concept is tantalising enough to explore and one which should be further introduced into the wider public debate over the economy, welfare and society.
The element which perhaps interested me the most about UBI when I first came to know of the concept is the fact that it is loved – and hated – by both the political left and right; as somebody who dislikes the right-wing spectrum and considers themselves a ‘radical centrist’, this instantly piqued my interest.
Another aspect of note is that though it has only really started to enter the public consciousness relatively recently, UBI – like most ideas – is not particularly new or ultra-modern. Some have (rather optimistically, I would say) seen origins as far back as Ancient Athens and Sir Thomas More’s Utopia; however, it definitely has a notable early supporter in the figure of Thomas Paine, the famous radical revolutionary and Founding Father. His pamphlet Agrarian Justice (1797) is essentially an argument for a land value tax (another idea I quite like) and universal welfare in the form of an old-age pension (50 years +) and a capital endowment:
“there shall be paid to every person, when arrived at the age of twenty-one years, the sum of fifteen pounds sterling…. [it should be] be made to every person, rich or poor.”
From Paine the idea was quietly developed in the writings of (mostly) radical and liberal theorists of the 19th century, until by the 20th century it was being supported by figures from an array of different political backgrounds.
Perhaps most surprisingly at first, forms of basic income guarantees have been enthusiastically adopted by some notable free-market economists, including titans such as Milton Freedman (in the form of a NIT) and Friedrich Hayek. The fact that a policy can be endorsed by both Hayek and modern left-wingers such as the British Greens and the recent Socialist candidate for the French Presidency is fascinating; on the flip side, it has also been hated by some traditional conservatives and ardent trade unionists for a variety of reasons, which I will touch upon below. Pilot programmes have been trialled across the world, from India to Finland to even the United States, with varying degrees of success.
Now, enough with the caveats and history. Why do I think UBI is worth talking about?
I would say that there are two main strands of thinking on UBI – one is the more ‘left-wing’ version which prioritises equality and social justice, and the other is more libertarian and free-market which emphasises the possibilities of increasing market efficiency and reducing the size of the state. I will admit that I am more inclined towards the latter than the former, as somebody who is generally in favour of the market and suspicious of ‘big government’.
As such, the major benefit of UBI for me is the possibility of reducing the size and role of the state in the everyday lives of citizens. I believe that, in general, the government is a bloated monster of tangled bureaucracy and inefficient mismanagement, driven by the conflicting interests of different parties rather than the general public good. This is especially so when it comes to the problem of welfare. Wouldn’t it be so much easier, efficient and productive to just provide a flat rate of income to everyone rather than wasting untold labour hours and tax-receipts on the administration costs of means-testing? Despite the billions that western governments currently spend on welfare, our societies are still afflicted with poverty, homeless, and food banks – to me, that suggests the current system is not working. A universal basic income could be the answer to eliminating poverty and hardship as much as possible in our societies.
It would also do it in a way that maximises freedom. Currently, welfare payments are usually given with certain conditions – food stamps can only be used to buy food, universal credit requires that you go to the job centre for so many hours a week, etc. I am fairly convinced by the argument that this concept is rather paternalistic and illiberal, and a basic income allows the recipient personal freedom to make choices and also – we will come to this later – a freer, more effective economic agent in the market.
But surely, you might cry, nobody would work if the government gave them benefits! We would all become lazy ‘chavs’ and layabouts, watching television and playing PlayStation all day!
Would we? While it is true that a few individuals probably would just laze about, there is actually little evidence to suggest that this is an inherent human trait; most people, I think, want to make something more of their lives, and would seek out jobs to enrich themselves. There are amazing testimonies of people who have been on unemployment benefits for years on end, and who yet have never stopped trying to find a job.
The introduction of UBI could actually have a very positive impact on the labour market and the economy. It gives employees far more bargaining power – if they are unhappy with their job they can more easily leave knowing they already have a fallback option, rather than being trapped in unpleasant working conditions through lack of alternative options; this makes workers something far closer to the rational economic agents predicted in classical economic models. You can see why trade unionists might have hated UBI – it could in theory make the concept of a trade union obsolete, though paradoxically some supporters actually believe a basic income could strengthen voluntary membership of such organisations.
UBI could further free up the market in other ways – artists, for example, could practice their skills without having to work several jobs to support themselves. This means that they could specialise on their art, creating more cultural good for society, while others could move into the jobs they vacated. Adam Smith might have approved!
Additionally, UBI could very easily create a more dynamic entrepreneurial culture. Currently, starting a business is a risky prospect without significant amounts of capital for support; a basic income provides a nice ‘cushion’ and a steady income to keep entrepreneurs on their feet during the risky first years of their enterprise. The dream of the free-market proponents of UBI might be an economy which is more free, dynamic and efficient, less hampered by the state or megacorporations.
Well, there is a few glimpses at the free-market libertarian argument for UBI. Let’s also have a look at the more ‘left-wing’ and social aspects of the policy, shall we?
Firstly, of course, UBI could be an excellent way to ‘bring the bottom up’ and eliminate poverty. It also reduces the stigma of being unemployed – as everyone gets the grant, why be ashamed of receiving this form of welfare payment?
Secondly, it divorces the concept of ‘work’ from that of ‘economic labour’, so that the two are not necessarily conflated. A good example are housewives (or house-husbands, of course); while they are not technically economically active, they still work hard at home, yet are not financially compensated despite doing the same basic job as a contracted housekeeper. Similarly, those who choose to care for disabled or elderly family members are still doing valuable ‘work’ for society, yet are not economically profiting from doing so; UBI would ensure that they are ‘paid’ for their labour.
Thirdly, UBI provides the freedom to take a break from labour and enjoy life, or make a radical change in lifestyle – this links in with the free-market arguments outlined above. People can take time off to learn new skills, go to college, work on a hobby, etc. without having to worry about their financial status for a while. Similarly, it allows people to form meaningful relationships and live together without needing to be overly concerned about financial problems.
Fourthly – and I think this is one of the best arguments for the concept as a whole – is the coming wave of automation that will almost certainly lead to incredible levels of mass unemployment if not managed effectively. Quite simply, robots are taking our jobs and if the current trends continue, there will be nowhere near enough employment for humans in the future. I highly recommend Martin Ford’s Rise of the Robots (2015) – an enlightening read in itself, the book is also relevant to this topic as he suggests that a form of UBI may be the only way of keeping the majority of our populace from falling into desperate poverty.
This last point is a rather dark one, but I believe UBI can be supported on its own merits rather than just as the buffer against a dystopian future. The policy certainly seems optimistic and suitably forward-thinking for me, and a concept that pleasantly straddles both left and right without being ‘owned’ by either side.
That is not to say the concept is perfect or instantly practicable. There are many arguments against UBI, though most of them tend to focus less on the actual concept itself and more on the issue of how to put it into practice effectively. Certainly, doing so in our current system, with its huge tangled welfare state and almost infinite conflicting interests, would be very hard indeed – when do state officials ever agree to mass reductions in the size of the government? The policy would of course be extremely expensive, and would require novel ways of funding beyond the usual forms of taxation; however many libertarians argue that the reductions in the state administration costs and general efficiency gains would contribute significantly to making UBI less expensive than it might first appear. Nevertheless, the battle over practicality continues to rage and will not be won anytime soon.
So, there we have it – the Paradoxical Millennial’s thoughts on Universal Basic Income. This has been an extremely fast-and-loose overview, and I have left out many of the arguments and ideas about the concept; nevertheless, it should with luck leave the reader with some food for thought. It has certainly been fascinating for me to explore an area of interest that I rarely touch upon in this blog; I hope you have found it as interesting to read as it was for me to write it.
I believe that your purpose is sincere in this. It is a concept that is worthy of some consideration and further debate. As you quite rightly point out it is not the concept, per se, that may be found objectionable; rather it is the classic example of the devil residing in the details. You pose some logical arguments for this and I believe this is not an idea to be instantly discounted. If it can be honestly debated and not suborned by an agenda which would convert it to demagoguery then perhaps the elusive details might be discovered.
I’ll share some further thoughts in a post. Thank you for starting what I think is a valuable dialogue upon the subject.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thank you – I’m glad you found it interesting. While UBI is not perfect, nor is it some miracle solution, I think accepting it as a genuine proposition will vastly enrich the debate over welfare and the role of the state in the economy. I look forward to your thoughts!
LikeLike
I’m center-left [ voted Democrat in the US election but never would have voted for Bernie Sanders]; I haven’t thought about this much because the odds it would ever fly in the US are extremely low; and I see two issues. The first is the inflation it would cause — prices would rise to the point that the UBI would bear. The second is that I don’t think that the size of government would decrease much. All the people who constitute occasions for the welfare state to intervene (people with disabilities, the elderly w/o families, drug addicts, mothers with too many children, people who can’t afford safe housing, people who are homeless not b/c of money but b/c they can’t live with other people, etc., etc.) and insofar as government exists in part to deal with these things, we would still be called upon to provide for these people. It’s fine to say “well, they have their UBI, if they need more than that, that is their problem” but I think most people would feel we still have an obligation to do more.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Quite possibly – I decided to go down the libertarian argument for UBI, but certainly more left-wing supporters do not see it as decreasing the state at all. Implementing UBI would not necessarily lead to a reduction in the state, but could be a way to do so; whether or not you think that is a good thing or not depends on your perspective!
On the inflation point, this would depend on how UBI is carried out – if government spending stays relatively stable, then there should not be too much of a massive increase in inflation; in any case, inflation depends on so many factors it is hard to predict the exact effects.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You’ve probably heard of this fellow Raj Patel, author of *The Value of Nothing* and *Stuffed and Starved.* Not sure where he stands on UBI, but his basic premise is that *food* should not be on the common market, and that everyone should therefore be allotted some measure of food for free. I pale in the face of economics myself, but apparently he has it all worked out how nobody should have to pay for food.
Although I agree that most people probably would want to invest their free monthly wisely, I think of all those who would not. This deters me from believing in UBI. I see them all over America, and I came close to being one of them myself, during the years when I was homeless and surrounded by such people. We are, after all, influenced by those in our company, if only by osmosis.
However, if there were some form of exalted Food Stamps that would ensure that no one had to pay for food, I can see how almost everyone would benefit. The society would be radically changed, of course, but let’s face it — the society *needs* to be radically changed, and this might just be the change that is needed.
One other thought (again not being an economist) is that I wonder where all this free money is coming from. Perhaps I’m a bit too much of a libertarian laissez-faire capitalist myself, but it seems to me that if somebody’s getting money for free, *somebody* has to be paying for it somewhere down the chain. “Food” for thought, lol.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I have not heard of Mr Patel actually – I will look him up!
On the point about paying for UBI, well that is the trillion-dollar question isn’t it? In truth, I think we need to rethink how government is financed anyway. People just assume that the only way government can generate income is through income tax, when in truth there are many different ways of doing so. Put it this way – some countries on Earth have 0% income tax; where does their finance come from?
Personally, I’m quite a big fan of land value taxes and sovereign wealth funds, though as I am too no economist, I couldn’t argue too eloquently on the nitty-gritty details of either.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Economy is a difficult subject except for those who have both a knack and a love for it. I was always good in Math, got the Math award at my high school, invited to Honors Calculus, scored well on the M.A.A. and the Putnam, etc. However, at around the time it got to Statistics I was already pretty confused. i can’t even imagine passing an Economics class. Pure Math continues to fascinate me. My aptitude for Applied Math stopped at around Physics 2A.
Raj is am interesting guy. I heard him speak when he was a guest lecturer at U.C. Berkeley a while back. Right-wing Christians were protesting, thinking him to be the Antichrist. He lives in San Francisco, you’ll find him an interesting study.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Don’t know about countries w/o income tax, but I have lived in several US states that do not have state income taxes. Local money tends to come from very regressive sales taxes. High property taxes finance schools — and schools are in horrible condition.
LikeLike
I’m not saying that 0% income tax is the way forward – I’m just suggesting that high income taxes are not the only way to finance government spending, nor are they the best.
LikeLike
All I can say is that the US is generally said to have low income taxes, but that the states with no income tax and low income tax have the lowest standards of living, the highest proportion of poor people, the worst schools and the worst health care. I don’t know if it’s correlation or causation, but after living my adult life in a country where every campaign involves a tax cut and watching our institutions and infrastructure disintegrate bit by bit, I think there are socially productive aspects of income tax.
LikeLike
Yes, but the disintergration of infrastructure (which is a tragedy that we are also facing over here in the UK) is due to reduced government spending as a whole – you don’t have to rely on income tax to fund them! The crime is that the reduced spending from tax cuts was not replaced by other means.
LikeLike
Well, maybe the UK can magically raise corporate taxes, but that’s more or less a no-no in the US (where business people already consider corporate taxes to be much too high — this attitude was one reason for the successful campaign of the current president).
LikeLike
What I have been trying to get across is that there are many different ways of generating revenue other than the usual income, corp and sales taxes. These are not the only forms of government income!!! Look at LVT. Look at Sovereign Wealth Funds. If we are to progress in general, we have to start thinking outside the box!
LikeLike
The thing is that in the US, the lack of an income tax in places where it occurs is essentially is balanced out by sales taxes, which are highly regressive (defeating one of the purposes of the UBI in the first place).
LikeLike
You both appear to be laboring under some misconceptions about these various forms of taxation.
First of all….
Common sense dictates that there must be some correlation between tax cuts and government spending cuts. There is. Some, but only some. It is easy to demonstrate this in two ways.
If tax cuts equate with spending cuts then how does one account for deficit spending? If tax cuts , as is often suggested, are so draconian and unjust in their scale as to be the sole cause of the neglect of publicly funded infrastructure then how are we to account for the neglect that has and does occur as tax rates rise?
In the US tax revenues have soared to record high levels for the past three years while budgets have proceeded at deficit levels on a trillion dollars annually. Budgets have not been drawn in accordance with revenues for decades, here or in the UK either one.
There is no revenue problem. There is a spending problem. Following the logic at use it would suggest that raising taxes should lead to budget surplus. Can you name a year in which this was true?
On subject of corporate tax rates lets be very clear on one indisputable fact. Corporations do not pay taxes. Their consumers pay the taxes as these increases are simply passed on in the price of the goods or services being taxed.
Until the scope of government and government spending is curtailed it won’t matter what form taxation takes. Continually rewarding failure only continues to produce failure. There is your formula for crumbling infrastructure.
LikeLiked by 1 person
People like you are the reason I usually stay out of conversations like this. Bye!
LikeLike
I’m very sorry you feel that way. I did not mean for this to become an argument in any way, nor was the tone of my comments meant to be seen as such.
LikeLike
Think that was directed more to me. Not my intent to scare anyone off the conversation.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Meant: “their free monthly money wisely.” (Typing too fast, left out the word *money.*
LikeLike
I’m torn on this one. On the one hand, I disbelieve in any form of government handout, full stop. Other that perhaps at a township/parish level. On the other, it is far more attractive than the current welter of programs, often at cross purposes.
Two salient problems, as long as we define poverty as a percentage of average income, it is nearly impossible to reduce the percentage of those in poverty, leveling the bottom floor, merely moves the next one up. I don’t know how else to do it either, but a way must be found.
In the other case, it would serve nearly as well to simply make it a tax credit (in the US system, anyway). The key thing is that all other systems go away, if you fritter this away, and have no other income, well, it’s your problem. Otherwise, it will simply be layered on top of all the other programs.
The cost doesn’t bother me overmuch, releasing a fair percentage of government workers, here likely something around 40% overall (excluding military) wouldn’t be unreasonable, and would likely pay for it. The problem, of course, is actually prying those people out of the government.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“Two salient problems, as long as we define poverty as a percentage of average income, it is nearly impossible to reduce the percentage of those in poverty, leveling the bottom floor, merely moves the next one up. ”
That definition is useful when trying to come up with a single figure to represent “inequality” in a nation / region etc. Otherwise, a basket of goods or their local cash equivalent can be used – for example, a minimal level of food, clothing, shelter, energy, transportation, telecom, childcare, primary education, and in many cases, health care.
In practice, all of these things are subsidized for the poor in most countries anyway. The alternative is uncontrolled political change, which more likely than not results in extremists of some sort.
LikeLiked by 1 person
If the choice is ever given, I’ll synthesize with the machines in a new york minute
LikeLiked by 1 person
Wannabe Transhuman eh? 😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
That would probably be my eventual conclusion. The formula is something like this:
Being human slave for robots < Superhuman on top of the food/metal chain
LikeLiked by 1 person
Would it be OK if I cross-posted this article to WriterBeat.com? I’ll be sure to give you complete credit as the author. There is no fee, I’m simply trying to add more content diversity for our community and I liked what you fwrote. If “OK” please let me know via email.
Autumn
AutumnCote@WriterBeat.com
LikeLiked by 1 person
Cheers! Emailed you a reply.
LikeLike
What I have been trying to get across is that there are many different ways of generating revenue other than the usual income, corp and sales taxes.
In the US tax revenues have soared to record high levels for the past three years while budgets have proceeded at deficit levels on a trillion dollars annually.
LikeLike
I’m not so sanguine that people would “seek out jobs to enrich themselves”.
It’s true that humans are an animal who find meaning in doing. We need to be of use. My fear is that a UBI would take away that basic human purpose: my personal observations of the effects of long-term unemployment and welfare doesn’t inspire me with much confidence that a great many people would, through lack of any other purpose, simply wither away on their couches, smoking dope and playing video games.
The utopian dream, of course, has always been that, freed of the necessity of labour, humans would turn their hands to creative pursuits. But I suspect that simply reflects more the creative bent of the utopian dreamers than any likely reality. The fact is that many people have neither the inclination nor the talent.
As for other types of jobs – if, as you say, the robots take over more and more jobs, what will there be left to do? Again, from personal observation of large-scale retrenchments, the gulf between breezy assurances of “retraining packages”, and the reality of former workers thrown on the scrap-heap, is massive.
I concede that I need to study the concept in far greater depth, but little I have read so far convinces me that UBI will be anything other than honeyed poison.
LikeLike
All very good points. While UBI has obviously never been implemented on a large scale or for a long length of time, from what I have read trial runs in India led to an increase in entrepreneurial spirit rather than a lack of interest in work; however, again it was a limited test run.
In any case, the whole concept is still unproven, so we simply do not know. I still find it a fascinating concept, and do highly recommend you look into it. Guy Standing’s recent book is good intro and relatively easy to find (in the UK, anyway); there are dozens of books and internet articles out there both for and against the concept. I always think that if you find people from all sides of the political compass both hating and loving a concept, its worth exploring 😉
LikeLike
I’ll see if I can find that book. I’ll admit that my gut reaction is mistrust – which is as good a reason as any to suspect that I could be wrong!
In all honesty, I’m open to be convinced: I have to admit that I’m just not across the economic arguments enough to make an informed judgement, there.
LikeLiked by 1 person