Scottish Independence and Scotland's Future Scottish Innovation
Party (SIP) Universal Basic
Income
Universal Basic Income is a
payment made to every eligible adult and child. It is not dependent on
income and so is not means-tested. It is a basic platform on which
people can build their lives – whether they want to earn, learn, care or
set up a business.
It sounds like a Utopian dream but there are increasing signs that
support for the idea is growing across the developed world. The
RSA has
developed a new model of Basic Income and this report argues that a
Basic Income for the UK – and elsewhere - would be feasible, desirable
and beneficial.
Why we should give
everyone a basic income
Automate Now? Robots, Jobs and Universal
Basic Income A Public Debate
For and against Basic Income
Why we should give everyone a basic
income
This talk was given at a local TEDx event, produced independently of the
TED Conferences. Rutger Bregman (1988) studied at Utrecht University and
the University of California in Los Angeles, majoring in History. In
September 2013 Bregman joined the online journalism platform De
Correspondent. His article on basic income was nominated for the
European Press Prize and was published by The Washington Post.
Universal basic income is not a magic
solution, but it could help millions
By Anthony Painter in the Guardian Newspaper
The current system of welfare and employment simply isn’t working.
Scotland, Canada and the Netherlands are right to explore this
misunderstood option.
Universal basic income is the idea that just won’t go away. At heart,
it’s a very simple concept – every individual citizen should receive a
regular payment on an unconditional basis. However, the actual structure
and design varies considerably. Nonetheless, what has become clear in
the last year or so is that there is growing desire across the globe,
including in the UK, to explore, debate, test, design, and build support
for a universal basic income.
Why now? There are a number of factors. Labour markets and systems of
tax and social support have been through enormous change in the last
quarter of a century. Some of these changes helped people into work and
provided targeted financial support to individuals and families. But
there is growing concern that we have seen the emergence of a
“precariat” – insecure, often in poverty despite being in work, facing
relentlessly complex life choices, a complexity reinforced by the
operation of the welfare state. Inequality, precariousness, insecurity –
lack of control over one’s life – are challenges that recent reforms
have done too little to address.
Basic income is designed to give people more control over their lives.
It is not just the cash sum that is important but the security and
certainty provided; a more predictable platform on which to make life
choices. Should some of the fears over the rapid impact of new forms of
automation driven by artificial intelligence and robotics come to pass,
then this certainty will become even more crucial as people strive to
adapt.
Will people be lazy if given a basic income? One might say this is a
fundamentally, and worryingly, negative view of humanity.
Notwithstanding that, models of basic income systems such as that
outlined by the organisaton I work for – the RSA – do not offer a level
of income which would remove the necessity of work, but rather one which
would address some of the issues of insecurity. This basic level would
allow for greater work choices for individuals than the current system
offers, with a chance to move away from dehumanising short-term roles.
The current welfare bureaucracy offers little such choice, instead
forcing people into insecure work where they face effective tax rates
approaching 80%.
Isn’t it expensive? A workable system of basic income could cost up to
1% of GDP (a number of proposed schemes are significantly less). This is
comparable in scope to decisions made by UK governments in the past 20
years to increase pensions, tax credits, raise the personal allowance
threshold, reduce corporation taxes and so on. Some critics have
resorted to all sorts of caricatures of the policy. The oldest trick in
the book is to set a basic income at an unrealistically high level and
then claim it’s too expensive (one recently set it at an effective rate
of almost £35,000 for a family of four which, yes, would be expensive).
Then there are claims that it would harm the disabled or deprive people
of housing or childcare. But basic income replaces part, not all, of the
welfare state. That is because it is not welfare, it is an income. When
you receive an income, you don’t require the same level of support. So
additional needs would still be met. There have been claims that basic
income is too administratively complex. More complex than the current
tax and tax credits system? That seems highly unlikely. And why should
the rich receive the same as the poor? Well, they can be taxed more
under a basic income system to take account of that.
Basic income is not a magic solution. Its advocates do not have all the
answers. Nor can they have them without further discussion, refinement,
and experimentation. This is why provinces in
Canada, the government of
Finland, a group of
Dutch cities, a development charity, and
Glasgow city and Fife councils are seeking to explore aspects of a
basic income system in practice. Governments in London and Edinburgh
should consider what a UK basic income pilot would look like and how it
could be supported.
The tragedy for those who believe in progressive change would be if this
debate was stifled. If we as a society are serious about creating a
greater level of security and dignity for all then this debate needs to
be widened rather than curtailed. If we can’t discuss sensibly some of
the most significant economic and social changes taking place then what
is left of progressive politics? Universal basic income opens out this
essential discussion. Let’s expand the conversation – and the
experimentation – rather than shutting it down.
Many years ago I suggested that we should
look at such a system without knowing anything about a Universal Basic
Income.
At the time I suggested that we needed to look at what everyone should
be entitled to and that was...
Accommodation sufficient to the person or family that was heated or
cooled with fridge, microwave and cooker.
A TV and Computer (with Internet access) for every home
Sufficient funds to feed them on a healthy diet
A means of transport tp get them to the shops or work.
Sufficient funds to clothe them
And a small sum to enable them to have a little luxury like being able
to purchase a present for Christmas.
This would be available for every person no matter what their income
was.
I then felt that after this basic income all would pay tax on a gradual
basis so that the more they earned the more tax they would pay.
I then suggested that we should look at mega corporations and ensure
they all paid tax on their profits no matter what country they were in.
It seemed to me that there are many corporate's making obscene amounts
of money that were getting away with paying very little tax. I thus
called for simple rules on taxation that completely eliminated tax loop
holes.
I figured this would mean billions of savings from administering the
current complex system of social security and welfare. I envisaged that
the welfare system could be completely eliminated.
And finally I called for
everyone to be employed in that if you couldn't find work then you would
be asked to do public service. That could be visiting elderly neighbours
to check they were ok. It could be cleaning the area in your community.
The work you would be asked to do would fit with your skill sets so an
admin worker would not normally be asked to do manual labour and visa
versa.
The one
problem I could see was on accommodation. I mean that if you live
in Edinburgh or London you would be paying much higher rents. So
how you get around that I'm not sure.
Also many private
landlords do a very poor job about ensuring your accommodation is a fit
place to live. I thus saw problems in this area and called for
more public housing to be made available and also clear legislation on
standards for private rental.
I also noted that in the
drive to improve dividends that often meant people were laid off.
I thought there should be an incentive for large companies to retain
workers. It might be sufficient to put a cap on profits so that if
you reach a certain figure you must re-invest the balance into your
company or donate it to worthwhile causes.
Clearly there are
practical issues to be worked out but I thought this would work if we
put our minds to it.
I was also keen to try and get rid of
professional politicians in that MSP's and MP's could only serve for a
10 year period. I was also keen to eliminate political parties so
that all politicians were elected to represent their constituency.
When they didn't do a good job then there would be some mechanism to
call a by election.
The Buchanan
Institute
A Secure Foundation to Build Our Lives: Making the Case for a Universal
Basic Income (UBI)
How to one-up the universal basic income
A radical proposal to redefine and extend service provision to all those
in need without breaking the bank has the potential to spark something
truly transformative. April 11, 2019.
Poverty Trapped
Why Is Poverty Still With Us, After 70 Years Of The Welfare State? by
John Penrose MP (2022) (pdf)
This comment system
requires you to be logged in through either a Disqus account
or an account you already have with Google, Twitter,
Facebook or Yahoo. In the event you don't have an account
with any of these companies then you can create an account
with Disqus. All comments are moderated so they won't
display until the moderator has approved your comment.
