Arguments for a Universal Basic Income – Introduction

The concept of a Universal Basic Income is one that goes beyond the more general idea of “Benefits” or “Welfare”.  Payments from the government to the poorest in society have long been the norm in developed economies; indeed, whilst it was a novel concept when Sir Thomas More published his “Utopia” in 1516, the following half millennium has seen his arguments become quite mainstream.  He writes:

“Petty larceny isn’t bad enough to deserve the death penalty. And no penalty on earth will stop people from stealing, if it’s their only way of getting food.”

However, most of these payment systems come with some sort of limitation, usually quite reasonable sounding: they may be means tested, so that the less poor you are, the less you get; they may be dependent on how much you have paid into them previously, more like a savings plan or employment insurance; they may not pay anyone that has a job, as these people need it less; or they may require you to spend all of your savings before you receive any payments, as if you have savings, you do not need assistance.

As the name suggests, Universal Basic Income is a payment system that is based around universality – the same payment is to be made to everyone in the country, rich or poor.  Whether someone has a job or not, has paid into a scheme or not, has savings or not, the government pays them the same amount.  This is aimed at replacing most “Welfare” payments, which would no longer be needed if the Universal Basic Income were enough for everyone to survive on.  It is not designed to replace any government payments that deal with disabilities or healthcare, only those related to survival such as housing benefit, state pensions, unemployment benefit and so on.

The first person to articulate the concept of what we now refer to as a Universal Basic Income was Thomas Paine in 1796.  Since then however, it has been supported by a surprisingly wide range of figures, including the philosophers John Stuart Mill and Bertrand Russell, progressive economist Henry George and conservative economist Milton Friedman.  That it has received support from so many people with such diverse political viewpoints suggests that there may be many different perspectives from which it may be argued as a beneficial policy.  Despite this, it has not yet been implemented on a country-wide scale anywhere in the world.

Over the next few posts, I hope to address any controversies and lay out several arguments that advocate for a Universal Basic Income from a variety of different viewpoints, to demonstrate that it is indeed an idea of merit regardless of which political opinions you may hold.

Sequence of Posts

• The Accountant: Simple Tax Code
• The Realist: Demonstration of Viability for the UK
• The Conservative: Less Bureaucracy, More Responsibility
• The Libertarian: Freedom from Gouging
• The Liberal: Less Vilification of the Poor
• The Socialist: A Robust Safety Net
• The Capitalist: Removal of Market Distortion
• The Entrepreneur: More Stability
• The Economist: Effective Stimulus
• The Philosopher: The Land Dividend
• Conclusion: Implementation Possibilities
• Appendix I: The United States
• Appendix II: Comments & Clarifications

Also available as a single long article.