The UK think tank Compass, which published the 2016 report Universal Basic Income: An idea whose time has come? by Howard Reed and Stewart Lansley, recently launched the blog series on the topic of basic income (“Universal Basic Income: Security for the Future?”).
Two pieces in the series are “Coming off the fence on UBI?” by Ruth Lister (chair of the Compass Management Committee and Emeritus Professor at Loughborough University) and, in reply to Lister’s contribution, “Basic Income and Institutional Transformation” by Louise Haagh (co-chair of the Basic Income Earth Network and Reader at the University of York).
Lister expresses much sympathy toward UBI, in part due to its challenge to the “contemporary fetishisation of paid work.” At the same time, however, she questions the total lack of conditionality on benefits — on grounds of both ethics (is it fair to subsidize the “right to be lazy”?) and feasibility (would the idea garner enough political support?) — and notes a “participation income,” as defended by the late Tony Atkinson, as a potential compromise. In the end, though, she states that “for all my ambivalence, I am coming round to the idea of a UBI as a means of ensuring everyone a modicum of basic security in an increasingly insecure world.”
Haagh, writing in part in response to Lister, argues for UBI as a way to fundamentally reconceptualize the relationship between citizens and the state. She emphasizes that removing conditionalities on a basic level of economic support does not “entail a general separation of income from work” (since monetary remuneration for work would continue to exist). Neither, in her view, should a basic income be seen as a “challenge to the work ethic.” Instead, according to Haagh, the removal of conditionalities should be seen as a way to enable individuals to think and plan for the long term. Conditional income support, as she puts it, aims to “motivate people in the short-term, with a heavy dose of stick.” For example, beneficiaries risk losing their most basic support if they do not take the first job offered — regardless of the job. The punitive nature of conditional benefits encourages short-term thinking aimed at mere self-preservation. In contrast, an unconditional basic income provides a floor on which individuals can engage in long-term strategizing.
Reviewed by Russell Ingram
Photo: “Welfare Office” CC BY 2.0 Jacob Norlund
Dear Kate
Thank you for a good read.
With regard to the disencetivise to work as a benificiary.
I am currently “retired” as is my wife.
We each receive a full pension from the Australian Government.
I have continued to work 2 shifts a week which returns the maximum without our pensions being reduced.
If for example I worked for an additional $100 in any given week the result would go like this:-
50% of gross returned to government
20% of gross returned to gov’t as tax.
3% of gross returned to gov’t as goods and services tax. (10% of $30 in hand)
Therefore net return to gov’t $73.
Of the $30 that I retain a $15 spend is required to get to work for the additional shift and purchase a small meal.
Therefore net return to me from earnings of $100
Is the princely sum of $15
Needless to say I do not work additional shifts!
If a UBI was to be implemented according to the philosophy of it as outlined on this website, it would strike at the heart of employer/employee relationships no doubt in terms of the hiring market.
No longer would employers have significant bargaining power. After all, if a potential employee is financially hungry enough, then the power in the relationship is obviously with the employer carrying out the hiring procedure. This could be a good thing, but depending on what side your on.
A UBI would have to be introduced into a nations constitution and not as legislation that could be manipulated or ousted by future governments. In Australia for example, constitutional changes are carried out via referendums.
But I think with the inevitable advancement of technology via automation, and I believe it will leap frog ahead massively in coming years, the education of future job replacements will become too slow and muddled to catch up, and keep the vast majority of workers actively employed on full time basis.
In Australia for example, in recent years, we are already seeing a growing trend in reduction of full time work according to official figures. Creating an underclass reliant on long term underemployment ( wanting more hours of work but can’t get it ) or down right unemployment that ends up not only compounding the problem of finding work in the first place ( employers are “allergic” to potential employees who have record of long term unemployment) leaping from generation to generation especially within some rural/regional areas.
I also wanted to add that the amount of money the government in Australia spends on the privatized job seeking network is in the billions of $, This amount of money could go significantly towards funding a UBI in this country without imposing on the taxation pool already.
So I think in some ways today, A UBI is inevitably coming not only in Australia but to other nations as well that face similar problems.
Hi,
I’ve written a proposal for a variant of UBI that is testable, implementable and politically tenable.
Hi,
I’ve written a proposal for a variant of UBI that is testable, implementable and politically tenable: docs.google.com/document/d/1Uc_xQpLLEmxY1-6GIFerrzMVAFwgVQz66wdDUjHJi4M
I would greatly appreciate feedback.
Thanks & Regards,
C
I would greatly appreciate feedback.
Thanks & Regards,
C