Basic Income

https://pixabay.com/illustrations/crowd-people-silhouettes-2457732/

Extermination of poverty has been a continuous goal for both government and scholars alike, and it has not gone unaddressed. And progression has been made to such a point that scholars have claimed it as a possible solution. This possible solution, in theory, would decline the percentage of people living in poverty to an extent so minimal that it would no longer be an issue. This solution is a basic income.

Poverty is an issue. The National Advisory Council on Poverty, within the branch of Employment and Social Development of Canada, defines poverty as: “the condition of a person who is deprived of the resources, means, choices and power necessary to acquire and maintain a basic level of living standards and to facilitate integration and participation in society.” It also states that roughly 1 in 9 people living in Canada live in this state. The morality of poverty is unquestionable. After all, the American Psychological Association states: “poverty is linked with negative conditions such as substandard housing, homelessness, inadequate nutrition and food insecurity, inadequate child care, lack of access to health care, unsafe neighbourhoods, and under-resourced schools.” This seemingly extensive list barely covers the adverse effects of poverty. A solution is necessary.

What is a basic income? Basic income (BI) essentially is a regular cash payment to all citizens of the country. It has two primary forms. One is guaranteed basic income. Guaranteed basic income depends on the household’s income and fluctuates in sum, respectively. And then, there is a universal basic income. Universal basic income is “a universal, unconditional, individual, regular and cash payment.” The difference between the two is eligibility. For GBI, if one has a financial situation deemed strong enough that, under specific criteria, one does not need the cash payment, they no longer receive it. In a sense, the cash payment can be “lost.” On the other hand, with UBI, even if one is financially well off, there is no case where one becomes ineligible for the cash payment. In this case, the cash payment cannot be “lost.” While the distinction between the two is vital to consider what form of BI to implement according to particular scenarios and countries, the general concept of BI will be used in the following paragraphs.

Let us first explore the benefits of implementing either of the BIs. The Basic Income Canadian Network (BICN) says that the general benefits of basic income are: reducing poverty, facilitating administrative and bureaucratic complexity, better public health, ecological justice and work, addressing automation concerns and economic inequality, and providing financial security. BI would eradicate general money problems like instability and even offer more benefits. One example is marginal workplaces. By providing a safety net one can rely on, individuals are allowed to choose the jobs they want for better pay. This safety net also encourages workplaces to treat their workers better, as they are no longer obliged to stay at a specific workplace.

This idea seems utopic. Unless we accept poverty or insist that any of the ameliorations we have described here are either wrong or unacceptable, Basic income should be implemented. After all, it is not that individuals cannot become “rich,” consequently reducing the incentive to work; it is just that the economic discrepancies would be lessened. The question of its implementation relies upon its feasibility. Is it even possible? Two scenarios of consideration can be identified. Is BI fundable, and if so, is it feasible?

The short answer to its fiscal possibility, experts say, is yes. Relying on BCIN again, they provide three options of benefit designs with careful analysis of how they could be funded. They say, “the potential sources of revenue are incredibly varied: income taxes on individuals and corporations; consumption taxes; greater tax fairness…; tax reforms…; creation of new taxes, …, and using resource royalties to create a sovereign wealth fund.” Speaking more broadly on the sources of revenue, many of these tax laws would focus on taxing the wealthier members of society by introducing or imposing more excellent tax laws in domains that are either not taxed at all or could be taxed more. 

The question of the socially possible typically rests on how society would react. The general argument is that if people are given free money, why would they just not stop working? Hamilton and Mulvae’s research argued contrary to this. Rather than a disincentive to work, it provides an incentive. Simply put, BI does not exist to provide people with all the luxuries they can dream of. To attain amenities or other monetary incentives, they need to work. In addition, BI has been implemented and studied in certain counties in certain situations. Countries like the United States, Canada, Brazil, Finland, Namibia, and India have implemented these programs with various positive results. 

Nettle asks, “why, when the UBI seems such a good idea when it has been cognitively available to us for so long, when so many very clever people have modelled it and found it desirable, is there no developed society on Earth in which it has been implemented?” His question poses a fair point. In Canada’s pilot program between 1974-1978, while some positive changes were observed, the unemployment rate did not improve . Yet, that is of the slightest concern. On this, Nettle says, “partly this is because democratic governments, indeed societies in general, are poor at far-reaching systemic reform, instead finding it easier to tinker with and tune existing systems.” In other words, politicians have something to lose, while philosophers and critics do not. This simple fact exemplifies this issue. The Ontario Basic Income pilot was discontinued, not because of its difficulties, but as the World Population Review simply states , from a change of government. BI, in any of its forms, is a commitment and is an expensive commitment as well. In countries like Finland, Canada, Iran, and many others, the pilot commenced but was cancelled due to bureaucratic issues or was otherwise considered but never implemented. 

Nettle outlines four general arguments against UBI. The first, funding it, as he establishes, is unnecessary to consider, for there is clear evidence on how to support it. His following two arguments posit that individuals might have difficulty accepting the notion of “paying” for others and could refuse to believe people will work if given a BI. Finally, the monetary and political costs of implementing UBI, which naturally require social and economic reforms, are significant, so the possibility of failure is a big issue. 

UBI might be the answer to the societal issue of poverty. The question, however, lies within its feasibility. In current news, there is still a heated debate on whether UBI should be implemented or not, and this debate remains unsolved.It is wrong to argue that BI will, without a doubt, work. As it has been established, there is a risk of failure. But the possibility outweighs the risk. The ameliorations, the benefits, and the goodness BI could bring is impossible to argue against. It, if it works, is most certainly beneficial. Poverty, one of the greatest vices within society, could be solved. The very plague affecting one in nine people could be eradicated. I, therefore, argue BI should be implemented, organizations advocating for BI should be heard more, and changes – even if they are not identical to the one these organizations propose – should be implemented. Even if it fails, it will provide even more background research on how it could succeed. BI is beneficial, and it needs to be implemented.