Universal basic income would enhance freedom and cut poverty

In the Financial Times, Dr Guy Standing, SOAS University of London, replies to Ian Goldin, who gave five reasons for dismissing basic income.

In his recent book, summarising 30 years of research, all five are considered. He explains:

First, he says universal basic income (BI) is unaffordable. Many advocates do not use “universal”. What they mean is that all legal residents (and legal migrants after a qualifying period) should qualify. Most believe the BI should be clawed back from the rich in tax. This is administratively easier, more equitable and efficient than targeting by means-testing. The latter has high exclusion and inclusion errors, low take-up and poverty traps, inducing bureaucrats to use intrusive behaviour tests. Mr Goldin claims that a BI is “unaffordable and leads to ballooning deficits”, adding it would be paid by “reallocation of resources from other areas such as health and education”. You cannot have it both ways. Anyhow, BI could be paid by cutting regressive subsidies, including the 1,156 tax reliefs that cost the exchequer £400bn a year.

“Second, he claims it would “lead to higher inequality and poverty”, adding “it typically aims to replace existing unemployment and other benefits”. The latter is untrue. What most advocates want is replacement of means tests, with supplements to BI for those with extra costs of living or lower expected earnings. As for the claim, all pilots/schemes have shown reduced poverty and inequality. In Alaska, when the Permanent Fund was established from which BI was to be made, the poverty rate and Gini were the highest in all US states. Twenty years later, they were the lowest. In India, pilots in nine villages resulted in reduced poverty/inequality, by comparison with beforehand and with other villages. One cannot presume a BI would raise poverty or inequality.

“Third, Mr Goldin claims a BI would “undermine social cohesion” by “rewarding people for staying at home”. All polls show that more than 90 per cent would continue to work if they had a BI. Unlike means-tested benefits, a BI would overcome the poverty trap, whereby many face marginal tax rates of 80 per cent in taking low-wage jobs.

“Mr Goldin’s fourth point is similar to the third, claiming a BI undermines incentives to participate”.

“His fifth point is that BI “offers a panacea to corporations and political leaders, postponing a discussion about the future of jobs”. Why? Most of us want to improve our lives. A BI as anchor of a new distribution system is justifiable for six reasons. It is a matter of social justice, would enhance freedom, produce basic security, cut poverty, promote political stability at a time of rising discontent, and, as India’s government recognised in a parliamentary report, even in a low-income country, a BI is affordable”.






Posted on March 22, 2018, in Basic income and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. Leave a comment.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: