Universal Basic Income
This was a discussion topic in my Philosophy of Work class recently. The idea--as advanced in the article "A Basic Income for All"--is to provide all citizens with a Universal Basic Income that would guarantee a basic level of subsistence. All individuals would be eligible, regardless of income bracket and/or work status. Here's the essential argument in favor:
Productivity, wealth, and national incomes have advanced sufficiently far to support an adequate UBI. And if enacted, a basic income would serve as a powerful instrument of social justice: it would promote real freedom for all by providing the material resources that people need to pursue their aims. At the same time, it would help to solve the policy dilemmas of poverty and unemployment, and serve ideals associated with both the feminist and green movements."The author, Philippe van Parijs, acknowledges that such a policy may be difficult to implement straight away so he has proposed that it be implemented in stages. He also contrasts the UBI with other social entitlement programs, such as a Negative Income Tax. He finds the UBI, however, to be superior in terms of counteracting the effects of poverty, providing for a basic subsistence level, and eliminating the "unemployment trap" created by social welfare programs.
As a strong proponent of social welfare, I have a hard time finding fault with this proposal. The way I see it, providing everyone with the means to sustain an adequate existence--and regain a measure of human dignity--is perhaps the greatest gift a government could give to its people. Paying for it might be a problem, but as van Parijs contends, a UBI may make other existing welfare programs unnecessary. A UBI may also result in far fewer health and development problems, further reducing the need for social and health services--money which could also be diverted back to a UBI fund.
As it stands, van Parijs' proposal provides this income to all citizens regardless of income, which means that the wealthy would also receive a subsidy. This was a point of contention for many in my class. But, it was also pointed out, this money would be recouped through a graduated income tax structure, similar to what we already have in place.
So, I put it to you: is such a plan feasible for this country? Would it actually help alleviate the social problems it purports to address? Is it too "socialist" for democracy-loving Americans to stomach?
[Note: Philippe van Parijs is an economist from the Catholic University of Louvain.]
posted by ze roberto @ 11/22/2005 10:16:00 AM
4 comments
4 Comments:
It's welfare on steroids, and my chief concern is that it robs some segment of the population of their desire to work -- or leads to a disinclination toward typical levels of gainful employment. I know we're not saying "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" (Marxism) but we're headed in that direction with UBI.
Now, I do feel very very strongly about raising minimum wage and provding "living wages" for the bottom-end of the working class. Especially given that our economy is now a service economy (GM laying off 30,000 employees today, anyone?) If we're intent on curbing the welfare stare, or at least in reforming it, we must -- as corporate citizens -- accept responsibility for paying wages and providing benefits that are in line with living costs.
If we (employers) don't pay living wages, in the long run, we're undermining the very marketplace of consumers we're purporting to serve/value/rely on. Am I wrong here?
Quoth Harris:
Is it too "socialist" for democracy-loving Americans to stomach?
I know that you are being a little tongue-in-cheek, but let me take your statement at face value, since it leads right into my main argument. :)
Socialism and democracy are certainly not mutually exclusive. Look at the Northern European states for proof (especially Sweden). All are pretty damned socialist: universal health care, automatic pensions, national disability insurance, unemployment assistance. And all are also peaceful (parlimental) democracies.
And regarding Sean's comment that welfare can rob people of their will to work, the Swedish approach to this problem is to make employment a condition of being a welfare recipient. If you want what the government is freely giving, you must give back to society. The only way you get out of work is if you are severely disabled. Even better, the government will find a job for you.
I guess at issue here are the obligations/responsibilities a government has towards its citizens. Is the government's role to ensure its citizens have equal *access* to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Or is its role to ensure that its citizens *have* life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Does that make sense? In other words, should government guarantee a certain quality of life for its people? Or does its obligation only extend to providing equal access and opportunity--leaving it up to individuals to create their own quality of life?
...should government guarantee a certain quality of life for its people? Or does its obligation only extend to providing equal access and opportunity--leaving it up to individuals to create their own quality of life?
The government’s role is merely to protect equal access and opportunity. It is up to the individual beyond that. A government that provided or 'guaranteed' a lifestyle to its citizens could do so only by forcing the sacrifice a segment of its citizens.
Until that point in time when we are genetically modified to pass through the birth canal with clothes on our backs and money in our wallets, poverty remains the natural state of affairs. Wealth is not an entitlement.
Post a Comment
<< Home