A Universal Basic Income offers a means of addressing structural inequality exacerbated by the pandemic

Over the centuries, the creation of money as a universally-accepted payment mechanism has facilitated a huge advancement in what the human race has been able to accomplish. Its development acted as a means of unifying people from different corners of the globe, expediting prosperous trade networks and enriching cultural cohesion. Subsequently, it goes without saying that, like it or not (and I certainly don't), you need money and resources to survive in the modern world. 

Sadly, that is a luxury many don't have. For all our advancements since the introduction of capital, financial inequalities that plagued feudal systems in the Middle Ages are still present in 21st century society. In the UK, many people are underpaid and overworked, forced to be dependent on foodbanks, benefits and charity because of inhumane working conditions. The result is that around 23% of the UK population are living in poverty, including 700,000 driven in by the effects of COVID-19.

The negative repercussions of the aforementioned pandemic are monumental. And with big problems must come big solutions. It's time to channel our ever-proliferating cash obsession into change that will support not only those in poverty, but everyone. It's time for a Universal Basic Income (UBI) in the UK.

The idealist in me was wholly supportive of a UBI when I first came across the idea of effectively giving people money, reading Rutger Bregman's Utopia For Realists a couple of years ago. But I also met it with some scepticism, which I'm sure will be shared by readers. Can we afford it? Won't people stop working? Do we actually need it? Won't we just have really high inflation? Is it even fair?

These are all common reactions to the idea, and that is understandable because the notion is so flummoxing and alien to many. The more research I have done, particularly in the last couple of months, the more I've been convinced that these arguments have little grounding. It is impossible for me to persuade any sceptic in one article - but a post-pandemic future gives us an opportunity to combat inequality, and I want to try and encourage policies that can have long-lasting change. 

Why we need a UBI now:

It is no secret that inequality has been rising substantially in the UK in a decade riddled with austerity policies after the 2008 financial crash. According to the Equality Trust, in 2018, the richest 20% of the country held an income 12 times higher than the poorest 20%, and the top 1% alone have 13% of wealth in the country. At the same time, the number of people using food banks has risen exponentially in the last decade, up at nearly 2 million in the year 2019/20. 

I could throw statistics at you all day, but I needn't. The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated these divisions in wealth, but also shown us the need for change is paramount. When Chancellor Rishi Sunak introduced the "furlough scheme" last April that allowed businesses to claim 80% of wages onto the government, it was widely welcomed by the population. Throughout lockdowns, where people have been unable to work, it has offered a security net to pay rent, living costs and for basic necessities. The principle underlying a UBI is that same safety blanket - except it is universal.

The current benefit systems in the UK aren't fit for purpose. Universal Credit is built off the assumption that people will try to cheat the system. When you draw a line as to who "deserves" support, you waste time and money testing people. You introduce the potential for errors; false negatives (people who qualify for support but don't receive it), and false positives (people who don't qualify for support, but get it). The less means-testing there was with the furlough scheme, the more people able to get their money quickly - which we can all agree was vital with an unprecedented catastrophe like the pandemic. Giving money without conditionality avoids these problems.

Right now, poverty alleviation systems like benefits are so fraught with conditions (you must have x, y and z to qualify) that they ironically prevent people using them from seeking work. Why would the unemployed look for even a part-time job if they have their whole monetary support network threatened?

Fundamentally, a basic income liberates people. Imagine receiving an amount every month just because you are a citizen. No-one is telling you what you can/can't do with it. You can save it for long-term security, or use it on basic necessities month-by-month. Imagine the potential.

"We can't afford that" - the Money Argument:

Credit: The Toronto Star

Intentionally, I have painted a rosy picture of life with a UBI because I know there are practical concerns people have with the concept. The principal one, put to anyone proposing it, is the question if we can actually afford it?

Well, in honesty, poverty itself is expensive. With a capital E. Possibly even £78 billion per year is spent on lost tax revenue and additional benefits spending resulting from the causes of poverty, which demonstrates how beneficial it is to the average UK taxpayer to alleviate it.

When thinking about a implementing a UBI, the cost needs to be calculated as a "net transfer". That is effectively asking "how much of a UBI is already covered by current benefit systems?". Some benefit systems would remain, but the scrapping of means-tested conditional benefits would contribute to funding a UBI.

Although there has been only some research done specifically in the UK around a UBI, models suggest that up to £10,000 a year could be given per family through a partial scheme at a gross cost of £300bn per year. This would however be a net transfer of only £182bn, as it could save £118bn in benefits. Through raising income tax allowances and abolishing personal allowances, the net cost of at least a partial basic income could come close to nothing.  

More detailed studies have been done in the U.S., aiming higher at giving £12,000 per adult per year. The concept remains the same. UBI engulfs the costs of benefits systems, and uses taxes that target the richest 10% to no real detriment to them to pay for the rest. 

The other main economic objection to a UBI is the conception that it would cause inflation to skyrocket, which Scott Santens termed the "New Zero Argument". But contrary to what many think, a UBI is not printing money. As mentioned before, funding a UBI is already money from within the system (benefits and tax rises). 

Santens considers 4 examples to dispel this myth. The first is the basics of supply and demand, which is unaffected by a UBI because it is existing money. Where demand does increase, supply can be either be increased or ignored. In the latter case prices would rise, but this suggests that only luxuries would increase in price. After all, all basic necessities are used by everyone already.

Concern about increased rent with a UBI also worries people. But in the UK, there are around 3 times as many empty houses as there are currently homeless. This suggests that all a basic income will do is lift those people back into housing at no difference to the rest of the housing market.

Santens also highlights a common argument that people would spend unearned income more lavishly and drive up prices of goods and services. But like the previous two points, the opposite has been observed in Alaska, where there is a form of Partial Basic Income. There, unearned money is spent similarly and inflation has dropped from above to below average inflation rates in the U.S.

The easy answer to the money worries? UBI is affordable and practical in the markets, as shown by examples and theoretical evidence.

"No-one will work" - Are people too lazy for a UBI?

Another assumption made against UBI is the suggestion that everyone would just stop working if they had basic security. And it is a fair concern. People need a motivation to work, society has so often said, and taking the threat of insecurity away from them would remove that incentive - so they'd become lazy.

The problem with that premise is that it's pretty much like saying "we should force people to work by taking away their basic security". It's trapping individuals in a society where they have no choice but to bust-a-gut to live. When 37% of British workers think their job is making no meaningful contribution to the world, is that really a good thing?

Ideally, we would have three choices; to work for others, to work for ourselves, or to do no work. Because of the interconnectedness of society today, we can only work for others. To be "self-employed" don't you need something to start-up? For many, finances, education and competition are barriers to making this a reality. If you choose to not work and become homeless, you still work to find food, places to sleep, and avoid law enforcement.

The current system is constructed for us to work for others. No wonder so many people don't think their job means anything, eh?

With the introduction of a UBI, we have all three choices. If you want to work for others as a supplementary wage to your safety net, fine. If you want to enter into a creative venture and enter a more meaningful job, fine. If you don't want to work, fine. 

But most of us will work. Why would we stop working to meet all our needs just because we have some basic safety? Your work will still fund that new TV, that shiny car, that expensive holiday. You're not going to give that up just because you've got a house and enough food - and it would be silly to pretend otherwise.

Improved wellbeing, security and society - what the evidence says

UBI has been piloted around the world, for decades now, and guess what? It's been a success every time. 

In the 1970's Richard Nixon nearly implemented a Negative Income Tax in the US paying families $10,000. Trials in certain states made the "laziness" perception a myth, but a policy advisor wholly opposed to it convinced Nixon against it - off the back of a flawed experiment 150 years earlier. A 1974 pilot in Canada illustrated the same thing, but it was scrapped when a more conservative government entered power.

In more contemporary times, Finland's much-maligned experiment improved mental wellbeing among participants, and allowed people to pursue more create ventures. Analysis of an ongoing pilot in Stockton, California has so far shown similar findings, and a non-governmental organisation GiveDirectly are giving grants to people in Uganda and Kenya, and the positive economic results are profound, permeating through individuals, villages and communities. 

The future - a world worth fighting for

There is ample political and social division in the UK, but the one thing that most agree with is the brilliance of the NHS. That same NHS that was born out of devastation caused by World War II. As we emerge from the single most impactful event since, it's time for new policies that take us forward.

A Universal Basic Income is - as people have cliched - this generation's NHS. It champions the good in people, creating a society based off trust rather than distrust. It lifts people out of the despair of poverty that no human deserves. It gives people agency over their own lives and empowers them to create a better society.

I said at the start that there is little chance of me convincing a sceptic in this article, but if you are still reading now, it's time to make this part of the conversation. I'd love to hear your views on its strengths, weaknesses, viability - because communication is the only way of education. 

Whether it is through a basic income or not, the pandemic offers us a chance to put innovation on the agenda, political, socially and economically. My audience are likely the next generation, so this is a call to them: use your voice and look to what can be improved. Because we can only do that together.

Specifically for a Universal Basic Income, I want to use what knowledge I have gained and share it. In lieu of that, I have created an Instagram account @basicincomeforchange, where I want to try and spread knowledge and awareness around the concept (because it is difficult to unpack - I know!).

For a long time, I have felt distrusting of the world, that I can't change anything. But where is change going to come from if not from ourselves? I hear people say we are not like our parents, that we are more accepting - and it is true, we have lots more acceptance towards race, gender, sex, stigmas and disabilities. 

But that has to be put into action. And policy change should be right at the top of the agenda.

You can probably tell by now, but I absolutely love the idea of a UBI. It seems grossly unfair that people are forced to spend a life living in poor conditions, working awful hours and spending their lives filled with misery. We have created such a complicated society, that we've forgotten what's most important - that everyone can not have to worry about basic needs.

Some will say "that's just how the world is". No, that's how we've made it. By embracing a Universal Basic Income, we can offer everyone security and a chance to live the life they desire. Because if we are not on Earth to accomplish that - then what are we here for?