Home Categories About
argument top image
Is Universal Basic Income a good idea? Is Universal Basic Income a good idea?
No, UBI is a bad idea No, UBI is a bad idea
Yes, UBI is a good idea Yes, UBI is a good idea
It depends how UBI is funded It depends how UBI is funded
UBI is financially irresponsible UBI is financially irresponsible
UBI increases economic inequality UBI increases economic inequality
UBI undermines social cohesion UBI undermines social cohesion
UBI reduces the marginal utility of work UBI reduces the marginal utility of work
UBI is simpler to implement than other forms of welfare UBI is simpler to implement than other forms of welfare
UBI does not reduce incentives to work UBI does not reduce incentives to work
UBI enables everyone to meet their basic needs UBI enables everyone to meet their basic needs
UBI enables everyone to better participate in society UBI enables everyone to better participate in society
UBI will only work if it replaces the welfare state UBI will only work if it replaces the welfare state
UBI should be funded by tax increases alongside social welfare UBI should be funded by tax increases alongside social welfare
UBI should be means tested UBI should be means tested
Debate Mini Map

Is Universal Basic Income a good idea?
Back to question

No, UBI is a bad idea

(1 of 3) Next position >

UBI is financially irresponsible

The financial deficits greatly outweigh the financial benefits when considering the immense public costs of UBI. Increased tax rates as well as an inappropriate allocation of funds away from public health and education toward UBI creates significant disadvantages and budget deficits directly affecting public life.
Ian Goldin Daron Acemoglu
(1 of 4) Next argument >

Context

UBI requires a lot of public money to function. The funding for UBI programs has to come from somewhere, which may mean the cost of these programs is prohibitive.

The Argument

Implementing UBI at a level where the guaranteed income would ensure sufficient quality of life for recipients would mean spending enormous amounts of public funds. This would create equally enormous budget deficits. In order to pay for a UBI program, the government would have to source these funds by increasing taxes and/or reallocating funds from other large public programs. These programs could include health or education, where the expenditures are more important.[1] The cost of UBI to the public is simply too high.

Counter arguments

The tax increases needed to support UBI are exaggerated and are feasible given current income distributions. UBI would also make many current public welfare programs unnecessary, freeing up that funding without any loss of essential services.

Proponents

Framing

The financial costs that UBI entails for the state surpass its effectiveness.

Premises

[P1] UBI requires a large amount of public funding. [P2] This amount of funding can only be obtained through tax increases or reallocation of resources. [P3] It would be financially irresponsible to increase taxes or reallocate resources sufficiently to fund UBI.

Rejecting the premises

[P1] The sheer amount of funding needed for UBI does not make it financially irresponsible; it is simply necessary to rebalance the budget correctly. [P2] Tax increases will not be necessary to get to this level of funding; the increase of productivity through UBI will compensate. [P3] If taxes were to be raised, it would be a good way to redistribute it through UBI as it increases overall equality.

References

  1. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/may/06/universal-basic-income-public-realm-poverty-inequality

In the Wild

This page was last edited on Friday, 17 Jul 2020 at 10:46 UTC

Explore related arguments