09-30-2016, 09:51 PM
I like the idea of both schemes, but Universal Basic Income appeals to me as it provides a sum to allow people to e incentive to work, feed, house and clothe themselves. Administration costs would be cheaper than the present benefit system. It can allow greater flexibility of work, allow people to take up more community or voluntary roles, and a safety nets for those who wish to start a small business or who are self employed. The argument against is that it reduces the incentive to work, the incentive would be a far greater income secured than simply receiving the Universal Basic Income.
As you say the Universal Basic Income would be paid to those on high incomes who do not necessarily need it. This I see as the costly flaw, and which is why adapting it to a National Income Scheme would be better, with a cut off point when wages reaches a certain level. I think this would allow taxation to pay for both National Income and Universal Inheritance.
Basically a combination of both could be achieved, help alleviate severe poverty, redistribute wealth and provide aspiration. It would mean changing the 'universal' aspect of the income scheme to one that is means tested, but a small sacrifice of principle to achieve positive goals.
As you say the Universal Basic Income would be paid to those on high incomes who do not necessarily need it. This I see as the costly flaw, and which is why adapting it to a National Income Scheme would be better, with a cut off point when wages reaches a certain level. I think this would allow taxation to pay for both National Income and Universal Inheritance.
Basically a combination of both could be achieved, help alleviate severe poverty, redistribute wealth and provide aspiration. It would mean changing the 'universal' aspect of the income scheme to one that is means tested, but a small sacrifice of principle to achieve positive goals.