Flaxen Sackson in repose |
Below represents a ‘Guest
Post’ from an ex-student of mine. He normally comments under the name, Flaxen
Sackson. The implication being that he is my actual biological son. This may be
the case as I recall meeting his mother one dark Tipton night 26 years ago.
Please note, the paternity test is pending.
Anyway, he has
decided to offer the following article for publication on this esteemed site-
may Woden forgive him, for he shall receive no forgiveness from my readers.
Needless to say, what
follows is solely the considered opinion of my bastard seed and in no way
represents my own viewpoint. This prose piece is proffered in the spirit of ‘freedom
of speech’ and therefore I expect well thought out and polite responses. Be
gentle and play nice. Arse.
Money is the root of all evil. It also happens to make the world go around,
which is a rather unfortunate design oversight.
It is necessary for survival, if you don’t have a plot of land, adequate
shelter (that you don’t have to pay exorbitant rent for), a steady source of
fresh water, and the wherewithal to grow and cook your own food. So what would happen if the government gave
out free, unconditional money to every citizen or permanent resident of their
country?
1
Yeah, never going to happen
Universal basic income (hereforthwith referred to as UBI
because I’m lazy) is often thought of as an alternative to welfare – but there
is still considerable indecision over what it is, or how to implement it. The two most common camps are UBI as a
replacement for all forms of welfare, versus UBI that can be supplemented by
welfare. In both these cases, the income
is just enough to keep you over the poverty line – i.e. a barely liveable
wage. Ideally, this would be
supplemented by an additional income, but it would be enough to keep you fed if
you were out of work. Some entitled millenials think UBI should
provide enough income that seeking employment should be unnecessary, which just
sounds like a pipe dream.
The idea of a basic income was raised as early as the 18th
century by English radicals, because who wouldn’t want free money? The discussion has become a lot more heated
since the 2010s, mostly because the robotic uprising means many jobs have been
lost to automation. The idea of Saxon’s
15-hour work week seems less sweet when the mortgage payments aren’t getting
any lower. The main argument for UBI is
that it would lower, or entirely eradicate, poverty in a way that our current
welfare systems do not. This is because
current welfare systems come with a lot
of hoops to jump through, all of which are designed to make unemployment
figures look a little less bad. They are
also susceptible to the poverty trap – if you have welfare plus a job, then any
raise in salary can often be taken out of your welfare, meaning you make the
same (or occasionally less) amount of money than before. This disincentivises effort, and gives way to
the “lazy welfare” stereotype. Because
its amount is static per person, it also prevents breeding simply to receive
more welfare – the downstream impact of this could quite literally save
humanity. The fact that everybody
receives this income could have a positive effect on how people view those on
welfare – one established gentleman I talked to complained about how their
money was going to buy cigarettes for the lower class. Of course, if the baby boomers hadn’t ruined
the world’s economy, bought up all the decent land, and are just refusing to
die, maybe there would be enough to go around.
2
Not that I'm bitter or anything
The biggest question that is raised when UBI is involved is
“where will the money come from?”. The
first solution is to dissolve other forms of welfare, and combine all their
funding into UBI. While this helps, the
number often falls far short of what is necessary. Increasing the tax rate is a less popular,
but effective idea. A basic income has
been trialled in Finland, with potentially positive initial results, but over
there the tax rate is above 50%. Of
course, raising the tax rate is always a pleasant experience, and is generally
well-received by the populace (please note – this is sarcasm). On a side note, raising taxes for the “rich”
could be a plausible alternative. Or it
could be, if not for the failures of capitalism placing the power of the government
in the hands of said individuals (easy, Sack’s Son). In any case, taking money from those with too
much and giving it to everybody else sounds familiar…
All in all, the Universal Basic Income is an idea. Whether good or bad, we don’t know yet. It needs to be experimented upon, implemented
in different ways, and thoroughly tested before it can either be widely used or
completely discarded. In this age of
automation and increasing unemployment, people need something they can fall
back on. Personally, I think it’s a
hopeful idea. Once the previous
generation eventually carks it, we millenials can finally focus on increasing
automation and lowering costs, repairing the damage to the ecosystems, and
bringing the world into a new Golden Age for the next baby boomers to destroy
(arse).
Tut, tut! Misquote!!
ReplyDelete"The love of money is the root of all evil"
This ambitious plan could only be funded by the tax base and the money required to pay everyone an above poverty income would be prohibitively high. On that basis alone UBI is totally unworkable.
ReplyDeleteSo the government will immediately bring it in....
Delete