UBI – The case for micro local trial
The original objective of UBI
The prime objective behind UBI is the socially moral case for a more equal sharing of the nation’s wealth. It is argued that rich and powerful people and organisations have “plundered” the nation’s assets and are keeping it to themselves and their progeny. There is evidence and fear that this inequality is likely to grow at an increasing pace mainly due to the introduction of new technologies.
To address, but not completely resolve this issue, all that needs to be done is that some of this wealth is redistributed to the poorer citizens. The UBI method of implementing this, by awarding each individual citizen the same regular modest payment, is seen as the fairest and the most convenient solution administratively.
This payment is to be unconditional meaning that the recipient does not have to qualify in any way to get it and may use it as they wish.
Where will funds be found? The obvious place is from the wealthy and some corporations via a small new tax or increased existing tax. It may be politically difficult to do this but it is all that needs to happen to achieve the goal of reducing inequality and improving the monetary position of the precariat.
Why do we need pilots?
They report on a host of other benefits which are not relevant to the original intention of income distribution. The case above would only require a simple pilot to witness that income/wealth distribution was more equal than before the pilot. That appears to be simple arithmetic, but there may be a reason to check.
UBI supporters in their admirable aim to resolve the issues faced by the precariat are being seduced into trying to solve the many problems with existing or lack of social benefits. Currently in the UK, they seem to be preoccupied with arguments addressing the shortcomings of Universal Credit. This is a distraction.
There have been many pilots of all different kinds all with some positive and very few negative results but none have led to the implementation of UBI. Why?
There are many arguments on the potential negative effects (increased unemployment, reliance upon the state, unaffordable), all evidence of pilots indicate findings which disprove these arguments. But they seem to be ignored.
It is not the intention of UBI to fix any issues with other social benefits. Opponents often replace some of them with UBI. A social benefit which is in any way “tested” will be expensive to give to everybody and then moves UBI towards unaffordability.
Moreover, it is argued (see Interim report on Scottish Feasibility study) that past pilots are invalid or not “true” UBI because:
Most are not saturation
Many other benefits are means tested
Some are difficult to evaluate because of the effects of other social benefits
Some are only for the unemployed
Any pilot in one culture is not relevant in others
They do not test long term effects They are in a different culture or economic conditions
Pilots will not test long term effects such as inflation as sellers perceive increased buying power. Some recipients may not leave employment within a pilot but might if the award was long term. To pilot saturation is expensive, it is politically difficult to give the well off the award, moreover the effect may be negligible upon them and reduce reported benefit proportions. A rigorous pilot would also need to impose the tax and benefit changes that were expected.
The complexity is multiplied when considering a larger UBI which replaces some of the existing social benefits without unintentionally reducing the income of any of the poorer recipients. This is the reason some disability groups oppose this type of UBI.
Thus, even pilots with some positive results are seen as inadequate or failing due to some of the arguments above. What is needed is a trial of a low UBI with all other benefits left as they are.
Perhaps the Name UBI is part of the problem, the word income leads some to believe that it should provide some sort of standard of living and is therefore unaffordable. It is an equal sharing of some of the national wealth, a name like National Wealth Share Bond or Social Wealth Share Bond or Guy Standing’s “Commons Dividend” payment is more precise, reflecting the original moral case.
Action
I am Fellowship Councillor for the RSA representing Fellows in the North and am taking a lead on Fellows becoming more active nationally. I have put the forward to the RSA Council a suggestion for a privately funded micro trial.
Initially, small groups of Fellows would raise funds for a UBI pilot in their locality. This entails a commitment to raise, probably between £2 - 4k for each family/individual per annum for three years. The project will be in collaboration with a University, UBI Lab North east and possibly the RSA research function.
In discussion with three colleagues in Berwick-upon-Tweed they are prepared to commit to raising funds to support three such units. The plan is for the RSA to initiate trials in the North and eventually spread these nationally. I am currently pursuing the subject to gauge interest through the RSA Fellowship and other interested people or organisations, particularly in the North. The North East has just been identified with the largest inequality in life expectancy in the UK, this is largely attributed to poverty.
This is not a new idea; privately funded pilots have been carried out in Kenya and one is planned for the USA.
The RSA is supportive of this and suggests I move forward locally.
The project will need the co-operation of HMRC and DWP re tax and social benefits. The aim is that the payment is tax free and other benefits remain the same, i.e. the payment is not treated as income. This reduces complexity and cost whilst maintaining the purity of the purpose of equally sharing some of the nation’s wealth.
Maurice Ward FRSA
Maurice can be contacted by his email address