Universal basic income is not just some pipedream

T A certain point in the recent past, many of us accepted the idea that things are a bit pants. And if anything, getting pantsier. Even before our mad summer of neoliberal neurosis wages have been falling, inequalities widening, mistrust simmering, carbon spewing and mental health unravelling as centuries of vengeful ghosts edge ever closer to our goose-down pillows.

I mean, in defence of western civilisation we do have Scotch eggs and Pokémon Go and Rihanna singing We Found Love, so it’s not all bad — but when it comes to big things such as freedom, prosperity, justice, peace and all that, it’s pretty scary. What we need is something to rally around, a project as generous and imaginative as the prevailing mood is mean, petty and anxious.

What we need — or at least, what seems to be the surest fit in the ideological hole at the centre of modern politics — is a Universal Basic Income.

The idea is simple, and as we’ve seen in recent years, the simple ideas (I Want My Country Back / Build a Wall / Jez We Can / Death to the Infidel) are the ones that cut through the media white noise. Imagine if the Government paid every citizen a non-trivial amount of money — say, £10,000 per annum — simply for existing. Enough so that you could bring up a child, or stay in education, or start a business, or cut down your hours, or simply rebalance your life without the constant, gnawing anxiety that we have come to associate with modernity.

It sounds madly utopian, yet in a short space of time the idea has migrated from the wilder realms of economic theory to the shores of the mainstream. Many economists, both from the Left and Right, now see UBI as a way of bypassing the paternalism and waste of the welfare state (the “big idea” of the 20th century) and answering the demands of the 21st century. Finland is drawing up plans to give everyone €800 per month; there are regional trials in Canada and the Netherlands.

Wouldn’t it just make people lazy? The evidence suggests otherwise. When you give poor people grants they tend to invest them wisely in housing, education and businesses. Another advantage is that UBI avoids the “income traps” assoc iated with povert y-reduc tion schemes such as tax credits; under UBI, you’d be better off by working more.

Why give money to the rich? Well, the universal character not only makes the scheme inherently feminist, anti-racist, anti-ageist, anti-ableist, etc but more defensible too; look how attached the middle classes are to the NHS.

Richard Godwin

Wouldn’t it cost a lot? They reckon about 12 per cent of GDP, which would require a major recalibration of tax and social security. But welfare (including pensions) currently accounts for 11.7 per cent of GDP and much of that is wasted on simply administering the system.

Wouldn’t it mean we worked less? Hopefully, yes! If people in quality jobs dropped hours to care for children, plant trees, learn the mandolin etc it would free up quality hours for others while providing social gains. And if people in low-quality jobs were empowered to reject poverty wages ... that’s good for everyone but the Mike Ashleys and Philip Greens of this world.

There are worse ways of expending our energies. And what use is our postBrexit “sovereignty” if we are not prepared to be bold?