Arguing against Universal Basic Income System

Introduction
The concept of UBI or universal basic income has been gathering force all over the world. In the year 2016, Switzerland voted on introducing UBI across the nation (though the idea was eventually rejected); India has been contemplating substitution of UBI for its current welfare state; and Finland has been testing the concept on certain citizens (Straubhaar, 2017). UBI implies categorical cash payment flowing on a month- by- month basis to all citizens from the nation’s budget. Funds are transferred from the public accounts to private citizen accounts right from their birth until death; recipients need not apply or be qualified for any preconditions in order to enjoy this benefit. The amount paid ought to incorporate the sociocultural maintenance minimum. But ascertaining this minimum subsistence level remains a political, rather than economic decision. In this paper, a case is made against the UBI, established by utilizing supportive arguments.
Arguments against UBI
UBI entails robbing the poor of their money and distributing it among everybody. Such an act will serve to only increase destitution, denying necessary targeted support to the poor. Poverty-ridden individuals encounter various adversities addressed via extant anti- poverty mechanisms like food stamps, child assistance and medical assistance. UBI initiatives typically make use of finances targeting lower social classes and distribute it to the whole society (ProCon.org., 2017). They are costlier as compared to focused welfare initiatives owing to several individuals lacking more than mere cash. This system fails to tackle other issues like addiction, lack of ability and sickness that play a role in promoting poverty.
UBI eliminates workers’ motivation to work, thereby having negative impacts on the economy, as well as resulting in a dearth in skills and human resources. Earned income inspires individuals to put in efforts, achieve success, acquire capabilities and collaborate with peer. But if society is paid unconditionally even if it does nothing, it will become lazy and ineffective (ProCon.org., 2017). A clear example is America where food stamps and welfare have caused certain individuals to refrain from seeking jobs (Robins, Spiegelman & Weiner, 2013).
Lastly, UBI is overly costly. Trials held in Finland and Oakland California, besides budget estimations made by countries like the United Kingdom reveal potential UBI expenditure to be well above national tax collections (ProCon.org., 2017). A research into estimated UBI levels for America, France, Finland, Switzerland, the UK and Germany led to the conclusion that UBI levels for reasonable living standards were "impossibly costly”; Either basic earnings levels were much too low, or costs linked to offering it were much too great (ProCon.org., 2017).
The above three arguments are cited owing to their practically adding up, or to their being tested and proving to be qualified within the real world via trials or scholarly researches. The first two negatives are rationally reasonable whereas the last is a tried and tested one, thereby being supported by reliable research information.
The “believing” questions for arguments supporting UBI
The first point in supporting UBI is grounded in an erroneous assumption which is: income gaps, healthcare quality gaps and destitution are associated with the earnings of a household over some particular duration. UBI’s chief aim is providing sure earnings to all households; this, however, does not mean healthcare quality haps, income gaps and poverty are reduced. Decrease in the latter is governed chiefly by expenditure- and savings- to earnings ratio. Decreased income gap may not be regarded as an advantage of implementing UBI, since every individual’s earnings are simply increased by a set standard factor (this is not applicable to income disparities). Finally, healthcare quality may only experience improvements via access to suitable living conditions and healthcare.
The second advantage highlighted is quite out- of- place since job growth constitutes only one element in individual investment/ reinvestment, stemming from saving. Moreover, how can one regard school dropout rates to stem from universal income? My personal argument would be that: rate of school dropouts would largely be independent of earnings; instead, it would stem from drugs and the impetus to learn.
Finally, the last benefit outlined fails to hold weight since parents and carers (a professional nursing occupation) are assured earnings via employment and pension. The latter half of the claim is discriminatory against females as it claims they are more suited to caregiving than to the workplace. The presumption that has been made here is: females are jobless, or more precisely, unemployable. Consequently, this claim greatly sugarcoats the actual issue of female segregation and gender bias at the workplace. Thus, it would be ethically incorrect to consider or agree with it.
Biases experienced
The foremost bias is: the UBI concept implies considerable ‘monthly’ earnings that households can avail themselves of to lead a comfortably living.
Secondly, societal members covered under UBI can carry on with their regular revenue- generating engagement; further, UBI is financed mainly by taxes.
Effects of personal enculturation or group identification
I consider myself among society’s educated elite class. I stick with the doctrine that policymakers make policies by considering extant conditions. In my view, in spite of the advantages of UBI adoption, several ideological and practical challenges exist with regard to introducing it. Notably, UBI implementation would entail a move from the current insurance and wellness systems which are founded on risk- sharing and contributions to one that perceives income to be a right. The above background impacts all insights into the topic of UBI since it behaves like a filter, accommodating and shunning information on grounds of whether or not it is in line with the background (Ree & Lansley, 2016).
Why the “Believing Game” has not changed my position against UBI system
Despite the great appeal of the “Believing Game”, my stance on the UBI (opposing its implementation) remains the same largely due to the ‘points’ I hold concerning the system’s aptness in a particular society considering prevalent conditions within the contemporary world. Further, the “Believing Game” may largely be considered as simply an academic paper, thereby not constituting a major worldview. Thirdly, in my opinion, all social security and welfare systems ought to have a corrective basis (which attaches importance only to work, quite frequently assuming the worst of people) that offers a means for decisions pertaining to work, creativity, leisure and collaboration (Ree & Lansley, 2016). UBI structures which believe in people’s desire to and capability of offering great contributions through which they will thrive and become much more than simple turbo- consumers and worker ants will undoubtedly end up being unsuccessful.
Conclusion
The concept of UBI entails a significant change in social protection’s nature; in terms of the degree of redistribution, tax structure’s nature and work incentive patterns, it essentially proves to be overly costly. The UBI fails to guarantee decreased poverty and a decrease in healthcare quality and income gaps. That it decreases dropout rates or results in job growth is an overrated fact. Finally, the claim that females can profit from it by making it an income source is highly biased. Furthermore, UBI represents an individualized rather than collective measure which targets resources towards providing an income to all, always, and not towards collective risk- sharing that aids everybody when required. Hence, this paper qualifies and adopts a stance in opposition to the UBI system.





References
Elbow, P. (2006). The believing game and how to make conflicting opinions more fruitful. Nurturing the Peacemakers in Our Students: A Guide to Teaching Peace, Empathy, and Understanding, 16-25.
ProCon.org. (2017, September 18). Universal Basic Income - Top 3 Pros and Cons. Retrieved from http://www.procon.org/headline.php?headlineID=005363 on 18 October 2017
Reed, H., & Lansley, S. (2016). Universal Basic Income: An idea whose time has come? London: Compass.
Robins, P. K., Spiegelman, R. G., & Weiner, S. (Eds.). (2013). A guaranteed annual income: Evidence from a social experiment. Elsevier.
Straubhaar, T. (2017). On the Economics of a Universal Basic Income. Intereconomics, 52(2), 74-80.