Why universal basic income could be poverty’s answer – Stewart Lansley
The pandemic has fully exposed the flaws of the existing benefit system, and triggered an important debate on how to build a robust system of income support for today’s more fragile and turbulent times.
A universal basic income (essentially an income floor) is a guaranteed, no questions asked payment made to all eligible residents.
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdThe intention of the post-war Beveridge plan was to construct just such a floor through a mix of measures: national insurance, family allowances, full employment and national assistance.
In the event, the plan was never fully implemented, while the principle of universalism has been greatly weakened over time by increasing reliance on a complex and intrusive system of means-testing.
Britain has never come close to creating a robust income floor, and even before the pandemic, millions fell through what is an imperfect, mean and patchy system.
Work-related conditionality requirements, enforced through a punitive system of sanctions – five million have been issued since 2012 – have been greatly tightened.
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdWith poverty rates at near-record post-war levels, the system also fails the key test of a robust defence against poverty.
While critics of an income floor have dismissed it as utopian and unworkable, the progressive thank-tank Compass has shown that constructing a floor below the existing benefit system would be feasible and affordable.
Starting rates of £60 for working-age adults (under 65) and £40 for children would pay a significant, no questions asked, £10,400 a year for a family of four, while these levels could be raised over time.
This scheme would, for the first time, create an ‘income Plimsoll Line’, boost the incomes of the poorest families, cut poverty levels, reduce inequality, strengthen universalism and cut means-testing.
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdImplementing a scheme would need a series of tax adjustments to pay for the floor, while making the tax system more progressive.
Such a reform would build an automatic anti-poverty force into the existing system and boost security in an increasingly fragile world.
It would mean, for the first time, a modest income for the small army of carers and volunteers, mostly women.
As the coronavirus epidemic has revealed, their contribution – unpaid and largely unrecognised is, along with that of a parallel army of the low-paid, from cleaners to supermarket workers – crucial to the functioning of society.
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdBy providing all citizens with much more choice over work, education, training, leisure and caring, it would also lay the foundation for greater personal empowerment and freedom, a springboard for more stable and fulfilling lives.
Such a scheme would also be a powerful new instrument for mitigating, at speed, the economic fallout from external shocks from pandemics to recessions.
If a basic income scheme had been in place at the start of this crisis, it would have provided an automatic mechanism for providing comprehensive income top-ups.
Despite these strengths, the idea divides opinion. There is nothing new about progressive ideas provoking controversy.
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdSome of our most cherished institutions, from the National Health Service to the National Minimum Wage, were preceded by years of bitter dispute before they were finally implemented.
No government would dare remove these universally popular ideas today.
The crisis has sparked new life into an ancient idea. Underpinned by a cross-party parliamentary working group, and this week’s call by several opposition party leaders for a recovery scheme, the idea of a basic income now has political legs.
Developing such a floor would also set out a clear vision of the type of society that should emerge as the crisis subsides.
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdStewart Lansley is the co-author of Basic Income for All: From Desirability to Feasibility, Compass, 2019, and of Breadline Britain, The Rise of Mass Poverty, Oneworld, 2015.
Editor’s note: first and foremost - and rarely have I written down these words with more sincerity - I hope this finds you well.
Almost certainly you are here because you value the quality and the integrity of the journalism produced by The Yorkshire Post’s journalists - almost all of which live alongside you in Yorkshire, spending the wages they earn with Yorkshire businesses - who last year took this title to the industry watchdog’s Most Trusted Newspaper in Britain accolade.
And that is why I must make an urgent request of you: as advertising revenue declines, your support becomes evermore crucial to the maintenance of the journalistic standards expected of The Yorkshire Post. If you can, safely, please buy a paper or take up a subscription. We want to continue to make you proud of Yorkshire’s National Newspaper but we are going to need your help.
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdPostal subscription copies can be ordered by calling 0330 4030066 or by emailing [email protected]. Vouchers, to be exchanged at retail sales outlets - our newsagents need you, too - can be subscribed to by contacting subscriptions on 0330 1235950 or by visiting www.localsubsplus.co.uk where you should select The Yorkshire Post from the list of titles available.
If you want to help right now, download our tablet app from the App / Play Stores. Every contribution you make helps to provide this county with the best regional journalism in the country.
Sincerely. Thank you.
James Mitchinson
Editor
Comment Guidelines
National World encourages reader discussion on our stories. User feedback, insights and back-and-forth exchanges add a rich layer of context to reporting. Please review our Community Guidelines before commenting.