R: Implement Universal Basic Income

In this age of growing income inequality (as many would argue), our country faces another looming terror: the safety net is going to break. Rising debt and an aging population will see many of our social welfare programs strained perhaps to the breaking point. One of the proposed solutions to this crisis, as well as to many other issues facing our society today, is to implement a universal basic income (UBI). The UBI would be a guaranteed, regular, cash payment made to every citizen of the county with no strings attached. While this may sound like a great plan on the surface (who doesn’t want free money?), the pros and cons of UBI are hotly debated by both sides of the aisle.

On the one hand, the most straightforward argument against UBI is that wealth redistribution is theft dressed up in virtue signaling and would disincentivize people to work at all. If an unemployed individual all of a sudden starts receiving money from the government, why would that person really go out and look for a job if they aren’t going to die without one? In our culture overflowing with distraction and cheap food and entertainment, one doesn’t need much to feel very little incentive to go back to work.

On the other hand, UBI might be the best possible approach to a social safety net and would involve downsizing government and promoting the market. Many influential and respected economists, such as F.A. Hayek and Milton Friedman, were in favor of UBI in place of the growing bureaucratic monster of welfare programs. They argued for a sum to be distributed at a level at “subsistence” and nothing more. In the modern age, if the state can ensure that its citizens do not die from economic need, it ought to. With the direct transference of tax revenue to people as their UBI, the government could downsize where it is inefficient (administration and services) and focus on doing what it does best (efficiently cutting checks) and get out of the way of market forces which would take care of welfare services.

This topic forces us to ask many questions of ourselves and of the role our government should play when it comes to spending our money. Can we really justify giving money to a person on the sole criteria of them being a citizen of our country? Are we comfortable with “wealth redistribution” and other measures which seem to run counter to liberty? Is the market really the best tool to alleviate human suffering in our society as it stands today? How to we tackle the problem of consumerism tempting individuals away from wise spending and investing in personal growth?