Neoliberal organisation recommends basic income policy

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/universal-basic-income-government-adam-smith-institute-free-market-welfare-a8166906.html

Ministers should consider implementing the radical policy of a universal basic income, according to a new report by a free market think-tank. The Adam Smith Institute (ASI) claims there is rising evidence for basic income and calls on governments across the globe to experiment with the idea. The concept involves radically overhauling the welfare state and ditching means-tested benefits in favour of an unconditional flat-rate of payments to all citizens.

The right-wing think-tank claims that current welfare systems are “ill-suited” to adapt to challenges presented by “automation and globalisation”, adding that a basic income is both politically feasible and financially sustainable. In a report ahead of the World Economic Forum meeting in Davos next week the organisation calls on Governments across the globe to look at the policy as they “seek to address the risks posed by large-scale changes to the labour market while retaining the benefits of trade and technological progress”.

In the new paper, authored by Otto Lehto, the Institute explores the rationale and current basic income experiments around the world adding that new trials in countries such as Canada, Finland, Uganda and Kenya highlight the growing interest in the idea.

“The analysis suggest that the UBI is politically feasible, socially desirable and financially sustainable,” the report says. “The biggest problems relate to its implementation and administration. It requires inspirational political leadership to reform entrenched institutions and practices." . . .

Mr Lehto said: “The theoretical case for unconditional cash transfers over command and control solutions has been strong ever since the birth of welfare economics. Now we have increasing empirical evidence from global field studies to corroborate the desirability of granting a modest, universal income floor. A UBI streamlines the provision of welfare services and improves the autonomy and incentives of individuals. Allowing poor people to spend their money as they see fit stimulates a bottom-up market solutions and cuts down on the bureaucratic red tape. All this pulls resources away from wasteful rent-seeking into wealth creation”.

It sounds like monopoly,everyone starts with $200 and you get $200 more every time you pass Go. Best of luck!
Free money yahoo!

It is unclear to me whether everyone gets some of the money ,or if you need to be below a certain income level.
What happens if not too smart or unlucky individuals squander their basic income,will there be another safety net?
Or will it be too bad.....sorry for you, but you lose.

I do not think it will work.

I think it would be for everyone regardless of wealth. Some are assuming that in future there will simply not be enough work to go around and also that it would be cheaper than paying people to work in benefits offices. It'll be interesting to see how the current trials work out. I think there should be more experimentation in politics.

Neon Knight wrote:I think it would be for everyone regardless of wealth. Some are assuming that in future there will simply not be enough work to go around and also that it would be cheaper than paying people to work in benefits offices. It'll be interesting to see how the current trials work out. I think there should be more experimentation in politics.

Sounds like an interesting proposition! :-P

Nevertheless, if it ever comes down to it; they should also invest in each county/locale to be self sufficient via sustainable solutions through farming, making one's own clothes, etc. If our ancestors could do our own farming, building of their own houses, etc.; I'm sure with the right encouragement and resources; its possible.

Something about it doesn't seem right.
Why would everyone get the same,isn't that what communism is?

Society should absolutely take care of the poor and needy, but individuals should be free to make as much money as they are able/desire.

This basic income philosophy is weird,maybe I do not quite fully understand it.

I can guarantee that this will encourage people to stay idle and not work.

At first, I tend to be for but now I see who support it, it became a strong NO!

Jehan I wrote:At first, I tend to be for but now I see who support it, it became a strong NO!

It's communism 2.0

From a cynical point of view, the Adam Smith Institute see the basic income as a bribe to prevent rebellions when there is mass unemployment due to increasing automation in jobs. But some disagree that will happen:

https://www.economist.com/news/special-report/21700758-will-smarter-machines-cause-mass-unemployment-automation-and-anxiety

"So who is right: the pessimists (many of them techie types), who say this time is different and machines really will take all the jobs, or the optimists (mostly economists and historians), who insist that in the end technology always creates more jobs than it destroys? The truth probably lies somewhere in between. AI will not cause mass unemployment, but it will speed up the existing trend of computer-related automation, disrupting labour markets just as technological change has done before, and requiring workers to learn new skills more quickly than in the past. Mr Bessen predicts a “difficult transition” rather than a “sharp break with history”. But despite the wide range of views expressed, pretty much everyone agrees on the prescription: that companies and governments will need to make it easier for workers to acquire new skills and switch jobs as needed. That would provide the best defence in the event that the pessimists are right and the impact of artificial intelligence proves to be more rapid and more dramatic than the optimists expect."