Universal basic income (UBI) is a government-guaranteed payment that each citizen receives. It is also called a citizen’s income, guaranteed minimum income, or basic income.
The intention behind the payment is to provide enough to cover the basic cost of living and establish a sense of financial security for everyone. The concept is also seen as a way to offset job losses caused by technology. Learn more about how it works, its pros and cons, and what it might look like in the U.S.
Universal basic income is a program where every citizen receives a flat monthly payment, regardless of whether they're working and earning an income.
Different programs outline who exactly receives the income—some state that all citizens would get it regardless of what they make, while other programs may only give it to those who fall below the poverty line. One proposal would pay just those left jobless due to robotics, a plan that 48% of Americans support.
In 1967, Martin Luther King Jr. argued that a guaranteed income would directly abolish poverty.
Proponents of universal basic income vary widely in their views of how to fund and execute the program. Some plans call for a tax increase on the wealthy, while others say corporations should be taxed.
Economist Milton Friedman proposed a negative income tax. The poor would receive a tax credit if their income fell below a minimum level. It would be equivalent to the tax payment for the families earning above the minimum level.3
In 2018, Facebook co-founder Chris Hughes outlined his plan in his book "Fair Shot."4 He argued that U.S. workers, students, and caregivers making $50,000 or less a year should receive a guaranteed income of $500 a month.
“Cash is the best thing you can do to improve health outcomes, education outcomes and lift people out of poverty,” Hughes has said in interviews. His guaranteed income plan is financed by taxes on the top 1%. It would work through a modernization of the earned income tax credit.
<Sir Richard Branson said a guaranteed income is inevitable because automation has fundamentally changed the structure of the U.S. economy. Similarly, Elon Musk said robotics will take away most people’s jobs, so a universal income is the only solution.
Workers could wait for better jobs or better wages
Freedom for people to return to school or stay home to care for a relative
May help remove the "poverty trap" from traditional welfare programs
Simple, straightforward financial assistance that minimizes bureaucracy
Lower administrative costs than with traditional welfare
More money for young families
Economic stability during recessions
Could trigger inflation
No increased standard of living in the long run
Reduced program wouldn't make real difference
Free income may not incentivize people to get jobs
Could perpetuate falling labor force participation rate
Many oppose giving money to the unemployed
In 2012, there were 163 million Americans in the labor force.9 It would have cost $2.04 trillion to pay each of them $12,490 (the poverty level for one person in 2019) for that year.10 Some of that cost would be curbed by cutting redundant welfare programs and other forms of consolidation, but it would still likely add to the national deficit.
Passing a plan robust enough to make a real impact would be difficult to do in the U.S. Over half of Americans oppose universal basic income. Many would only support it if tech companies paid for it. Even raising the U.S. minimum wage has been difficult, despite the fact that 67% of Americans are in favor of increasing it to $15 per hour.
There are many cities, states, and countries that are experimenting with a universal basic income. Here are a few of the major ones.
Several states in the U.S. are experimenting with different forms of UBI.
Canada recently ran a three-year universal income program. It gave 4,000 Ontario residents living in poverty 17,000 Canadian dollars a year or CA$24,000 per couple. The government forecasted it would cost CA$50 million annually.23
In 2017, Finland gave 2,000 unemployed people 560 euros a month for two years, even if they found work.
The recipients said it reduced stress and gave them more incentive to find a good job or start their own business. However, the Finnish government found that they did not have higher incomes or more workdays than the control group.24
In 2011, GiveDirectly Inc. began distributing cash to poor households in Kenya via mobile phones.
A study of 63 Kenyan villages found that nine transfers of $45 a month improved local consumption and well-being.
It increased consumption of food, medicine, education, and social events without increasing alcohol and tobacco use. The households were also able to increase investments in livestock, furniture, and home improvements.25
Scotland committed 250,000 pounds to four pilot areas from 2018-2020. Different basic income levels were provided for different sets of citizens. Results were published in 2020, and the group behind the initiative has pushed for a broader pilot program.26
The group UBI Taiwan has been advocating for a universal basic income in Taiwan for several years. Under its proposal, the government would pay 5,000 New Taiwan dollars to every citizen age 20 and younger, and $NT$10,000 to every citizen over 20. To fund this, the group proposes expanded taxes on items like pollution, luxury goods, carbon, and property.27