So I looked more into universal credit after mentioning it in the post about conservatives, and here's the thing. It's not a UBI. It kind of has some benefits to a UBI like a tapering benefits structure and being a universal benefit consolidating a lot of previously existing social programs, but it's a conditional aid program. It's basically the dystopian vision that people on the left would expect from a UBI when they fight against it.
It has significant problems with filling out long forms, so it's still bureaucratic as fudge. Some people mention mental health issues have problems with budgeting; this would be a problem with UBI too, but that help is rarely available. Moreover, the actual amount is small, with a maximum benefit of 411 pounds a month for a single adult over 25, which amounts to $580, so basically half a UBI. No one can budget on that. And given it removes other universal services, eek, you're left on your own and people tend to struggle to keep up with payments. Being in a couple doesn't double benefits, it just gives you an extra 185 pounds, bringing you up to $842 a month, for two people. For the record, I'd be giving $1100 a month for one, and $2200 a month for two. Even my most basic UBI plan is more generous than this, at $500 a month for a single adult and $1k for an adult, and that would be merely a small "starter" UBI to get the ball rolling in my mind. There are additional amounts for children, which amount to around $334 in US dollars, which isn't awful. But yeah, benefits vary based on your exact conditions, and generally speaking do not seem generous. Roughly half of the poverty line when translated to US dollars. And yes, unless you meet special conditions, you're required to look for work. This is not a basic income.
Approaching this from an American perspective, given how awful our safety nets are here, this isn't terrible. It reminds me of Nixon's family assistance plan, which would've given benefits roughly half of the poverty line with work requirements. But it is overly bureaucratic, it isn't generous at all, if anything it's way too low and anemic, and it does have means testing and requirements.
It's just welfare, but with a cash benefit instead of benefits targetted at specific goals like food or housing. People can't live on it well, with people going into debt while on it, relying on food banks, and even going into prostitution to make up the difference. It also screws over the disabled, hard. It's a joke, and really shows what a flawed implementation of what something like basic income would be like. I like some elements of this program. But it is ultimately too bureaucratic, has too many forms and barriers to entry, tends to not help vulnerable populations well enough, is overly punitive to various groups, keeps some trapped in poverty due to onerous rules, and it really is only at roughly half the benefit level it really should be at.
This is really why UBI advocates need to be leery of conservatives, or given the propensity for how screwed the US political spectrum is, even centrist democrats, looking to subvert the idea by turning it into this. We should condemn very flawed implementations of cash payments like this, and plans like this tend to rub off and make us look bad, because quite frankly the reason the left is so worried about UBI is because they're afraid it would become this.
There is one silver lining to this though. This system could likely very easily be reformed into a basic income in the future. They already did a lot of the groundwork as far as consolidating benefits programs. All they would need to do is remove the requirements, the gatekeeping, and and increase the benefit levels, and BOOM. UBI. I'm not saying this idea is universally bad. I do prefer cash payments over...much of what we do here in the US. But at the same time, that's literally the only positive thing about this.
No comments:
Post a Comment