Should everyone get a basic income, with no test of need?
In August 2017 Scoop ran an open conversation on a universal basic income for New Zealand, and 234 people took part. Line 7 of the family’s draft argues for a floor of income that asks for no proof of need.
A public Polis conversation in Aotearoa New Zealand · What everyone can expect, draft 0.3, line 7
From a public Polis conversation in Aotearoa New Zealand, August 2017: “A Universal Basic Income for Aotearoa NZ?”. People wrote statements and voted agree, disagree or pass on each other’s. These rows are the statements most voters agreed with, the ones that split voters most evenly, and the ones the fewest agreed with, out of 41 that at least 15 people voted on. Statements about the voters themselves, insults and unchecked factual claims are left out. Passes are not counted.
Most agreed
A UBI could improve the bargaining positions of the most vulnerable workers by giving them more power to leave or negotiate.
A Universal Basic Income would better facilitate and recognise unpaid work such as care for the elderly, children, disabled people or other volunteer work which benefits society.
Focusing resources on UBI rather than on pooled risk-sharing mechanisms will encourage people to provide for themselves with their income rather than promoting social solidarity.
UBI combined with economic austerity and welfare cuts could mean that individuals are left to pay for essential services (eg housing) at fluctuating market rates and have even less purchasing power.
Some people are simply lazy so providing them with a foundational amount of money to cover basic needs like food, shelter, medical costs would mean they would just stop working or being productive altogether.
Polis sorts voters into opinion groups by how they voted across the whole conversation. This one found 4: Group A (70 voters), Group B (113 voters), Group C (42 voters) and Group D (9 voters). These are the statements every group was most likely to agree with, ranked the way Polis ranks common ground: the chance of agreeing in each group, multiplied together. Under them is the statement the groups were furthest apart on.
We need more public debate about the UBI including wider discussion of how we should gather and employ our nation’s financial resources
Group A67 agreed, 1 disagreed (99%)
Group B31 agreed, 4 disagreed (89%)
Group C37 agreed, 2 disagreed (95%)
Group D8 agreed, 1 disagreed (89%)
We need to streamline the inefficiency and wasteful bureaucracy of our current tax and benefits systems.
Group A64 agreed, 0 disagreed (100%)
Group B26 agreed, 3 disagreed (90%)
Group C36 agreed, 2 disagreed (95%)
Group D8 agreed, 1 disagreed (89%)
The vast majority of New Zealanders believe in the value of work and desire to be a valued, respected and contributing member of society in some way.
Group A69 agreed, 0 disagreed (100%)
Group B36 agreed, 2 disagreed (95%)
Group C37 agreed, 0 disagreed (100%)
Group D5 agreed, 2 disagreed (71%)
Where they split
A Universal Basic Income will be necessary to protect millions of working people from the worst effects of insecure employment caused by new technology.
Written for the hearth so this question has a whole card on each side to argue with. No visitor wrote them, so the two parts only a person can fill are empty: what happened to you, and who on the other side called the case against fair.
Yes
Where this card stands
Yes. A payment everyone gets can’t be lost by taking a job or a raise, and it reaches unpaid carers whom the benefit system misses.
How sure, before and after the case against
The strongest case against it
A payment large enough to live on costs more than most countries raise in income tax, and paying it to everyone means taxing most people back what they receive.
What would change this card’s mind
If full-scale trials found people cut their paid work by more than the tax system could recover.
“Argue with this card” opens the card on the front page with this card’s position as the case against you. You write where you stand and what would change your mind.