The Case for a Universal Basic Income

Public debate about the possibility and desirability of a basic income - a weekly payment for every citizen – is gathering pace. Is it feasible? Should we do it? With the RSA's research into the idea for the past year Anthony Painter, the RSA’s Director of Policy and Strategy, and a panel of experts present their thinking.

Subscribe to our channel and never miss a video!

[temujin]

I won't repeat what these guys already say, but it's a great idea. I bet there will be a lot of comments from people who didn't watch the video though.

[Maltcider]

This is extremely conservative. One of the main principles of a functional UBI is that it's high enough for people to meet their basic needs, anything lower and you start getting issues like employers cutting wages in proportion to the partial income and welfare programs being cut for more expensive alternatives. A full UBI already appeals to the right-side, it pays for itself, increases productivity, cuts welfare, and liberates individuals from bureaucracy.

[onetruekeeper]

Basic income must be unconditional and must be high enough for everyone to able to live on a basic subsistence level with health care provided at no cost. Also there has to be a system of rent control so that affordable housing can be obtained within the budget imposed by the basic income.

[michaelsporer]

I would expect that UBI is vastly simpler to administer than the current state of taxation and welfare.  This is a great way to simplify and reduce government expense and intrusion in our lives.

[THESocialJusticeWarrior]

Give poor people an incentive to move where the jobs are - WOW! That's one of the most important ideas in this video, super idea!!!

[AANasseh]

this idea is nuts. It will simply move the minimum state from 0 to $3000 but since everyone gets the same money it actually evens out its impact at the end of the day. It's like Mitt Romney's comment "I want everyone to be rich!" If everyone were rich then no one is rich! Rich are rich only relative to the poor! Otherwise, the word is meaningless. This kind of idea makes no sense to me. I may be wrong but this universal basic income is merely a temporary state of security until prices adjust to reflect a society that starts at $3000 vs. $0. Basically, $3000, in time, means $0! That's only because it's universal.

[ubuu]

Ben Southwood - Head of Research / Abercrombie Model

[gia]

i was thinking about it this week lol, first addicts or people that dont handle money well would be a problem, this basic income should be for those "without work" I feel, so it could just be housing and food provided for free instead of hard money, if you work you get money and get recreation for it (eg movies, luxuries, join a club, etc).

Gov would have to take over all the food production though?, or enough land to produce the free food, since it wouldn't be bought for money. Convicts would be the first to be drafted into working that land.

Bu all in all it sounds like communism or something to me.

[LowtechLLC]

so you want to means test it. that isn't fair. that's a non starter.

[Tom_-]

These people have little experience of actual work... but I think this concept is going to be inevitable, thanks to automation

[lloydgush]

income without wealth production spells inflation. Just saying.

[rgaleny]

TAX THE RICH AND INSTAUL TERIFFS TO FUND BASIC INCOME. EMPLOYERS DON'T WANT TO PAY LABOR A LIVING WAGE, OR PAY TAXES.