Universal Basic Income

Supporters see UBI as a way to reduce poverty, simplify complex benefit systems, provide security as automation changes jobs and give people freedom to pursue education, caring or entrepreneurship. Because it is universal, it avoids the stigma and administrative cost of means-tested benefits.

Critics raise concerns about cost, since paying everyone a meaningful amount would require very large government spending and higher taxes. Some worry it could reduce the incentive to work, although evidence from trials suggests the effect is generally small.

For example, Finland ran a two-year trial from 2017 in which 2,000 unemployed people received a monthly payment regardless of whether they found work. Participants reported better wellbeing, with only modest effects on employment. The Alaska Permanent Fund has paid residents an annual dividend from oil revenues since 1982.

Many experiments have been limited in scale or duration, so the effects of a full national UBI remain uncertain. Related ideas include a negative income tax and guaranteed minimum income schemes, which target payments to people with lower incomes.