Round 1:
Pro: There is ongoing worry about how to ensure the continuation of Social Security as retirees begin to outnumber those in the workforce. One solution that is said to help is that of a universal basic income (UBI)—a livable income provided to every adult individual in the region, state, or country, without regard to their circumstances. However, there are several problems with this idea. One of the biggest ones is the expense. The cost of providing such an income to everyone would be huge, even if we removed Social Security and other programs such as unemployment benefits. After all, those programs are meant for a select portion of the population, not the whole of it. The only way to make it happen would be to raise taxes, thus making the program more of a burden than a help.
Con: Bringing something new into the everyday economic life will certainly cause friction, but with the UBI it will be less because everybody needs money for basic survival. Even if raising taxes is unavoidable it can be done responsibly. Progressive taxes could be a good solution. This means that the more you earn the more you will be taxed, but the UBI will be independent of this, thus almost negating the benefits of a base income for the rich. In addition to this, if the practice of bad things like pollution, crime, breaking the law, etc. is also taxed, then a good source of money could be generated for the UBI to function. Implementation of the base income would also mean freeing people from the other benefits that come to them as a result of age ( eg. pension and other elderly monetary benefits). Wealthy people who like to donate could be given an option to donate to the UBI system. Whether medical benefits be taken away or not is still in question, but can be left unaffected just to get things going.
Round 2:
Pro: The idea that a UBI system will benefit those who are on the lowest rungs of our current system sounds well and good when you are only looking at the one part. However, there is a danger in relying on this system. It would be too easy for the government to use this as a method of erasing valid complaints by minorities because of the belief that a UBI means that they are treating everyone fairly. Maybe in one regard, they are, but that doesn’t mean that they always have or will. Even if the government itself isn’t erasing their difficulties, others might still do so, claiming that our society treats everyone fairly and using the UBI as an example. Further, if the UBI becomes the income of the most disadvantaged without addressing the reasons why they’re disadvantaged, you’ve created the potential to make them even more disadvantaged by their reliance on the government for an income to live on; which, as stated earlier, is dangerous if the government isn’t willing to acknowledge the disadvantage.
Con: Enforcing the UBI has countless benefits. People who do jobs that cannot be officially quantified (eg. parents raising children) will get recognized through income. Everyone could perceive whatever career they truly want without the fear of not making enough money. Fields other than STEM will get richer in terms of popularity and possible careers. Earning an unconditional basic income would also mean reduced crime and reduced homeless people because the basic survival needs will be ensured. On a macro level, inequalities between different classes will vanish as budding talents and potential minds will not have to worry about three meals a day. The rate at which technology is progressing, automation is not a distant future. This means reduced jobs. Having a source of income, then, would ensure stability and fewer worries for families. People would be less concerned about making money and thus, would work for fewer hours producing more job opportunities for the unemployed. Lastly, having a universal income system like the UBI will ensure the uneducated and impoverished are knowledgeable of the intricacies of the process and not worry about their eligibility.
Con side debated by Paras Ghumare
