DISCUSSION OF ISSUES
Forms of UBI
Graham Howell (May 1998) writes -
I have concerns regarding the level of UBI that is being set under Keith Rankin's latest model. I accept the rationale the rich are getting a tax break, and this increases the richer you become. However, I believe the UBIs need to be reasonably fair - basic, in other words - is higher than the example give by Keith in his 1998 Conference paper.
I am aware Keith has provided examples with higher UBI rates, requiring a higher tax rate. If UBINZ is sincere about the UBI, it needs to be both universal and basic.
I have advocated (from a background as an unemployed and beneficiary advocate) since hearing about UBI that we beneficiaries (and I have been a beneficiary or tertiary student since late 1990) cannot be made worse off.
Our becoming better off is achieved through removing as far as humanly possible the dehumanising aspects of continued reliance on Income Support supplementaries or food banks and the like.
Presenting UBI as a two-tier solution allows the genuinely universal tier to be set too low for my liking. It means the second tier - which by definition is not universal, and thus conditional - will be of necessity quite high. Conditions are the bane of the current system of Income Support.
I am enough of a realist that we cannot set UBI at such a rate no additional help is needed by any citizen. Kidney dialysis machines and seeing-eye dogs will have to be funded from elsewhere than UBI. But meeting these types of needs is not the same as setting the UBI at rates below current benefit rates.
The adult single unemployment rate is just under $150 a week. This, in my thinking, is the minimum starting point. Any system advocating a lower rate makes the poor poorer, however defended.