A significant concern regarding UBI is that it would eliminate the incentive to work, which would be detrimental to the economy. In reality, however, UBI can secure workers who may be displaced by automation and AI.
Increasing the minimum wage, expanding Earned Income Tax Credits, extending affordable child care and rental assistance, expanding SNAP benefits, and bolstering Social Security would do far more to eradicate poverty than UBI.
As UBI is a novel concept, numerous concerns exist regarding its financial implications. Among these are the costs to administer and enforce it, the potential effects on the labor market, how people could lose their existing benefits or pay more in taxes, the impact on the macro economy, and whether it could be financed through a combination of taxes, spending, a wealth dividend program, or another mechanism.
According to proponents of UBI, it can solve at least one of three policy problems: economic inequality, technology replacing human employees, and transfer program inefficiency. In addition, they contend that it can reduce poverty, improve population health, and increase participation in activities like caregiving and entrepreneurship.
Proponents of UBI emphasize that it will reduce poverty and increase economic stability, improve population health, reinforce work incentives, and enhance the quality of life. In addition, by expanding coverage, UBI can reduce disparities between impoverished and non-poor individuals.
In addition, it safeguards employees who may be displaced by automation or climate change. Other benefits include enhanced mental health, increased birth weight, and improved health outcomes for older people.
Some proponents of UBI argue that it could improve work incentives by enabling people to earn more before losing benefits or by reducing the 'taper rate' so that benefits decrease gradually over time. This would enable individuals to better plan for their futures, which could assist them in securing employment or other opportunities.
However, it is important to remember that a UBI is not intended to replace current safety net programs, effectively enhancing the well-being of those receiving them. A well-designed UBI program can be paired with other safety net programs to enhance the overall support received by those who need it the most, such as people with disabilities, older adults, children, and women5.
SNAP (food stamps), subsidized child care, housing assistance, and the Earned Income Tax Credit are some of the current safety net programs that reduce poverty and enhance children's health and development. Taxes and other expenditures annually support these benefits to millions of people.
Some opponents of UBI argue that a cash-based program would result in inflation and less labor. Existing evidence indicates, however, that this would not occur in a system that makes it simple to earn additional income.
For instance, the Stockton Economic Empowerment Demonstration in California provides $500 per month to 125 low-income residents. The recipients spend money on necessities such as food, utilities, clothing, etc.
Instead of pursuing UBI, we should invest in a system that benefits more people. These enhancements include an increase in the minimum wage, an increase in the Earned Income Tax Credit, an expansion of SNAP benefits, and an improvement in Social Security for low-income workers.
Taxes are a method for governments to generate revenue. They are used to fund programs such as social security, the military, and healthcare. In addition, they are used to finance public products and services such as education systems, pensions for the elderly, unemployment benefits, transfer payments, and subsidies.
These taxes diminish the purchasing power of taxpayers, thereby decreasing their income and the amount they can spend on personal products and services, savings, and investments. Taxes may also alter consumption patterns in a specific region, such as alcohol taxes that discourage imbibing, tobacco taxes, pornography taxes, etc.
State and local taxes, which are typically assessed at a higher rate than federal taxes, can exacerbate the tax burden on the impoverished. In reality, most states impose greater effective tax rates on their poorest families than on their wealthiest one percent of taxpayers.