Would Universal Basic Income Work?

[Kromovaracun]

It's an interesting proposal - I have no idea if it's pie-in-the-sky or not, and would be interested to hear the thoughts of ABers (particularly as I can't seem to find anyone going out of their way to criticise the idea).

(short)
http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/welfare-pensions/the-ideal-welfare-system-is-a-basic-income/

(long)
http://anotherangryvoice.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/universal-basic-income.html

[Old_Geezer]

Even the 'short' one is fairly long.

As the basis of welfare then sure it is what it should be and equate to a living wage, but some folk have special needs so it will inevitably get more complex as those issues are addressed. You may find yourself back with a system as complex and full of loopholes as that already in existence.

To go down that path one needs to be sure the fuss & expense will prove worthwhile.

[woofgang]

This doesn't address the issue about people choosing not to work at all. the Adam Smith version suggests that people should be able to choose not to work at jobs they don't want to do.
"Instead of pushing would-be computer programmers into work as Poundland assistants, a scheme like this would leave decisions entirely up to the individuals involved."
Shouldn't people have to do some work in return for their guaranteed basic income? I am absolutely in agreement with simplifying the benefit system and making it fairer.
There is also OG's very valid point about some people seriously needing more money than others because of genuine special needs. There is also the issue of children and who pays for their support.

[jim360]

The basic problem with Benefits reform is that life is too complicated. So the system has to be too, to try and reflect this. But people don't like complexity, and they try to force the system to be simpler (hence Universal Credit, which is really just a reversion to the old Supplementary Benefit of the 1980s). But then it turns out that this "simpler" system is unfair because it doesn't reflect the necessary diversity, so you have to break things up again... and then 20 years later there's so much red tape, so people try to simplify it again...

Most of the complexity has emerged because, in a sense, it had to. All changes to reverse that are doomed to fail from the outset, because they miss that vital point. On the face of it, the same will be true of the proposal above.