The Sylvan universal basic income debate considered the following motion:
This house believes Covid-19 shows that the UK should adopt a universal basic income scheme.
The debate took place on Monday, 4th May 2020. Rodrigo Aguilera proposed the motion and Tania Hardcastle opposed it.
The proposition supporting the view that the UK should adopt a universal basic income
The proposer defined a universal basic income (UBI) as an on-going payment to all citizens, and outlined both right- and left-wing supporters of UBI, albeit with differing aims for such schemes. He also shared the results of a number of UBI trials in different countries. While UBIs are costly, they are less expensive than today’s pension schemes, and could replace them. The Covid-19 pandemic provides a preview of what an automated capitalist economy would be like, with high unemployment, which a UBI could address.
The opposition against the motion
The opposer argued that UBI schemes are a simplistic and flawed answer to the current and broader economic situation. She put forth that UBIs foster inequality, that better alternatives exist and that they do not lead to human fulfillment and morale. She also criticised the evidence of the UBI trials, including drops in employment levels and GDP declines. The highly varied cost of living across geographies could drive inequality. Universal services could achieve many of the aims of UBI, with systems already in place. Everyone should be able to contribute to society, which needs manual workers, as some jobs cannot be automated. The high taxes required to fund a UBI could lead to a vicious cycle.
Floor speeches ranged widely, with many sympathetic to the aims of a UBI scheme in reducing poverty and dignity for all. However, many challenges to the implementation of UBIs were raised. The cost of a £1,000 per person per month UBI would be roughly equal to total central government spending. Others argued that the potential mass unemployment due to automation and in the short run, the pandemic, means that a UBI is a necessity. A number of speakers picked up on the gaps in the current social security and welfare provisions in the UK – which could be extended further to include things such as utilities. The question was raised whether an implementable plan for a UBI scheme is required to satisfy the motion.
Result: in a close final vote, the universal basic income debate motion carried
The Sylvans concluded through the universal basic income debate that the UK should adopt such a scheme.
See information on other Sylvan debates here.