Universal Basic Income (UBI)

Living or subsistence wage is amount of income needed to maintain basic standard of living. Theoretically, this wage should bring people out of poverty if implemented. The real take home wage for most workers are far below this ‘utopic’ living wage. Absence of living wage for most workers has been recognized as a contributing factor to the difficult task of upward social mobility with resultant diminishing equality of opportunity and relative poverty for most workers in this country today. The concept of working poor is born out of this dystopic social stratification. The threat this and other social determinant factors posed to the realization of the lofty goal of ‘American Dream’ are the subject of this paper.

For a very long time there's been the debate over government assistance in america, admittedly there are plenty of pros and cons on either side of the argument, in this case I believe that the pros outweigh the cons. America should introduce a universal basic income as a replacement for all other government assistance in an effort to reduce government bureaucracy, improve standard of living, reduce the wealth gap, contribute to better working conditions and create social capital.

In the article, “The Case For Free Money: Why Don’t We Have Universal Basic Income,” James Surowiecki presents the benefits of a universal basic income and why it is appealing to workers and politicians. After an experiment, known as “Mincome,” implanted universal basic income in Dauphin during the 1970s, evidence clearly shows that the Canadian town received remarkable advantages, such as lowered dropout rates and hospitalization rates. The idea of universal basic income is not new, however, it is regaining popularity. Contrary to popular belief, some from both the Democratic and Republican parties support assured basic income, Surowiecki claims. The current push for universal basic income is emboldened by the rising concern of advancing

Currently, there is widening inequality in the United States due to the savage income gap between those at the top of the income distribution and those at the bottom. According to the Congressional Budget office 2012 report, from 1979 to 2012 the top five percent of U.S. households had a real income increase of 74.9%, where over the same period the bottom 20 percent had a real income decrease of 12.1%.1 Conversely, according to the Economics Policy Institute 2014 “Rising America’s Pay” report by Josh Bivens et al, over the same time span the productivity of a typical American worker had doubled.2 In other words, despite the increase in productivity the bottom working class continues to live under income reduction. The situation is even more devastating for worker who have exceeded the stingy federal poverty limit and deemed ineligible for social assistance or only partially subsidized from income tax credit. My proposal is to raise the income of the working poor through tax credit subsidy. The end goal of my proposal is to enhance the

Based on the poverty threshold, or the smallest annual salary required to live as determined by the government, more than forty million people in America live in poverty (“UC Davis Center for Poverty Research”). That’s forty million people who make less money than the bare minimum required to support themselves or their family. Of those forty million, nineteen and a half million make less than fifty percent of the bare minimum they need to support themselves (“UC Davis Center for Poverty Research”). The only reason many of these people or families can support a stable life is thanks to many government welfare programs. Worst yet is

There are too many cases in which workers across the globe are subjected to horrific working conditions. Because of the laws in place in the United States, manufacturing jobs are not

Most people don’t know about the universal basic income (UBI). The UBI is a monthly check of around $800 to $1,000 for everyone, depending on their household, and is to help people afford the basic essentials. The UBI could be a potentially good idea because it could help end poverty, better school completion, and people could have more money if they work too.

Not only is the American worker affected by globalization, but the countries where corporations are moving to, are naive about “the corporate greed.” This corporate greed needs to be under better control. Corporations strategically move production to countries with poverty or low-income wages in order to take advantage of the cheap labor and materials. These unsuspecting countries and workers have no idea as to the benefits and wages the corporations can produce and /or the hardships they can cause. This is

In his lecture, Dr. Wright offered three kinds of structural proposals for inequality and poverty that included an interesting concept called Basic Income Grants. With this concept, he believed every citizen deserve to be provide with a basic income that will help them live above the poverty line. In addition, those who are in this program aren’t required to follow any sort of work requirements in order to have more freedom during their work hour. This sort of program will certainly help to reduce the amount of people who are living below the poverty line currently, because there is no longer the ‘’pick-and-choose’’ system. Everyone will have an equal chance of having access to the program, without worrying about unfair advantages. While Basic

In an article written by David Henderson, argues that although many economist find it simple to implement a UBI system, they often forget the consequences such as higher tax rates on Americans. In the article Henderson criticizes Matt Zwolinski, an advocate for the UBI system, which can be seen when he writes, “If his goal were to keep the already bloated half-trillion dollar federal deficit constant rather than increasing it, he would need to have the federal government increase taxes from their estimated 2.993 trillion to 4.361 trillion…” (Henderson 491). Henderson’s main point was that a UBI system could never work because it could cause the federal government place more taxes on Americans. Though the numbers he used are quite frightening, Henderson does not clearly state or accept the positive effect of using a UBI system. One major issue that Henderson forgets to mention is how Americans face economic inequality. Researcher Thomas Hayes describes the issue as, “one of the most pressing problems facing American society” (Hayes 392). One author, Ruben Lo Vuolo, recognizes the issue economic inequality and provides a solution for the problem, unlike Henderson who only complains of the failing American economy. Lo Vuolo introduces a solution when he writes, “Basic Income needs to be considered not only as a

I think UBI is a great method for many unemployment people because since unemployment people were hired, they would have food to eat and have the house to sleep. I also think that it is a great solution for the poverty and economic inequality. Since this is a great way to reduce unemployment, it could work in the United States. America is the one of the highest in the rate of unemployment rate which can reduce unemployment by UBI system. Even if there are many problems of UBI it will still lessen economic inequality in U.S.

This chapter of the book basically compares Basic Income to its alternative policy option that is Earned Income Tax credit. It compares them from various perspectives, such as being the best tool against poverty, universality, being politically less attainable but stable, etc. To make all the information clear, the author provides various graphs that show effects of both Earned Income Tax Credit and Basic Income. This information will be useful for the part of my paper where I would compare UBI to alternative policy tools in order to determine how desirable Basic Income is compared to them and to do the cost-effectiveness

Citizen’s dividends, unconditional monthly grants, or free money to everyone. This is what a universal basic income (UBI) has been called in other names. The notion of a universal basic income has been literally everywhere for a very long period, at least since the aftermath of the world war I. A UBI is an income given without any strings attached to every adult and child (or in some version, only citizens) to provide at least an adequate level of resources. A basic income guarantees each citizen an income sufficient to meet his or her basic needs. The money would be given even regardless of whether the recipients are in the jobs or not. Strikingly for UBI, it is not mean-testing benefits, meaning that no family stuck in poverty traps

Universal basic income, (UBI), has become one our leading topics for a solution towards socioeconomic inequality. Billionaires such as Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg, have advanced the idea of going through with UBI (Kaza, 2018). UBI tackles many diversity challenges our society seriously needs solutions too. However, due to the enormity of UBI, it’s important to evaluate our decision to go forward; not only finically but ethically. For governments to implement a UBI, it would take a major overhaul of their welfare and tax systems. For example, the United States would need to spend over 3 trillion dollars a year just to provide a yearly distribution of $12,000 for each person over 18. This does not include illegal immigrants or the cost of running the program. I will evaluate the potential effects and ethics of UBI on minority groups in three areas: gender inequality, social conflict and the effects of automation on the work force.

Universal Basic Income (UBI) is a fixed amount at a level sufficient for subsistence, given by the state to all its citizens regardless of income or work status. Recently, it has sparked a heated debate among many cities around the world on whether to give their citizens a Universal Basic Income. Though some people disagree on the idea that a country should give a UBI to its citizens, the policy of giving a UBI to citizens has many advantages which have been shown by the benefits of a UBI implement in Finland. A UBI can help to give the following benefits of a country: a continuous GDP increase, a more harmonious community, and scientific advancement.