Get our money-saving tips and top offers direct to your inbox with the Mirror Money newsletter Sign up Thank you for subscribing We have more newsletters Show me See our privacy notice Invalid Email

A new report has reinforced the need for a Universal Basic Income to support workers as industries become more machine-led in the UK.

A review into 'The Four Futures of Work' by the Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce (RSA) has identified the problems that society needs to address to manage the impact of technology on society.

It says it is "human beings, not algorithms, who will decide whether technology will make our lives better or worse" - and that the Government has the power to make it work for everyone.

One of the ways in which the review says humans can support themselves is by addressing the flaws of Universal Credit and introducing a Universal Basic Income for all.

"Clearly we have a long road ahead of us. Our survey of MPs shows that our law makers have a deepening concern about the impact of technology while being clueless about how that impact could unfold," the report reads.

"Less than half feel they have the expertise to make sound judgements about tech policy, and only 15% feel MPs are doing enough to prepare workers for new technologies.

"Yet we do have choices. We can choose to establish a robust regulatory regime for technology and data rights."

It says with the right policies and practices in place, Britain will not just be able to rein in the worst effects of technology, be that job losses or surveillance, but marshal it for the betterment for workers, minimising drudgery and expanding those jobs that bring meaning and fulfilment to our lives.

It states the scheme should launch in 2035.

Stagnant wages

(Image: Google)

The RSA says the Government needs to put systems in place to support workers kicked out of the workforce by technology.

"Technological change will have a material impact on the economic security of workers," it explains.

"Those with the skills to complement technology can expect higher wages in the future, while those in direct competition with machines should be prepared for wage stagnation."

In many cases, it warns, workers could be pushed out of their sector - and work - altogether, leading to financial penury during the period in which they are searching for alternative employment.

To protect them against these risks, it argues the Government needs to, in the short term, iron out the faults of Universal Credit while in the medium term, continue to explore the potential of Universal Basic Income through rigorous pilots, as has already been done in Finland .

A Universal Basic Income

The UK is in the process of moving from Working Tax Credits to a new Universal Credit system of managing welfare payments.

The RSA says while the Government should continue to push for reforms to Universal Credit to ensure it is fit for purpose, it must also explore the potential for a Universal Basic Income as a long term replacement.

"Unlike Universal Credit, Universal Basic Income creates few disincentives to work, with every citizen receiving the same benefit regardless of how much they earn," it explains.

"Nor does it come with a harsh conditionality regime that forces people into work of any kind, regardless of its suitability.

"The UK government in partnership with local authorities should roll out Universal Basic Income pilots to test its impact on people’s propensity to work, their wider wellbeing and other activities such as caring and volunteering."

How it would work

(Image: GETTY)

In 2018, campaigners first put forward the idea of a single payment for all people in the UK.

This would be £3,692 a year for all qualifying citizens between 25 and 65, while pensioners would be paid £7,420 over the age of 65.

It's essentially a pension for everyone - at £71 a week - without having to make the National Insurance contributions first.

Then there would be a basic income for children aged 0–4 of £4,290 for the first child and £3,387 for other children aged 0–4.

There would be a reduction for a third child or more, potentially to zero.

Once in education, the payments would then fall, as parents would be able to work more hours.

The redistribution would be paid for by a charge on people earning more than £75,000 a year.

The RSA estimates that removing benefits, tax reliefs and allowances (excluding those relating to disability and housing), the Government would save a total of £272billion.

It also proposes to give £10,000 to every person in the country under 55.

Payments would not be means tested but applicants would have to show how they intended to spend the money.

It said this would help people cope with the effects of rising automation and help them manage their work to life balance.

The idea would see anyone able to claim a £5,000 “dividend” for up to two years, collected at a time of their choosing over the course of a decade.

This Universal Basic Opportunity Fund (UBOF), which would cost around £14.5 billion a year, would be funded by either a “modest increase” in taxes on top earners or through levies on large corporations, such as a "robot tax", to create a British sovereign wealth fund.

It proposes that the Government borrow £200 billion while interest rates are “historically low” to establish the fund, which would be “potentially able to pay itself back through economic growth engendered by investment in human capability”.

Has anyone else done it?

(Image: BBC)

Scotland is currently exploring the idea of a basic income to help lift people out of poverty and boost entrepreneurship.

The Scottish Basic Income Steering Group was set up in 2017 to assess whether it was feasible in the country - and the consultation will end in 2020.

Finland, meanwhile, has just completed a trial of a similar scheme - paying 2,000 unemployed people £490 a month for two years, instead of unemployment benefit.

The basic income was paid with no strings attached. Recipients weren't required to seek or accept jobs but still received the payment if they found a job. Here are its findings into whether the report actually made a difference .

A safety net for the self employed

One in seven UK workers are now self-employed, and rising, the RSA says.

"A 21st century safety net will remain incomplete until it offers sufficient protections to this group."

The report argues the Government should, as far as possible, aim to give the self-employed the same protections as employees , for example full Statutory Maternity and Paternity Pay, and a fairer deal under Universal Credit.

"This will require the self-employed to pay a higher level of National Insurance in return. However, this would still leave the self-employed without Statutory Sick Pay, which is currently paid for by employers.

"To plug this remaining benefit gap, the government should consider a consumer transaction charge, which would levy a modest fee on every transaction between a consumer or business and a self-employed worker, with the funds being used to cover the costs of sick pay."

For example, passengers using the services of a self-employed cab driver could be required to pay a 2% fee on every journey, totalling 30p for a £15 fare.

Multiply this figure by 100 fares a week means £30 going into a sick pay fund. This money could either be pooled among all workers or go into individual accounts.

Washington State in the US is considering a similar charge under the moniker of ‘portable benefits’, with a legislative bill that is supported by Uber.