This post is part of the sequence Arguments for a Universal Basic Income.

Less Bureaucracy, More Responsibility

In modern times, there seems to be a consensus in economically developed countries, that some form of social safety net is called for. The extent of it may be a matter of significant debate, with conservatives preferring minimal intervention and others desiring more, but it is uncontroversial to say that at some level, one is needed. From the fact that it can take time to find a new job if one finds oneself unemployed, to the fact that industries change, and people need to update their skill-sets to remain employable, there is a well-accepted need to balance “survival of the fittest” with compassion and dignity. The intention of this section is not to convince anyone that some level of state assistance is required, as those believing that this is not the case are likely very few in number; but instead to extol the virtues of a Universal Basic Income from a “small government” conservative perspective, over other more mainstream forms of state assistance programs.

The bureaucracy present in systems of state funded assistance for people with low incomes is renowned. In the UK there are tens of thousands of people employed across the country to ensure that the right people get the right amounts of money from the right places. There are payments for housing assistance, pensions for the elderly, stipends for those out of work, and many other pots of money that are all managed separately, for different purposes. With the notable exception of assistance for the disabled, which is a health-related benefit, dependent on the severity and impact of the disability, and which should arguably be administered by bodies of health professionals (such as the NHS in the UK), all of these benefits could be combined into one Universal Basic Income payment, payable to all. This would reduce the administrative overhead to virtually nothing, because there would be no need to police any arbitrary cut-off points, any phasing in or out of income, or any means testing to ensure that no-one was getting any more than they were entitled to.

This reduction in administration also helps to reduce the size of government, cutting the number of people it employs, and cutting its interference into people’s private lives. One of the limitations of receiving housing benefit in the UK, is that when in a house-sharing scenario, if the person you are sharing a house with has an income, you are only eligible for the benefit if you are not deemed to be in a relationship with them. This limitation might make some sense if the people living together were married, and had therefore agreed in the eyes of the law to be treated as co-dependent, but the limitation is far stricter than that, hinging on whether or not people share a bed. This not only raises issues around people becoming trapped in abusive relationships, but also could be seen as a gross over-reach of the government into the private lives of individuals.

Of course, the Universal Basic Income goes further than removing any strange limitations such as being in a relationship with a cohabitee. Even married couples would be eligible, meaning that a stay-at-home spouse would still be entitled to this income regardless of how much their partner earned. This has the advantage of providing such people with a measure of financial independence, and ensuring that people do not become trapped in a physically or financially abusive relationship. This has the effect of reducing the financial impact of one parent leaving their job to care for children, without needing any special tax breaks aimed at married couples or families.

Another impact of having a Universal Basic Income, with no associated bureaucracy, is that it would allow people to do charitable work or volunteering, without needing to work a second job or have a financial backer (such as a parent or spouse). The issue with current state benefit systems is that the bureaucracy can take a lot of effort to deal with. Meeting the requirements to continue claiming these state benefits can become like a job in its own right, taking up time that could be spent on more productive activities. This would empower those who wanted to contribute to society through volunteer work, as they could be secure in meeting the basics required for survival, whilst also having all of their time to devote to the causes of their choice.

Arguments that “jobs give people meaning in their life” should not be an argument against a Universal Basic Income, as the presence of a Universal Basic Income in no way prevents people from getting jobs. In fact, one of the key principles behind the idea of “small government conservatism” is that people know what is best for themselves, and that the government generally does not know better. This can be borne in mind when considering whether jobs are giving people meaning – if under a system of Universal Basic Income, people take the opportunity to be more discerning about the jobs they want to do, we should trust their judgement. If this does remove some workers from the job market, this will actually make it easier for those people that want to work to find work. This should allow more people to find meaning in their life – people that get meaning from working will find it easier to get employment, and those that find their meaning elsewhere are freer to pursue that instead.

One of the key criticisms of existing state benefit programmes is that they discourage financial responsibility. If someone has saved money for years, then loses their job, it is a common stipulation of state benefits that they may only claim if their savings are below a certain level. This means that they must first use up most of their hard-earned savings, after all, it is argued, why should the government pay them when they can still afford to support themselves? The issue here becomes clear however, when we consider a person who earned the same amount, and spent it all, not saving anything. This person upon losing their job, would become immediately eligible to receive such benefits. The person who was more abstemious and financially responsible is effectively punished in comparison with their contemporary, which effectively discourages fiscal responsibility. Why should someone responsible, that thinks about their future get less than someone irresponsible? The beauty of the Universal Basic Income is that this perverse motivation not to save does not exist. The person that saved money will receive the same government assistance as the person that did not, so although the person that was irresponsible will still be able to get by, the saver will be able to live much more comfortably.

In line with the ideals of both freedom and personal responsibility, the replacement of housing specific benefits makes it no longer a consideration for the government, what housing they should be willing to pay for. Under existing rules, there are criticisms from both directions – some people are forced to move from houses they are comfortable in, because the government deems them too expensive, while other people do not think the government goes far enough, and would prefer that people are moved to less expensive accommodation more proactively. A Universal Basic Income removes the government interference here entirely – if someone would prefer to live with an extra room, and is happy to sacrifice other expenditure for this, they can do so, while equally, if someone is happy to live in smaller accommodation, they may benefit from additional disposable income. People are then free to make decisions based on their own unique circumstances. This applies equally to which town or city they live in – someone determined to live in an expensive part of town is responsible for finding a way to afford this, while someone happy to move to the countryside is likely to find themselves able to live more comfortably. There is no fundamental right never to have to move house, it is a personal decision.

It is often argued that benefit systems contribute to a dependence on the government. The above argument demonstrates how this can be the case, by discouraging prudent behaviour; by requiring too much of someone’s time to navigate, preventing them from exploring more productive avenues; or simply by trapping them in poverty, by reducing benefits too quickly when employment is found, making it uneconomic to work and thus preventing them from improving their lot by moving up the employment ladder. Thankfully the Universal Basic Income does not encourage this kind of dysfunctional behaviour. The only people dependent on the government are those people temporarily in great need, for whom the Universal Basic Income is the only thing stopping them from being out on the street, not “professional” benefit claimants, trying to get the most out of the system, as there is no system to be gamed, and no more money to be claimed.

It can naturally still be argued that there would be some people content to sit at home and subsist on the Universal Basic Income. This would likely be a meagre existence, with very little disposable income once housing, food and heating have been paid for. The vast majority of people strive for more than this, aiming to improve their living situation beyond such ascetic constraints, so the number of people seeing their motivation fall due to a Universal Basic Income should be low.