Earlier this week, the Welsh government announced a 3-year pilot program to provide a Universal Basic Income (UBI) of £1,600 a month to about 500 young adults. Their stated objective is to,
“… provide a test for the stated benefits of basic income, such as addressing poverty and unemployment and improving health and financial wellbeing.”
All young Welsh people turning 18 will be offered the opportunity to take part in this pilot for a duration of two years. For those unfamiliar with the concept, a UBI is essentially an unconditional and automatic payment made to each individual by the government, regardless of any individual’s financial circumstances. Every week, or every month, everyone receives an equal amount of income.
Distortion of Rights
Jane Hutt, the Minister for Social Justice (yes, such a person does exist) gives some feel-good platitudes as reasons for the pilot (my emphasis in bold on her use of the term, “right”):
“We know we’re in the midst of a cost of living crisis and we’re determined to continually look at how best to support individuals in Wales who live in poverty. Care leavers have a right to be properly supported as they develop into independent young adults. …
Yet, too many young people leaving care continue to face significant barriers to achieving a successful transition into adulthood. Our Basic Income pilot is an exciting project to deliver financial stability for a generation of young people that need it most.
We are fully committed to supporting those living in poverty, ensuring they receive adequate financial support so that everyone in Wales can live happy and healthy lives.”
I emphasized Hutt’s use of the word “right” because I think this is key to understanding why ideas such UBI gain so much traction among the public. The use of the word “right” in public discourse has been so distorted that anything can be justified so long as you attach the word “right” to it. But, no one has a right to be “properly supported,” whatever that even means. “Properly” is a subjective term and any implementation of “proper support” will thus be arbitrary. And frankly, no one has a right to force someone else to support you. Do you have a right to hold your neighbor at gun point until he pays your groceries? No. That is a clear violation of property rights.
You see, the only “rights” anyone has are property rights, which includes self-ownership. Property rights are human rights, and human rights are natural rights.
UBI and The Rich
Most people balk at the concept of UBI because they see a silliness in the government handing out measly checks to rich people. The Welsh program doesn’t include everyone like a true UBI program, it only involves 18-year-olds. But advocates of UBI insist on the whole “universalness” of it all. That’s the point. So, not surprisingly, the Citizens Basic Income Trust — a UK “charity” that’s been advocating for UBI since 1984 — says that “giving a basic income to Welsh millionaires is good.” A rational person might wince at that statement, and rightly so. This so-called charity gives the following three reasons to justify their position:
A universal payment saves on the required bureaucracy and costs compared to that of a typical, means-tested welfare scheme. You see, you don’t have to spend time and money figuring out who needs the money if you just give the same amount to everyone.
Universality carries no stigma. If everyone gets a government check, well then, no one feels alone in becoming a ward of the state. Isn’t that nice? Misery loves company, I guess.
A UBI gives everyone “a stake in society” with interest in ensuring the system works well. Uh huh …
Forgive me if I’m alone in thinking the above three reasons are completely absurd. The premise of this program seems to think that money is created out of nothing … that the government just has money. But no, this is nonsense. The government only has what it takes. Universal payments still require the government to spend the time and costs to take in order to give.
It is absurdity for the government to first take the people’s money only to give it back to them. Sure, some people will get more in return than was originally taken from them. And some will get less in return. This whole scheme is akin to having a group of people barf into a pot so that they can then be served equal portions of mixed barf for dinner. It is harebrained, to say the least. Adding to the absurdity of the program is the fact that the money will be taxable because it will be viewed as income by the U.K. government.
And to think that everyone will have the interest in this scheme working well is ludicrous. A millionaire has zero interest in this scheme … zero! Do you honestly think the fate of a relatively paltry check in the mail is going to impact the life of a millionaire? Of course not.
The Welsh pilot stands out by offering the highest sum of any pilot of its kind so far. It will begin during the next financial year. On the surface, the pilot will cost a total of roughly £30 million to reach the hands of ~500 future wards of the state. That doesn’t include any hidden bureaucracy and assumes the pilot ends after 3 years. If “successful,” it will, no doubt, be made permanent and perhaps even expanded into a true UBI.
How will the government measure success of the program? Who knows? Other existing welfare schemes haven’t done anything to eliminate poverty. To think another welfare program by another name will have different results is insanity.
Anyone who receives money in their account will call that a success. But they will fail to see what the government took behind-the-scenes to deliver that money. The government will tax and/or inflate to make this scheme happen. It is a shell game, pure and simple.