About

A realistic Basic Income is a Basic Income that is large enough to be worthwhile and small enough to be practical.

• Such a Basic Income is likely to have annual net or after-tax payments for each recipient in the range of 20% to 30% of GDP per capita.
  • A Basic Income in the range of 20% to 30% of GDP per capita is known to be economically feasible.
  • A Basic Income will complement, not replace, universal services such as free education and free hospital care.
  • If universal basic services are reduced or eliminated, a Basic Income must be larger to compensate, and a lower level of targeting to those in need will be achieved.
• A realistic Basic Income may also be described as a feasible, viable, possible, practical, pragmatic or workable Basic Income.
• A realistic Basic Income allows top-ups for those with special needs.
• A realistic Basic Income is paid in conjunction with a tax system that enables broad targeting of a Basic Income to those with the greatest need.
  • This will maximise the benefits for those with the greatest need while minimising the overall cost of the Basic Income.
  • For further details, see Targeting and Taxation.
• A Basic Income will boost GDP per capita. Consequently, a Basic Income set as a percentage of GDP per capita will increase in real value as the GDP per capita rises. For further details, see Frequently Asked Questions.

On this website, the words “Basic Income” will refer to a realistic Basic Income, a Basic Income that can be achieved.

—

A “full Basic Income” is ambiguous. To some, it refers to a Basic Income that replaces all welfare, while to others it refers to a Basic Income that will replace all government services as well as welfare.

A “full Basic Income” is sometimes used to describe a Basic Income that is large enough to replace all current welfare payments, or a combination of payments, received by any single individual, without a loss of income for the individual or need to top up payments to current welfare income levels.

Such a payment has limitations.

• As people with special needs sometimes receive significant welfare payments, paying everyone the same will incur a very high cost that will be too large to fund and implement in practice.
• Paying everyone the same large amount will destroy existing relativities where people with greater needs receive more.
  • This could result in significant opposition from individuals who are opposed to this loss of relativity.
• Paying those with large incomes a substantial amount as a Basic Income will be more difficult to fund with a progressive income tax or any other tax scheme, and may unduly reward those with high incomes.
• The large size of a full Basic Income is likely to result in an unrealistically expensive Basic Income scheme – one which cannot be achieved in practice.

If a full Basic Income were to replace government services as well as all welfare, it would need to be even greater in value and even more difficult to fund.

Basic Income experts usually regard a “full Basic Income” as impractical due to the very high costs and the resulting undesirable loss of relatives.

—

The phrase “partial Basic Income” is sometimes used to describe a Basic Income that is large enough to replace some but not all welfare payments.

• For example, if a Basic Income is the size of the adult Jobseeker Support payment, it will replace welfare payments of the same size or smaller, but top-ups or additional payments will be required to bring some people’s income up to their current welfare levels.

As a partial Basic Income meets the international BIEN definition of a “Basic Income”, the words “Basic Income” will be used here.

A Basic Income sets a minimum income floor rather than setting a single income level that is large enough to replace all welfare payments, and perhaps replace government services as well, or large enough to provide a living income.

.

The use of “UBI”, is ambiguous as it may alternatively refer to a:

• Universal Basic Income
• Unconditional Basic Income
• Uniform Basic Income
• Unrealistic Basic Income
• Unrealisable Basic Income
• Unsuitable Basic Income
• Unnecessary Basic Income

The degree of ambiguity is itself a good reason for not referring to a “UBI”.

UBI is also used by some people to refer to a Basic Income that is large enough to replace all welfare payments with a single level payment without the need for top-ups for those with special or additional needs.

• To avoid income cuts for some welfare recipients with high needs, such a payment must be as large as their current total payments.
• Set at this high level, the total cost of a Basic Income scheme will be so large as to make the Basic Income scheme impractical or unrealisable.
• Alternatively, some argue for a Universal Basic Income with a payment level calculated by taking the total current welfare payments and dividing them by the number of people in the eligible age range, with no top-up for those with special needs.
  • Such a payment will result in significant income cuts for some welfare recipients who have a real need for higher payments, and give money equally to those with very high incomes and no need for any extra income.

A Basic Income, as defined by the international definition, is both universal and unconditional for all people within the defined group, with top-ups available for those with special needs.

A Basic Income with top-ups is a feasible proposition and will not result in income cuts for welfare recipients with high needs.

Consequently, a “Basic Income” with top-ups is preferable to discussing he ambiguous UBIs referred to above.

People who talk of a UBI as an amount determined by taking the sum of all current welfare payments and dividing that amount equally amongst the population to determine the value of a “UBI” paid equally to all citizens to replace all welfare, without top-ups, are seen as naive, as this will cause hardship for some, and provide unnecessary additional income to others.

—