Name: Are pandemic relief checks making UBI inevitable?
Brand: theweek.com
SKU: theweek-com-709
Availability: OnlineOnly

critic

Are pandemic relief checks making UBI inevitable?

preview

Major crises can effect rapid changes in public opinion that otherwise would have required years or even decades to develop. Among the permanent opinion shifts of the COVID-19 pandemic, I expect to see a new — and perhaps even bipartisan — move toward universal basic income (UBI) or something like it, an evolution influenced by Americans' experience with pandemic relief checks, both the fact of them and the drawn-out political fights surrounding their passage.UBI is exactly what it sounds like: a government income program which is not tied to recipients' employment (like unemployment insurance), age (like Social Security), income (like ), medical care (like Medicare or Medicaid), or food purchases (like ). It's simply a monthly cash stipend that goes to everyone. The stipend could be big enough to cover all basic expenses (this is called a full UBI) or it could merely supplement other income (former Democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang's proposal of a $1,000 per month "" is an example of this sort of partial UBI).A year ago, when Yang was promoting his dividend, he was a clear outlier in mainstream politics — maybe not entirely outside the , but perched precariously on the sill. Surveys in and showed a consistent minority of 43 percent were supportive of the idea.This year, the polling picture is revealingly messy. An by Pew Research Center showed 45 percent support for UBI, statistically identical to the prior year's 43 percent. But Pew asked about "$1,000 per month for all adult citizens, whether or not they work," a phrasing I'm guessing raised concerns about mass UBI-induced indolence. A Hill-HarrisX poll published the same month described UBI as a way to "help Americans whose jobs are threatened by automation." With that framing, 55 percent were in favor of UBI. When UBI is linked to COVID-19, support moves even higher. A Data for Progress found 66 percent of Americans — including 52 percent of Republicans — were supportive of a $1,000 monthly payment for the duration of the pandemic.Senate Republicans' handling of this second round of relief checks is another bellwether here. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) to retain control of the Senate, which requires winning at least one of the two runoff elections in Georgia. Both are tight races with GOP incumbents. And both of those incumbents — undoubtedly informed by swing voters' opinions on this issue — President Trump's proposal of increasing the checks from $600 to $2,000 per person. a direct vote but indicated he'd pass the raise as with other elements Senate Democrats oppose. However this shakes out, one thing remains true: Supporting a nearly universal stipend with a value well into full UBI territory has become an acceptable Republican opinion.It could move from acceptable to downright popular in years to come. For one thing, fiscal conservatism (or, at least, its pretense) is no longer Republican orthodoxy post-Trump. Trump himself is the loudest proponent of these $2,000 checks, and he has made new space for populist economic views — and UBI is certainly populist — in the GOP.But even for those fiscal conservatives still present in the Republican Party (as well as conservatives and libertarians more broadly), a future of rising support for UBI is plausible. There are already resources for it in this economic tradition: Economist Milton Friedman a (NIT), which is similar to UBI but . Charles Murray of the American Enterprise Institute for an annual $10,000 stipend to all Americans ( for health insurance). Libertarian economist and Nobel laureate F.A. Hayek , arguing that the "assurance of a certain minimum income for everyone, or a sort of floor below which nobody need fall even when he is unable to provide for himself" is not only legitimate but "necessary."For those on the economic right, UBI is most attractive when it has some upper income limit and, crucially, when it replaces the current welfare state rather than simply supplementing it, as Yang proposed. "UBI would be far simpler and more transparent than the current hodgepodge of more than 100 existing federal and state programs. With overlapping and often contradictory eligibility levels, work requirements, and other restrictions, our existing welfare system is a nightmare of unaccountability," Michael D. Tanner of the libertarian Cato Institute in 2019. UBI would be "far less paternalistic than traditional welfare," he said, allowing recipients to decide for themselves how to spend the support they receive. It also would have better incentives, Tanner added: Our current approach discourages work, he explained, because the "highest marginal tax rates are not on the wealthy, but on a poor person who leaves welfare for work."Replacing the current welfare system with UBI could appeal to fiscal conservatives like Tanner who have accepted the reality of the modern welfare state — even if they oppose it in principle — as a sort of least-worst option. Total cost and funding sources would be the biggest sticking point, of course, and the stipends would have to be fairly generous for the replacement plan to win agreement from the left. A is possible, particularly if we include funds from current , but it probably wouldn't hit the needed generosity benchmark., which can be a truly universal stipend (depending on associated tax policy), may be the most politically viable variant of UBI. It might, for example, only supplement the income of the of U.S. households making less than $50,000 a year (with appropriate adjustments for household size). A negative income tax avoids sending government checks to rich people, and it's arguably than clawing back stipends sent to higher-income households. Like UBI, it could also be scaled according to widely variant local costs of living — or not scaled if, , the goal is to incentivize population and economic growth outside of expensive metro areas.I won't venture any timeline prediction here. I we're within a decade of something like Medicare-for-all, but UBI or NIT might need more time to marinate in the public consciousness. Yet I do feel confident saying the economic disruption of COVID-19 has made Americans newly open to the idea of a government-guaranteed income floor which undergirds both models. And the glacial pace with which relief checks have been approved in this moment of crisis will make a permanent, reliable floor more attractive still.CORRECTION: An earlier version of this piece explained NIT in terms more descriptive of and incorrectly said NIT is always cheaper than UBI; in fact, the net cost of the programs if UBI is paired with a flat tax. We regret the error.

Major crises can effect rapid changes in public opinion that otherwise would have required years or even decades to develop. Among the permanent opinion shifts of the COVID-19 pandemic, I expect to see a new — and perhaps even bipartisan — move toward universal basic income (UBI) or something like it, an evolution influenced by Americans' experience with pandemic relief checks, both the fact of them and the drawn-out political fights surrounding their passage.UBI is exactly what it sounds like: a government income program which is not tied to recipients' employment (like unemployment...

public

Bonnie Kristian

The Week is a weekly news magazine with editions in the United Kingdom and United States. The British publication was founded in 1995 and the American edition started in 2001; an Australian edition was published between 2008 and 2012. A children's edition, The Week Junior, has been published in the UK since 2015.

Are pandemic relief checks making UBI inevitable?

No article scores yet.

CRITIC REVIEWS

PUBLIC REVIEWS