Universal basic income

Based on Wikipedia: Universal basic income

In 44 BC, Julius Caesar was assassinated on the floor of the Roman Senate. His will contained a surprise: every common citizen of Rome would receive 75 denarii. The dictator had essentially written a stimulus check from beyond the grave.

This wasn't even Caesar's first direct payment to citizens. Two years earlier, during a military triumph, he'd handed out 100 denarii to each Roman. And Emperor Trajan, ruling about 150 years later, personally distributed what would amount to roughly $430 in today's money to any citizen who showed up to claim it.

The idea that governments should just give money to people isn't new. It's ancient. What's new is that we've spent the last several centuries arguing about whether to actually do it systematically.

What We're Actually Talking About

Universal basic income, commonly called UBI, is exactly what it sounds like: regular cash payments to everyone, no strings attached. You don't have to prove you're poor. You don't have to prove you're looking for work. You don't have to prove anything. You're a citizen, so you get the money.

This is different from most welfare programs, which are means-tested. Means-tested programs require you to demonstrate need. You fill out forms proving your income falls below a threshold, and bureaucrats verify your claims. If you earn too much, you lose benefits, sometimes creating perverse incentives where taking a job can leave you worse off financially.

A related but distinct concept is guaranteed minimum income, or GMI. Under a GMI system, the government ensures everyone has at least a certain amount of money, but only pays out to people who aren't already earning that much. If you're making fifty thousand dollars a year, you get nothing. If you're making nothing, you get the full amount. If you're somewhere in between, you get topped up to the minimum.

UBI, by contrast, goes to everyone regardless of what they earn. A billionaire would receive the same payment as someone who's homeless. This sounds wasteful until you consider that means-testing itself is expensive. Bureaucracies cost money. Verifying eligibility costs money. Fraud prevention costs money. And the administrative burden often prevents eligible people from claiming benefits they're entitled to.

The Spectrum of Basic Income

Not all basic income proposals are created equal. The crucial question is whether the payment is enough to live on.

A full basic income provides enough to cover basic needs: food, shelter, clothing, healthcare. If you receive a full basic income, you could theoretically survive without any other source of money. You wouldn't live lavishly, but you wouldn't starve or become homeless.

A partial basic income provides less than that. It supplements other income but doesn't replace the need to work or find other resources. Think of it as a floor, not a ceiling, but a floor that's below the level needed for survival on its own.

As of 2025, no country on Earth has implemented a full universal basic income. The closest we've come are partial systems in a handful of places, plus numerous pilot programs and experiments.

The Closest Things We Have

Alaska is probably the most famous real-world example. Since 1982, the Alaska Permanent Fund has paid annual dividends to every resident of the state. The money comes from oil revenues. In 2019, the payment averaged about $1,600 per person. That's not enough to live on, but it's real money going to real people with no strings attached.

The Alaska model is interesting because it demonstrates something important: giving people money doesn't cause civilization to collapse. Alaskans haven't stopped working. The economy hasn't imploded. People just have a bit more financial cushion.

Mongolia and Iran have both experimented with partial basic income systems, though neither has maintained them consistently. Both programs were funded by natural resource revenues, following a similar logic to Alaska: if the land produces wealth, perhaps that wealth should be shared among all citizens.

Many countries have programs that function like basic income for specific populations. Child benefits, common throughout Europe and elsewhere, provide regular payments to families with children. Old-age pensions provide regular payments to retirees. These aren't universal in the strict sense, since not everyone qualifies, but they demonstrate that unconditional regular payments are administratively feasible.

Brazil's Bolsa Familia program, launched in 2003, provides cash transfers to poor families, though with conditions attached: children must attend school and get vaccinated. It's not quite UBI, but it showed that direct cash transfers could dramatically reduce poverty. At its peak, the program reached about 50 million people, roughly a quarter of Brazil's population.

The Negative Income Tax Alternative

There's another approach that achieves similar goals through the tax system rather than direct payments. The negative income tax, first proposed seriously by economist Milton Friedman in his 1962 book "Capitalism and Freedom," works like this: below a certain income threshold, instead of paying taxes to the government, the government pays you.

Imagine a system where the threshold is $30,000 and the rate is 50%. If you earn nothing, you receive $15,000 from the government. If you earn $10,000, you receive $10,000 from the government, for a total of $20,000. If you earn $20,000, you receive $5,000 from the government, for a total of $25,000. If you earn $30,000, you break even. Above that, you start paying taxes.

The mathematical result is similar to a basic income that phases out as you earn more. The psychological and administrative differences are significant. With a negative income tax, you only interact with the system once a year at tax time. With a basic income, you receive regular payments throughout the year.

The Earned Income Tax Credit in the United States is a partial implementation of this concept. Low-income workers receive tax refunds that exceed what they paid in, effectively providing a wage subsidy. It's not quite a negative income tax since you have to be working to qualify, but it demonstrates that the tax system can move money to people rather than just taking it from them.

Utopia and Its Critics

The term "utopia" shows up frequently in discussions of basic income, and not always as a compliment. Thomas More, the 16th-century English statesman who coined the word, actually included something like basic income in his fictional ideal society.

In "Utopia," published in 1516, More has a character argue against harsh punishments for theft:

Instead of inflicting these horrible punishments, it would be far more to the point to provide everyone with some means of livelihood, so that nobody's under the frightful necessity of becoming first a thief, and then a corpse.

The logic is straightforward. If people steal because they're starving, the solution isn't to hang them. The solution is to make sure they're not starving.

More's contemporary, the Spanish scholar Johannes Ludovicus Vives, made similar arguments but with more conditions attached. He proposed that municipal governments should provide a subsistence minimum to all residents, but believed recipients should prove their willingness to work. This tension between unconditional support and work requirements has persisted for five hundred years.

The Founding Fathers and Ground Rent

Thomas Paine, one of the intellectual architects of the American Revolution, published an essay called "Agrarian Justice" in 1797. His proposal was remarkably specific: fund old-age pensions, disability support, and grants for young adults through a 10% tax on land inheritance.

Paine's reasoning was philosophical as much as practical. "Men did not make the earth," he wrote. "It is the value of the improvements only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property. Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds."

The idea is that land belongs to everyone by natural right. When someone claims private ownership of land, they're appropriating something that was originally common property. They therefore owe compensation to everyone else. This debt could be paid through taxes that fund universal benefits.

Thomas Spence, a radical English thinker, took this logic further in his 1797 pamphlet "The Rights of Infants." He proposed socializing all land, collecting the rents at the municipal level, and distributing the proceeds as an unconditional basic income to all community members.

Henry George, the 19th-century American economist, built an entire economic philosophy around these ideas. Georgism, or the "single tax movement," holds that while people should own what they produce through their labor, the economic value derived from land and natural resources belongs equally to all members of society. A tax on land value alone, George argued, could fund all necessary government services and provide a dividend to every citizen.

The 20th Century Debates

Support for basic income grew substantially around 1920, particularly in England. The philosopher Bertrand Russell, writing in his 1918 book "Roads to Freedom," argued that basic income should be fundamental to any just society:

The plan we are advocating amounts essentially to this: that a certain small income, sufficient for necessaries, should be secured to all, whether they work or not, and that a larger income, as much larger as might be warranted by the total amount of commodities produced, should be given to those who are willing to engage in some work which the community recognizes as useful.

Russell envisioned a two-tier system: everyone gets enough to survive, and those who work get more. This preserves incentives while eliminating destitution.

Dennis and Mabel Milner, a Quaker couple active in the Labour Party, published their "Scheme for a State Bonus" in 1918, calling for weekly payments to all citizens of the United Kingdom. They framed it as a moral issue: everyone has a right to subsistence, and that right shouldn't depend on willingness to work.

The engineer C. H. Douglas noticed a paradox in British industry: productivity was rising, but most citizens couldn't afford to buy what factories were producing. His solution was "social credit," combining monetary reform with basic income. The ideas gained substantial political traction in Canada during the Great Depression, though never in the form Douglas envisioned.

The Beveridge Report of 1944-1945, which laid the groundwork for the British welfare state, included unconditional allowances for children. Committee member Lady Rhys-Williams argued that adult incomes should work similarly. She also developed the first detailed proposal for a negative income tax. Her son, Sir Brandon Rhys-Williams, presented a basic income proposal to Parliament in 1982, and in 1984 the Basic Income Research Group was founded to study the concept.

The American Moment

The United States came remarkably close to implementing something like basic income in the late 1960s and early 1970s.

President Lyndon Johnson declared an "unconditional war on poverty" in his 1964 State of the Union address. The Great Society programs that followed included Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, and federal education funding. In this environment, guaranteed income seemed like a natural next step.

In 1968, over 1,200 economists signed a statement calling for a guaranteed income for every American. This wasn't a fringe position. It was mainstream economic thinking.

Four ambitious experiments with negative income tax launched in different parts of the country. Researchers wanted to know what would actually happen if you just gave people money. Would they stop working? Would they spend it irresponsibly? The results were nuanced but generally positive. Work effort decreased modestly, primarily among secondary earners and young people pursuing education, while indicators like school attendance and health outcomes improved.

President Richard Nixon, a Republican, proposed the Family Assistance Plan, which would have provided a guaranteed minimum income to families with children. The plan passed the House of Representatives twice but died in the Senate, opposed both by conservatives who thought it too generous and by liberals who thought it not generous enough.

Congress did approve guaranteed income for two groups: the elderly and the disabled. Supplemental Security Income, created in 1972, provides monthly cash payments to people over 65 and to disabled Americans regardless of work history. It's means-tested, so not truly universal, but it's an acknowledgment that some people should receive money without being required to work.

The main competitor to basic income, the Earned Income Tax Credit, won out in the mid-1970s. Unlike basic income, the EITC requires work. It supplements wages rather than replacing them. Politically, this made it more palatable. Philosophically, it's quite different: it says society will help you if you're working but poor, not if you're simply poor.

The Robot Question

In the 21st century, basic income discussions have become entangled with anxieties about automation.

The argument goes like this: artificial intelligence and robotics are advancing rapidly. Many jobs currently done by humans will soon be done by machines. Unlike previous waves of automation, which displaced workers from one sector while creating jobs in another, this wave might simply eliminate the need for human labor across vast swaths of the economy. If there aren't enough jobs for everyone, the traditional model of distributing resources through wages breaks down.

The Institute for Public Policy Research estimated that 59% of tasks currently performed by humans could be affected by AI within three to five years. Whether this leads to mass unemployment, new kinds of jobs, or some combination depends on factors we can't fully predict. But the possibility of a "jobs apocalypse" has made basic income seem less utopian and more like prudent planning.

Some proponents frame basic income as a way to distribute the gains from automation fairly. If robots produce wealth, that wealth shouldn't accrue only to whoever owns the robots. Everyone should benefit from society's increased productive capacity.

Others see basic income as enabling a transition to a post-scarcity economy, where the necessity of work diminishes and people are free to pursue meaning and fulfillment in other ways. This vision is genuinely utopian in the positive sense: a better world that technology might make possible.

The Recent Experiments

After decades of theoretical debate, the 2010s and 2020s have seen a wave of practical experiments.

The Swiss held a referendum on basic income in 2016. The proposal would have provided every adult citizen about $2,500 per month. It lost decisively, with 77% voting against, but the campaign generated worldwide media coverage and demonstrated significant public interest in the concept.

Finland ran a two-year experiment from 2017 to 2018, providing 560 euros monthly to 2,000 unemployed people with no conditions attached. The results showed no significant effect on employment, dispelling fears that people would stop working, while participants reported improved wellbeing and reduced stress.

In Stockton, California, then-Mayor Michael Tubbs launched a privately funded guaranteed income pilot in 2019. For 24 months, 125 randomly selected residents received $500 per month. The results were striking: full-time employment among recipients actually increased, rising from 28% to 40%, while the control group saw no such gain. Recipients reported using the money for basic necessities and paying down debt.

Compton, California began a similar program in January 2021, eventually reaching 800 recipients. Tacoma, Washington launched its "Growing Resilience in Tacoma" program in December 2021, providing $500 monthly to 110 families. By some counts, over 25 U.S. cities have explored or implemented guaranteed income pilots.

The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated this trend dramatically. Around 90 countries and regions introduced temporary direct cash transfer programs. The United States sent multiple rounds of stimulus checks to most adults. Spain implemented a minimum income guarantee. Hong Kong and Japan distributed cash to residents. These weren't true UBI, since they were temporary and often targeted, but they normalized the idea of governments simply sending money to people.

In Europe, a petition calling for an "emergency basic income" gathered over 200,000 signatures. Polls showed widespread public support. The experience of pandemic relief programs demonstrated that direct cash transfers were administratively feasible and didn't cause the disasters critics predicted.

The Objections

Critics of basic income raise several concerns.

First, cost. Providing every adult in a large country enough money to live on would be extraordinarily expensive. In the United States, giving every adult $12,000 per year would cost roughly $3 trillion annually. That's more than the entire federal budget excluding Social Security, Medicare, and interest on the debt. Where would the money come from?

Proponents have various answers. Some would fund basic income by eliminating existing welfare programs and their administrative overhead. Some would raise taxes on high incomes or wealth. Some would implement new revenue sources like carbon taxes, financial transaction taxes, or automation taxes. Some would simply create the money, arguing that modern monetary theory shows governments with sovereign currencies can't really run out of money in the traditional sense.

Second, work incentives. If people can meet their basic needs without working, won't they stop working? This concern has intuitive appeal but limited empirical support. The experiments generally show modest reductions in work hours, concentrated among people pursuing education or caring for family members, not wholesale abandonment of employment. The Alaska Permanent Fund hasn't turned Alaskans into layabouts.

Some proponents flip this concern into a feature. If basic income gives workers the ability to refuse terrible jobs, employers would have to improve conditions and raise wages to attract labor. This could be particularly significant for jobs that are currently dangerous, demeaning, or simply unpleasant. If you don't need the money to survive, you won't accept misery for minimum wage.

Third, fairness. Should someone who chooses not to work receive the same as someone who works hard? Should a billionaire receive the same payment as someone in poverty? These questions reflect deep disagreements about what justice requires.

Those who favor means-testing argue that resources should flow to those who need them most. Those who favor universality argue that means-testing is paternalistic, stigmatizing, and creates bureaucratic barriers that prevent eligible people from receiving benefits. They point out that wealthy recipients would pay back far more in taxes than they receive, making the net effect progressive even if the gross payments are equal.

Fourth, inflation. If everyone suddenly has more money, won't prices just rise to absorb it? This depends on implementation details. A basic income funded by taxes doesn't increase the total money supply; it just redistributes existing money. A basic income funded by money creation would be more inflationary. The empirical evidence from existing programs doesn't show significant inflation effects, but these programs are small relative to the overall economy.

The Case For

Proponents offer several arguments for basic income.

It eliminates poverty, by definition. If everyone receives enough to meet basic needs, no one falls below the poverty line. This is a straightforward, guaranteed outcome, unlike programs that try to help poor people find jobs or develop skills, which may or may not succeed for any given individual.

It provides security. Even people who currently have good jobs live with the knowledge that they could lose them. Economic anxiety shapes decisions about education, family formation, entrepreneurship, and risk-taking. A basic income floor changes the calculus. You might take a chance on a startup if failure doesn't mean homelessness.

It recognizes unpaid work. Much economically valuable labor, particularly caregiving and domestic work, goes uncompensated. Basic income provides something like a wage for this essential but invisible work. Parents raising children, adults caring for elderly relatives, and volunteers serving their communities would all receive recognition.

It simplifies welfare. Existing programs are notoriously complex. Navigating the bureaucracy requires time, knowledge, and persistence that many people in need don't have. Different programs have different eligibility rules, application processes, and benefit structures. Basic income replaces this complexity with elegant simplicity: everyone gets the same thing.

It preserves dignity. Means-tested programs require proving you're needy. This can feel humiliating. Basic income comes as a right, like voting or free speech. You don't have to justify yourself to a caseworker.

It adapts to an uncertain future. We don't know exactly how automation, AI, and other technological changes will reshape the economy. Basic income is robust to multiple scenarios. If jobs disappear, people still have income. If new jobs emerge, the basic income remains as a supplement. We don't have to predict the future correctly to implement a policy that works across many possible futures.

The Politics

Basic income has attracted supporters across the political spectrum, though for different reasons.

From the left, it's seen as a way to reduce poverty, inequality, and the coercive aspects of wage labor. Workers with a basic income floor have more power to refuse exploitation. The benefits accrue disproportionately to those with the least.

From the right, particularly libertarian-leaning thinkers, it's seen as a cleaner alternative to the existing welfare state. Milton Friedman, the iconic free-market economist, advocated negative income tax partly because it would be simpler and less paternalistic than programs that provide specific goods and services. Give people money and let them decide what they need rather than having government bureaucrats make those choices.

Silicon Valley has shown notable interest. Elon Musk has said basic income is "going to be necessary." Y Combinator, the startup accelerator, funded a basic income research project. Andrew Yang made it the centerpiece of his 2020 presidential campaign, branding it a "Freedom Dividend" of $1,000 per month for every American adult.

Yang's campaign was remarkable for bringing basic income into mainstream political discourse. He outlasted many better-known candidates in the Democratic primary, demonstrating that the idea had genuine popular appeal. His framing, emphasizing automation and the need to share technological gains, resonated particularly with younger voters.

Political opposition comes from multiple directions. Fiscal conservatives worry about cost. Social conservatives worry that removing the necessity of work undermines character and social cohesion. Some progressives prefer expanding existing targeted programs rather than replacing them with universal payments. Labor unions have sometimes opposed basic income, fearing it could be used to justify cuts to wages and working conditions.

The Path Forward

After centuries of theoretical development and decades of experiments, basic income remains unimplemented at national scale. Yet the trajectory is clear: more pilots, more research, more political attention, more public interest.

The COVID-19 pandemic may prove to be an inflection point. Governments around the world demonstrated that they could send money directly to citizens when circumstances demanded it. The administrative infrastructure now exists. The political will materialized, at least temporarily. The question is whether this crisis response evolves into permanent policy.

Perhaps more importantly, the pandemic changed expectations. People experienced receiving government payments without having to prove need or demonstrate willingness to work. For many, it was a positive experience. Going back to the old system of complex, conditional, stigmatizing benefits feels less inevitable than it did before.

The automation question looms. If AI does eliminate jobs as rapidly as some predict, societies will need responses. Basic income is the most developed proposal on the table. Even skeptics may conclude that it's better to have a policy ready than to improvise in crisis.

Thomas More wrote "Utopia" as a critique of his own society, not a blueprint for the future. The word itself means "no place" in Greek. But sometimes ideas that seem impossible become merely impractical, then difficult, then controversial, then obvious. Five hundred years after More imagined a society where no one starved because no one could earn enough, we're still arguing about whether to try it.

The argument continues. The experiments accumulate. The world watches.