Read on Twitter
UBS vs UBI (Thread) 
Confused at the difference between UBS and UBI? Are they compatible? Why should we advocate for UBS ahead of UBI? Answers are in the thread below.
We urge you to read the attached research for more details. 250 characters only tells half the story 
UBI is a proposal to give regular, unconditional cash payments to all individuals, regardless of their income or status. 
UBS is a proposal to develop more and better collectively provided services that are free for all who need them, regardless of income or status. 
UBS and UBI can be complimentary components for the future of social welfare. Advocates of UBS acknowledge that some personal/specific needs require monetary distribution to preserve freedom and agency, but we MUST start with UBS first and build on it as a foundation.
Therefore, the case for UBS argues that improving and extending public services is likely to be more effective in addressing poverty, inequality and wellbeing than just an unconditional cash payment to individuals
Here’s how
Here’s how
Public services create value. This can be understood across four dimensions:
Equity: services have a stronger redistributive effect and are worth much more to people on low incomes.
Efficiency: services deal with market failures and achieve greater economies of scale.
Equity: services have a stronger redistributive effect and are worth much more to people on low incomes. Efficiency: services deal with market failures and achieve greater economies of scale.
Solidarity: services are a manifestation of shared interest and purpose; they bring people together and build social cohesion. 
Sustainability: services produce benefits that are continuous and cumulative; and can be organised to cut carbon and tackle the climate crisis.
Moreover, UBI has a host of problems. Whilst it does improve work incentives for poorer citizens, even the simplest version of UBI (at the most plausible tax rates) makes those without work poorer, and would benefit the very rich. (Please read research at end of thread)
UBI alone also does not directly address the two most expensive and problematic aspects of the current UK welfare system1. Disability and incapacity related benefits
2. Help with housing costs
(Please read attached research)
Finally, and most significantly, Basic income is VERY expensive to implement for such a small payout. For example: even the most modest UBI proposals (from the JRF) which includes a £60 p/w payment for each adult over 25 would have a net cost of £140bn
In Comparison
UBS is accessible with relatively minor changes to the fiscal structure of the UK. UBS spending (£42billion) comes to just 2.3% of GDP or 5% of existing budgets
(Please read the research which explain the financial elements in detail)
UBS is accessible with relatively minor changes to the fiscal structure of the UK. UBS spending (£42billion) comes to just 2.3% of GDP or 5% of existing budgets (Please read the research which explain the financial elements in detail)
The advantages of UBS are as follows 1.
UBS meets needs more directly. Services, by their nature, are used when and where there is demand for the services. Services can target needs where means testing might miss specific deprivations.
2. UBS increases efficiency as the value delivered by services to individuals exceeds the cost of service provision because of the economies of scale achieved through general provision, thus circumventing the premium of satisfying individual requirements purchased individually.
UBS increases efficiency as the value delivered by services to individuals exceeds the cost of service provision because of the economies of scale achieved through general provision, thus circumventing the premium of satisfying individual requirements purchased individually.
3. The feedback effect of an effective labour market: to the extent that the cost of UBS delivery contains labour costs then those costs are potentially reduced by the social wage attributed to enhanced social safety by labour contributors who are also UBS recipients.
The feedback effect of an effective labour market: to the extent that the cost of UBS delivery contains labour costs then those costs are potentially reduced by the social wage attributed to enhanced social safety by labour contributors who are also UBS recipients.
4. The increased social security provided by UBS allows a more flexible labour market to arise without endangering social safety. This flexible labour market increases labour bargaining power, enables entrepreneurial initiative and allows labour rates to float more responsibly.
The increased social security provided by UBS allows a more flexible labour market to arise without endangering social safety. This flexible labour market increases labour bargaining power, enables entrepreneurial initiative and allows labour rates to float more responsibly.
Conclusion:- Whilst UBI is a commendable idea which aims to mitigate the ills of our broken economic system, it is not sufficent on its own. UBS must be implemented first, and act as the foundation for economic justice in which UBI has the potential to play a part.
IMPORTANT This only scratches the surface of what is a hugely detailed and complex case for UBS against UBI. Please do read the research papers at the bottom of this thread for the other 99% of detail twitter can’t fit into 250 characters.
End of thread
All the research quoted (and the links to their sources) is within these 2 umbrella documents.
1. http://ucl.ac.uk/bartlett/igp/s …
http://2.ubshub.files.wordpress.com/2019/05/ubs_re …
All the research quoted (and the links to their sources) is within these 2 umbrella documents.1. http://ucl.ac.uk/bartlett/igp/s …
http://2.ubshub.files.wordpress.com/2019/05/ubs_re …
