EVERYONE living in Scotland under 55 years old would be eligible for a £10,000 stipend over two years under plans unveiled today by a leading think tank.
The paper, being published by the Royal Society of Arts (RSA) and Royal Society of Arts Scotland, seeks to provoke a discussion about how a future universal basic income scheme may operate.
It calls for a sovereign wealth fund financed in part by taxes on large multinational corporations, such as internet giants, rather than through the income tax system.
READ MORE: How a universal basic opportunity fund can help people take next big step
It argues a universal basic opportunity fund (UBOF) could be piloted to help steer workers under the age of 55 through a difficult economic climate post-Brexit in the 2020s, or in the early years of Scottish independence.
Researchers restricted the age of recipients to limit the cost of the trial scheme and also to address a growing problem of intergenerational inequality.
They point out the scheme could be adjusted to include older workers, while a permanent basic income policy would be offered to all over-18s.
Universal basic income pilots are currently being run in a number of countries, such as Finland and Namibia, driven by the need to help people balance jobs and family responsibilities, retrain, address insecure work patterns, prevent workers being stuck in low paid jobs and increase productivity.
Supporters underline an increase in automation and the prospect of a world with fewer jobs, along with its potential to simplify the benefits system.
Last year Nicola Sturgeon gave initial backing to the basic income policy, with a grant of £250,000 to four Scottish councils – Glasgow, Edinburgh, Fife and North Ayrshire – to research how they could run pilots in their areas. The First Minister said the research would “inform parliament’s thinking for the future”. The UK Government has shown little interest in the scheme.
Today’s RSA paper, Pathways to Universal Basic Income, states: “The UBOF could be the first step towards a new model of social security which puts faith in people to make decisions pertaining to the aspirations that they have for their lives. It represents an investment in human potential; measured not just in GDP or productivity growth but in security, fulfilment and wellbeing also.
“As a practical means of advancing the UK towards a Universal Basic Income system, the UBOF represents a stepping stone – to be enacted now – towards a better way of enabling citizens to live meaningful and contributory lives.”
The report suggests the UBOF should be introduced gradually with a lottery system whereby 25 per cent of adults receive access to the fund for the first four years, with the rest of the population then introduced gradually as the programme develops.
The report estimates the initial phase of the fund would last around 13 years, to ensure all recipients are given time to elect to take their payments. It estimates the UK-wide scheme would cost around £14.5 billion per annum.
It says that by comparison, the pension triple lock introduced in 2011, which sees pension increases protecting the highest increase of earnings, inflation, or 2.5 per cent, now costs in excess of £6bn. This policy was targeted at less than 20 per cent of the population, while the UBOF could benefit up to 70 per cent.
Critics of universal basic income claim it would stop people working, but the RSA report says there was no evidence of this happening from pilot schemes undertaken around the world. It pointed out in North America the only group who stopped working for a period were mothers of very young babies.
It adds: “The caricature of free money making people lazy should be treated with scepticism on the evidence.”
Jamie Cooke, head of RSA Scotland, said: “We are delighted the Scottish Government has taken a positive stance towards experimenting with social policy, and now we’re calling on the UK Government to back imaginative thinking too. Our proposals are modelled on the current devolution settlement, with 85 per cent of the social security spend controlled by Westminster, but could be adapted to work within a Scottish context, particularly in the event of any future fiscal or constitutional changes.
“Economic insecurity is quickly becoming the new normal – around 70 per cent of us either struggle to get by or live from pay cheque to pay cheque.
“The simple fact is too many households are highly vulnerable to a shock in a decade of disruption.”
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel