ANENT the renewed calls for the introduction of a universal basic income in response to the coronavirus crisis.
The various amounts suggested for a UBI over the years have always been set too low, in my view, and Reform Scotland’s recent proposal of a UBI of £5200 per annum (£100 per week) is a further case in point.
This amount clearly wouldn’t cover housing costs or provide for extra costs related to long-term health conditions or disability, etc.
There would therefore require to be a system of additional top-up payments for people who are out of work, in low-paid employment or on a low income for other reasons.
Any UBI would either have to provide, or be part of a system providing, an adequate safety net. It would have to accommodate a wide range of individual circumstances like the social security system is supposed to do.
The inadequacies of the current safety net are well documented. It is clearly ideologically punitive and not fit for purpose. The New Economics Foundation (NEF), a progressive think tank which works to promote social, economic and environmental justice, has recently proposed a minimum income guarantee – not as a replacement for the benefits system but as a way of strengthening it.
They suggest it should be £200 per week excluding housing costs – a figure based on research by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and Citizens’ Advice as to the amount that people need in order to pay for their basic living costs such as food, utilites, etc.
The MIG would be a cash payment administered through the existing social security system, as this wouldn’t require a new system to be set up. In short, this payment would be more generous, less conditional and available more quickly.
The NEF’s proposal is certainly one that chimes with my long-held view that there’s no adequate substitute for a robust, respectful and dignified social security system.
To those who have internet access and are interested in learning more about the New Economic Foundation’s proposal, I would recommend the weekly briefings (podcasts) on their website.
Mo Maclean
Glasgow
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