The Universal Basic Income (UBI) was one of the first 'progressive' economic concepts I came across. The UBI is a government programme in which every adult citizen receives a set amount of money regularly, no strings attached.
I know, it sounds too good to be true.
Despite a few successful pilot schemes, the million-dollar question remains: how to fund such a programme on a universal, wide scale? I suppose that's why it's often relegated to the realm of utopian ideals.
Most proposed solutions involve tax adjustments or sovereign money creation, but neither seems entirely sufficient. The UBI appears difficult to implement, and most governments understandably prefer policies with predictable outcomes.
Why a UBI in the first place? Well, why not?
The most fascinating thing to me about the UBI is its bipartisan appeal. The goals of a basic income system are primarily to alleviate poverty and to reduce the need for welfare programmes. These align with both progressive and conservative ideologies.
Despite concerns regarding how it could work, the possibility of receiving a monthly income simply for existing is quite literally the dream. Who wouldn't want that?
The existing systems are designed for a seamless transition—from basic education to higher education and subsequently to the workforce—which is proving increasingly unrealistic and unsustainable. Governments fail to factor in the structural inequalities, diverse preferences, and unintended consequences associated with the existing systems which may create difficulties following the typical pipeline.
While not necessarily 'universal', an age-based income scheme could be especially effective for young adults aged 21-25. Here's why:
1. It's time-bound, and whilst unconditional, not permanent. This isn't an endless commitment from the state, but it's a targeted intervention during a critical life stage.
2. It would be highly feasible—of course depending on population size, tax structures, etc. We're not talking about funding the entire adult population indefinitely, so this is a far more manageable proposition.
3. As an opt-in scheme, it's unconditional, but not required. Freedom of choice remains central to the concept.
4. It could significantly improve mental health outcomes. For example, reduced acute depression in the short-term and potentially reduced burnout in the long-term. It's hard to say, but I wouldn't be surprised to learn if this causes a prolonged decline in suicide rates given its prevalence amongst young people.
5. It could encourage experimentation and creativity during a formative life stage. With a safety net, young adults might pursue riskier, high-upside paths—like entrepreneurship, art, or activism—without fear of immediate financial collapse.
6. It supports care work, learning, and community involvement—activities that are socially valuable but not financially compensated in traditional systems.
7. Adherence could be easily monitored as many governments now implement National Insurance identification systems. The infrastructure largely exists already.
8. It could address the reality of an increasingly gig-based economy. Traditional employment models are already shifting towards freelance and contract work. An age-based basic income provides stability during this transition period.
9. It may reduce crime rates associated with poverty, particularly petty theft and survival-based offences.
10. It could forecast the economy's potential through dynamic scoring and enable more efficient long-term economic policy. This isn't just about supporting young adults, but about potentially gathering valuable data which could transform how we understand economic behaviour and plan for the future.
An age-based basic income scheme could provide a more measured transition from education-to-work which better aligns with the existing state of things.
I'm not necessarily suggesting this is the economic panacea that will solve all our problems, but it could be a significant step in the right direction.
I credit a lot of my thinking on futuristic economics to Rutger Bregman, Kate Raworth, Mariano Mazzucato, and Guy Standing. Their work has challenged conventional economic wisdom and opened possibilities for reimagining how our societies could function in the twenty-first century and beyond.