It wouldnāt, actually.
Firstly, a universal basic income would replace all current government payouts - pensions, benefits, tax credits etc, so it isnāt billions on top of what is already paid out. Itās a radical simplification of the current systems in place with would also save lots of money.
Secondly, it goes to the heart of basic economic theory. If you put money into the hands of people who actually spend it on things like food, clothing, shelter, heating etc. It is returned to the economy where it is is productive and produces more economic activity. The reason why Truss broke the country is because she expressly funnelled money towards people who donāt spend it, and this threat of reduced liquidity spooked the markets.
Thirdly, all the studies and trials of UBI style schemes point to a very clear finding. People essentially want to work and want to be productive. The idea that if you cover peopleās basics they put their feet up and turn into lazy feckers is just wrong. People want nice things. They want nice clothes and houses and TVs. People will work.
It also frees entrepreneurial spirit. Without the need for a daily grind, there would be a surge in new business creation.
Crucially it frees people from the threat of destitution and forces employers to pay a real wage for their. You donāt have people working at shit holes like Amazon warehouses, having babies in the fucking toilets because they are scared of taking a sick day.
Fundamentally it comes down to what we think about people. If, like me, you think people are decent, want to work, donāt (on the whole) take the piss, and have the capacity to be creative, entrepreneurial and productive if we allow them to be, UBI is a great idea. If, like you, you think people are feckless, workshy, piss-takers, who would take their UBI are walk straight to the bookies, then you are likely to think itās a terrible idea.
