× DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Website Are you passionate about online debating, and are looking for a debate website where you can debate topics in a civil and meaningful way? Are you in a school or college debate club and looking to refine your skills with Lincoln Douglas or other formal debate formats? Are you a casual debater and want to engage in an online debate? Well, DebateIsland.com, is the debate website for you! Learn More Sign Up For Free Resolved: The US ought to guarantee a UBI.

Varrack

Thank you, @Gorbin, for instigating this debate. I will take up the affirmative position: that the United States should guarantee a universal basic income (UBI). For context, a UBI is a regular, unconditional sum of money that would be paid by the government to its citizens.

Because the resolution does not bar me from advocating a specific proposal in favor of a UBI's implementation, I will opt to do so. 

I propose that all adult Americans receive a UBI of $12,000 per year. This income would of course be unconditional: you earn it whether you're working or not. Everyone, regardless of how poor or rich they are, would receive this income. All current existing welfare programs, with the exception of Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare, would be abolished in favor of a UBI.

The end goal of a universal basic income would be simple: to increase equality among all citizens. While it may seem counter-intuitive to pay everyone, including people who do not have a job, the intention would not at all be to reward not working; rather, it would be to provide continuous aid to those in desperate need of it. Our current welfare programs discourage social mobility in ways that a basic, minimum income would not; as such, it would be wise to implement a program that gives equally to all, rather than to an isolated group of people. 
 
C1: A UBI would reduce poverty

For individuals, one is below the poverty line if their annual income is less than or equal to $12,140 [1]. In the event that everyone gets paid a UBI of $12,000 a year, virtually everyone below the poverty line would be raised above it. There are 45 million Americans currently living in poverty, so a UBI would have an *astronomical* effect on this number, essentially lowering it to zero. That means far fewer children going to bed hungry, far more people with access the electricity, etc. 

The effects of a UBI could be replicated globally, if it were to be implemented abroad. Economist John McArthur of the Brookings Institute stated that, as a result of a UBI, "Dozens of countries could eliminate extreme poverty in short order…without a penny of extra foreign aid required" [3]. If this could have such an effect on other countries, there's no reason to believe it couldn't have a powerful impact on the U.S. 

C2: A UBI would increase incentive to climb the income ladder

Current, means-tested welfare programs create a poverty trap: their benefits end once a certain income is reached. With many welfare programs withdrawing their aid at a certain point on the income ladder, it creates what is known as the "cliff effect"; the actual amount of money one receives, when net income and welfare is added, suddenly drops as one moves past a certain point on the income ladder. Below is an illustration of the relationship between annual dollars and gross earned income, when welfare is factored in: 


A UBI would *not* have this problem. There would be no "cliff" when benefits run out, because everyone would earn the same regardless of where they're at on the income ladder. In this, a UBI would move us closer to equality, and would free many low-income people from the trap welfare puts them.

This issue is maximized when we understand how disadvantaged the poor are tax-wise under welfare. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office, “[found] that the marginal tax rate climbs to 40 percent when a worker earns slightly more than about $12,000, and then to nearly 50 percent in the mid-$20,000 range.” [4] When unrealized capital gains are included, and effective tax rates are analyzed, which include state and local taxes, instead of just the federal tax rate, the poor actually pay far more than their rich counterparts proportionally, and are in a far deeper hole than is often realized.

But that’s not all. Many welfare programs also have asset limits, meaning that one must have almost no assets to be eligible for benefits. Programs like Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) have asset limit ranges from $1,000 in states like Georgia and Texas to $10,000 in Delaware [5]. This is problematic because it discourages the importance of saving and self-reliance; only those who exhaust just about all of their assets become eligible for aid. Savings are very important because they provide cushion against anything that goes wrong. Just having under $2,000, for instance, is enough to protect against eviction, missed meals, or the loss of utilities during a financial setback. To force such recipients to go to the point of being broke to receive benefits in no way incentivizes them to increase their income.

C3: A UBI is cheaper

The cost of all means-tested welfare programs in the U.S., not including Social Security and Medicare, is $927 billion in annual spending [6]. A peer-reviewed study, which analyzed the total cost of a UBI of $12,000 per year to every adult, found that a UBI would cost a meager $539 billion per year [7][8]. That's nearly $400 billion cheaper than our current system! If we replaced our current welfare programs with a UBI, we would save a lot of federal spending annually.

C4: UBI trials have been overwhelmingly positive 

There are several instances of cash transfers, or UBI trials, working. The following examples turn up multiple benefits:

a) Namibia tried out a UBI program, the Basic Income Grant, in 2007-2012. After just one year into the program, household poverty rates dropped from 76% to 37%. Other effects were noted too: income-generating activities rose from 44% to 55% over the time period. Parents were enabled to purchase school uniforms, afford school fees, and encourage attendance because of this problem, and as a result, school dropout rates dropped from 40% to nearly 0% in a year [9].

b) India tried a cash transfer project from 2013-2014 too. The result was that sanitation improved, medicine could be afforded, clean water became more accessible, and participants could eat more regularly [10].

c/d) Uganda’s UBI trial enabled participants to invest in skill training. The findings were that “relative to the control group, the program increases business assets by 57%, work hours by 17%, and earnings by 38%” [11]. Kenya has an ongoing trial, and it has so far reportedly let to increased happiness and life satisfaction, and reduced depression and stress [12].

Conclusion: A UBI would reduce poverty, increase income equality, increase financial incentives, and be cheaper. It has also worked in several areas of the world. Thus, I affirm.

Sources

1. https://www.healthcare.gov/glossary/federal-poverty-level-FPL/
2. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/16/poverty-household-income_n_5828974.html
3. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/universal-basic-income-poverty-eradicate-66-countries-economist-john-mcarthur-brooking-institution-a7776651.html
4. https://www.urban.org/research/publication/how-marginal-tax-rates-affect-families-various-levels-poverty/view/full_report
5. https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/poverty/reports/2014/09/10/96754/asset-limits-are-a-barrier-to-economic-security-and-mobility/
6. http://budget.house.gov/uploadedfiles/rectortestimony04172012.pdf
7. https://works.bepress.com/widerquist/75/
8. https://www.progress.org/articles/how-much-does-ubi-cost
9. http://www.bignam.org/BIG_pilot.html
10. http://sewabharat.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Report-on-Unconditional-Cash-Transfer-Pilot-Project-in-Madhya-Pradesh.pdf
11. https://www.povertyactionlab.org/sites/default/files/publications/992 Skilled Self Employment in Urganda.pdf
12. https://www.princeton.edu/~joha/publications/Haushofer_Shapiro_UCT_2016.04.25.pdf