The Gateway Chronicle 2020

Mathematics and Economics
71
who wish to work to earn accordingly
above that level. Modern UBI-ers, such as
author Annie Lowry, point out that this
decision not to work, beyond being a supposed
individual right, would be beneficial
as people can spend more time doing
social activities such as spending time
with dependents, learning a new skill, and
doing voluntary work.
The 20th century proposition of UBI was
not confined to the Left, however. Two ostensibly
right- wing economists Friedrich
Hayek and Milton Friedman both supported
basic income. Hayek (1899-1992),
the leader of the Austrian
School of economists
and influencer of
the likes of Thatcher,
was an advocate of
what he named ‘a sort
of floor below which
nobody need fall’ ie. a
subsistence level of income.
He believed the
idea was ‘wholly legitimate’
as it seems to be
a ‘protection against a
risk common to all’.
The risk he was alluding
to was the boombust
cycle of capitalism
and wars which he
lived through in the
turbulent 20th Century
in Europe. This,
again, relates to the
importance of UBI to
be paid to all rather than just those lower
deciles of the spectrum. Although Hayek
undoubtedly supported basic income in
this way, his work was not extensive on
how it could be funded, which remains
one of the central aspects of opposition to
the programme. This is where Milton
Friedman (1912-2006) joined the party. He
suggested that those unable or even unwilling
to work should, instead of the welfare
system of the day, be given a rebate
or ‘negative income tax’.
Milton Friedman
This would be at the bare subsistence level
in order to encourage people to still work.
Alongside this, other welfare assistance
would be abolished, in part, in order to
pay for this. This model has been integrated
into many current day proposals.
So it is clear to see that, while those who
oppose UBI that are right-wing inclined,
that shake it off simply out of objection to
its left-wing embodiments, should take
note that some of the most influential
thinkers and economists that they take serious
inspiration from were, in different
ways, proponents of some form of basic
income.
The debate thereafter
was stimulated by Belgian
political theorist
Phillippe Van Parijs.
He is often seen as the
father of UBI - a misconception
commonly
held as the history of
basic income is clearly
extensive. Universal
Basic Income is certain
to be a growing topic
of debate in future
decades. Pilot programmes
have already
begun around the
world, including in
Finland and California.
As UBI gains momentum
in the years
to come, its opponents,
as well as proponents, would be
wise to take on the lessons of those notable
names to have come before them - including
many not discussed here. Where
commentators purely focus on the economic
minutia of basic income, there is
clearly a wealth of literature on rights and
liberties-based arguments from thinkers
across the political spectrum. These could
be used to bring people over to the cause,
in order to draw the necessary support for
such a radical and fascinating idea.
Will, U6CPAG