UBI is simpler to implement than other forms of welfare

The argument

Many different UBI schemes are possible, but proponents argue that all of them are simpler to implement than existing forms of welfare, and that the simplicity follows from the design rather than from any particular version of it. The core of the claim is the absence of means testing. Conventional social programmes must establish who qualifies before they can pay anyone: they define eligibility thresholds, collect and verify evidence of income or circumstance, adjudicate borderline cases, monitor recipients for changes that would alter entitlement, and police the boundary against error and fraud. Each of those functions is an administrative cost, and each is a point at which an eligible claimant can be wrongly excluded. A universal basic income removes the boundary altogether. Everyone is eligible by definition and everyone receives the same amount of funding, so the administrative overhead normally associated with social programmes is minimised — there is no category to determine, and therefore far less machinery required to determine it. Proponents add that this simplicity does not force an all-or-nothing choice. UBI can replace all existing benefit programmes, consolidating many separate schemes into one payment; or it can be implemented alongside them as a complementary form of assistance, which allows it to be introduced without dismantling what already exists. Its funding is similarly flexible, and could be raised in a number of different ways — through a flat income tax, or through more nuanced taxes on undesirable socioeconomic outcomes such as pollution or extreme wealth. Because the scheme is easier to administer, easier to phase in, and open to several funding routes, the argument runs, UBI is a good idea on grounds of implementation alone.

Context

Conditional welfare programs require administration and monitoring in order to ensure that funds are distributed only to people who qualify. This can sometimes result in the need for elaborate (and expensive) testing and monitoring systems.

Premises

Counter-arguments

1. Implementation of UBI is dependent on the financial viability of the program. 2. UBI is not financially viable in any form that would have a significant impact.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] The difficulty of implementing a social welfare program is not solely determined by the need to assess eligibility.

Framing

Simplification of processes leads to more efficiency.