Is a universal basic income a workable answer?

This subject also was very much to the fore in the French presidential elections last year.

As can be expected, the debates focused on minor details as opposed to the fundamental question of "what items that currently are paid out of public funds will not be paid in the future, because the universal income payment covers it". Things like unemployment benefit, medical cover, state pensions, housing assistance, mobility allowances - the list is endless.

Typical simplistic assumptions were :

• Lower social security and taxation for everyone because a lot of services would disappear (but where does the universal income funding actually come from?)
• Lower state costs because the number of civil servants could be divided by 3, 4, 5 (choose your number) - but what will these people actually do in an employment  market that is stagnant and not showing any signs of growing so as to be able to absorb them
• A miraculous leisure society would spontaneously exist, where people would work less (25 hours per week) in order to share the existing, stagnant workload
• Everyone would miraculously agree to their annual salary being reduced by a sum larger than the universal allowance, because the allowance would be paid tax free. this would make companies richer and they could therefore increase employment (but would it create demand for products?) Equally, will salary related benefits cover (life insurance, pensions) have to drop because the reference salary is lower?

One of the estimation carried out by a reputable thinktank put the annual cost at about 60% of French GDP

I remain very sceptical and have yet to see some press coverage that goes beyond "it makes life easier for people in hard times", and move into the realms of "is it sustainable?"

This subject also was very much to the fore in the French presidential elections last year.

As can be expected, the debates focused on minor details as opposed to the fundamental question of "what items that currently are paid out of public funds will not be paid in the future, because the universal income payment covers it". Things like unemployment benefit, medical cover, state pensions, housing assistance, mobility allowances - the list is endless.

Typical simplistic assumptions were :

• Lower social security and taxation for everyone because a lot of services would disappear (but where does the universal income funding actually come from?)
• Lower state costs because the number of civil servants could be divided by 3, 4, 5 (choose your number) - but what will these people actually do in an employment  market that is stagnant and not showing any signs of growing so as to be able to absorb them
• A miraculous leisure society would spontaneously exist, where people would work less (25 hours per week) in order to share the existing, stagnant workload
• Everyone would miraculously agree to their annual salary being reduced by a sum larger than the universal allowance, because the allowance would be paid tax free. this would make companies richer and they could therefore increase employment (but would it create demand for products?) Equally, will salary related benefits cover (life insurance, pensions) have to drop because the reference salary is lower?

One of the estimation carried out by a reputable thinktank put the annual cost at about 60% of French GDP

I remain very sceptical and have yet to see some press coverage that goes beyond "it makes life easier for people in hard times", and move into the realms of "is it sustainable?"