The lack of political support overwhelms the small impact to stigmatization

4 Concluding comments The main practical question is of course to know what a “large” stigma means and how empirically relevant the considered levels are. Our model is very stylized, and the results therefore have to be interpreted with care and seen as mainly illustrative. This being said, , in our model is not just a parameter of the utility function; it is expressed in monetary terms and thus well defined. It measures the net of stigma benefit of a unitary means tested transfer. Our condition  ≥ 0 + 1 says that this net benefit must be at least as large as the fraction of the population which receives the transfer. In other words, the stigma cost of the transfer must not exceed the fraction of the population which does not receive it. Intuitively, this appears to be a plausible assumption. In fact, one wouldn’t expect the stigma associated with a transfer, which in equilibrium is received but a majority of the population, to be that large. But this is ultimately an empirical question. Ranney and Kushman (1987) estimate a concept which is closest to our  appears to be who estimate the net of stigma cash equivalent of food stamps. They find an average level of 96%, which is quite in line with our intuition. To sum up, under “plausible” levels of , political economy considerations do not appear to justify a universal system. To draw political support, the crowding out implied by the means testing rule is reduced to extend the benefits to the middle class. However, political support is not enhanced any further by making the benefits universal.

Turn - A UBI replaces a welfare stigma with Oppressive Volunteerism – people are stigmatized if they choose not to work – this entrenches racism

Kolkotronis 2017- PhD student Political Science at Yale [Alexander, March 29 2017, “Why Socialist Job Guarantees are better than Universal Basic Income”, Accessed on 6/29/2017, TA]

UBI as Oppressive Volunteerism Besides macroeconomic incoherence, other issues emerge. Tcherneva points to the likely stigmatization of those who do not work. More than this, UBI points to the emergence of a new subaltern class, as UBI "does not deal with the loss of skill and deterioration of human capital that result from unemployment." Nathan Tankus, a research scholar at Modern Money Network, has noted that, "If you distributed to everyone the same amount of IOUs regardless of whether they worked, production will fall into volunteerism and the community has no method of insuring that work is distributed equally or that production continues at adequate levels given the goals of the community." This holds the potential for exacerbating gender and racial inequities.

A UBI is not necessary to solve the stigma – alternate means already exist and there is little evidence of solvency

Zon, 2016 – Director of Policy and Research at Maytree Foundation [Noah, “Policy brief: Would a universal basic income reduce poverty?”, Maytree Foundation, August 16, 2016, TA]

One of the common arguments for a basic income is to overcome the stigma of welfare for recipients, to improve their lives through social inclusion and to keep political support for the program. For the stigma on recipients, we don’t need to introduce a new basic income. We can build on how we already deliver an increasing number of our programs—simple electronic funds transfers that no one other than the recipient needs to know about. As far as whether people are more likely to support assistance to people with low income if it’s part of a universal program, the evidence is mixed, especially when we look at long-term trends. Even then, a program with universal eligibility does not mean that every person needs to get the same thing—universal health care means that everyone has access to the treatment they need when they need it, not that they get the same treatment regardless of condition.