UBI fails to make a difference for the most vulnerable people

Before March of 2020, it was difficult to imagine what an implementation of UBI would look like. Then, over 22 million Americans filed for unemployment in the month of April alone. It’s important to note that the United States’ single $1200 conditional cash transfer to Americans during the COVID-19 pandemic cannot be considered a form of UBI. Though the United States failed to implement a long-lasting relief check for most of the country’s population, stimulus checks still garnered wide public approval. A recent poll conducted by OnePoll also demonstrated that, after receiving their first stimulus checks, 80 percent of those sampled believed that the economic impact payments should continue until the end of the pandemic. On the other hand, the Canadian COVID-19 Economic Response Plan, similar to plans in the majority of other countries facing economic crisis due to the pandemic, guaranteed checks for a larger portion of citizens than the U.S., with a plan to continue payments through the rest of the pandemic. Additionally, only six million Canadians filed for unemployment within April compared to the United States’ 22 million. Through the Canada Recovery Benefit (CRB), citizens who lost their jobs, faced income reduction, or were forced to stop working received $500 per week for up to 26 weeks. This recovery procedure is much closer to UBI than the United States’ response. Aside from the partisan divide between those within the Liberal Party who enacted the policy, and the Conservatives who argued that it lacked a commitment to fiscal restraint and failed to address the needs of “everyday Canadians,” most Canadian citizens were quite content with the package compared to the overwhelming disapproval in the United States. As the last few months have proven, UBI is not as disruptive to our normative system of government as one might assume. However, it is not enough. A consistent cash transfer alone will not remedy wealth and income inequality, the lack of access to adequate healthcare, and, overall, the government’s failure to redistribute tax dollars and provide a  financial safety net. Our current system offers an overly complicated tax process, yet insufficient social benefits to account for many Americans’ difficulties. In the long term, UBI is similar to a form of symbolic redistribution. A genuinely universal UBI program would not be ideal for the economy as a whole, as it presents a short-term solution to more long-term problems. Furthermore, without a wealth tax or a modernized form of NIT, UBI could hurt the economy and the working class more than it would help. An alternative would accurately target the least well-off. In conclusion, UBI has hardly progressed in concept since American revolutionary Thomas Paine originally proposed the idea in Agrarian Justice in 1797. The lack of implementation of UBI and the increasing complexity of the world’s economic systems tell us this: UBI is perceived as an idealistic, symbolic solution to income inequality that fails to address underlying issues. New policy proposals come mostly from former Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders and Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (NY-14), who both identify as Democratic-Socialists. These progressive policies cover many aspects of social welfare: climate justice, Medicare, housing, and college for all, and eliminating student and medical debt. Thus, these policies provide a basic social safety net for Americans, while also offering a clear path for funding. All in all, UBI does not meet the same level of planning and support, rendering it a largely unrealistic approach. UBI would be an expensive and virtually useless program for the most vulnerable in our society—the poor, disabled, elderly, and youth.