2NC---Solvency---General

UBS solves inequality—can reduce by 1/3 and automatically targets lower income households, unlike a UBI

Ian Gough, 1-19-2021, Ian Gough is Visiting Professor in CASE (Centre for the Analysis of Social Exclusion) and an Associate of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change. (“Move the debate from Universal Basic Income to Universal Basic Services,” UNESCO, 1-19-2021 , 7-20-2023)//AAlmand

Clearly, these necessities are all very different things, so there can be no uniform formula to implement UBS. But entitlements to certain levels of provision can be guaranteed and these can be backed up by a menu of public interventions including regulation, standard setting and monitoring, taxation, and subsidies. This does not necessarily entail direct government provision – a plurality of collective and communal providers will be involved with appropriate support from government. But the unifying principle is to extend collective solutions, as opposed to providing income support and leaving provisioning to market forces. The case for collective provision to meet such needs can be made on two main grounds: equity and sustainability (though there are also covered elsewhere but not here). Equity. Free public provision of necessities is always remarkably redistributive – even if the total tax system of a country is broadly proportional to income. On average, in OECD countries, existing public services are worth the equivalent of a huge 76 percent of the post-tax income of the poorest quintile compared with just 14 percent of the richest (Table 1). Public services also contribute to reducing income inequality by between one-fifth and one-third depending on the inequality measure. Free provision of necessities automatically targets lower income households without the disincentive effects that often result from money transfers. [Graph omitted]

UBS solves—universal services provide education, solve student debt problem, create more equal society, and encourage community prosperity

Jenny Formby, 9-2019, Jenny Formby is the general secretary of the Labour Party in London. (UNIVERSAL BASIC SERVICES: The Right to a Good Life, Labour UK, 9-2019, https://labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/12730_19-Universal-Basic-Services_v5.pdf, 7-18-2023)//AAlmand

The next Labour government is committed to strengthening existing public services and expanding universal free public services further. This section highlights some areas where we have already indicated new policies – or, at least, a direction of travel. It should not be considered a final word, or Labour’s view on the limits of free public provision, but a snapshot at a moment in time. Health and Social Care The National Health Service is the most obvious example of how universal free services have been built into the framework of British society, but its boundaries and density have been contested since the start. Aneurin Bevan, the architect of the NHS, famously resigned in protest at the imposition of charges for dentistry and glasses, warning of a slippery slope. In more recent times, charges for GP appointments have been floated, and provision of services by private companies expanded. Attempts to force healthcare to resemble consumer goods, where people have complicated sets of preferences about choices, lie behind attempts to introduce markets. Social care was excluded from the National Health Service from the start and, at present, is only available to those who pass a stringent means test. Labour will expand universal services to include personal social care free at the point of use for those over 65, including help with personal hygiene, continence, diet, mobility, counselling, simple treatments and personal assistance to perform normal daily activities. This reflects our belief that a dignified life is as important as a healthy life, and neither should be denied to older people because of inability to pay. Labour’s National Care Service, modelled on the National Health Service, will give personal care to those who need it free of any means testing. Education: Early Years How a society cares for pre-school children is a reflection of that society’s commitments and priorities: how much it invests in making sure that good quality early years education is available to all, regardless of a child’s social background. It can also be seen as a reflection of how much society values women, who in the absence of available childcare, are likely to undertake it unpaid on top of – or instead of – working. Labour has promised free, universal childcare for all 2-, 3- and 4-year olds, for 30 hours a week, as part of a radical shift to a graduate-led workforce and supply-side funding model. In addition to the universal free entitlement, we have also promised a subsidised system for additional hours, free for the least well off and with even those on the highest incomes paying no more than £4 per hour. At present the Government’s “free childcare” entitlement is only available to children whose parents work – which covers only around 40% of two-year-olds. Furthermore, while complex rules and underfunding mean that many parents are not getting the childcare they were promised. It is far from a universal service. Labour’s plan for free childcare without means-testing is a reminder that what is understood to be ‘basic’ can change over time – including through government action. Labour’s commitment to a high-quality workforce shows again that calling a service ‘basic’ is not an excuse for poor quality: it is an indication of how important a service is to the good functioning of individuals and society. Education: Schools, Sixth Forms, Further and Higher Education Universal free education up to (gradually increasing) secondary school age has existed in England and Wales for over a century, but previously free education for older children and adults has increasingly come under attack. At the 2017 General Election, Labour committed to ending the system of tuition fees for university students in England, and making further education free at the point of use. Post-school education should be free because it is society as a whole that benefits and, if individuals benefit too, they should contribute more to the system through progressive taxation. Providing this service free also avoids other injustices: such as crippling student debt, which can cause persistent stress and anxiety – and affect people’s life chances and choices. It represents a continued expansion of the level of education that society deems worthy of support. Buses Nobody should be prevented from getting to hospital, work, a job interview or the shops because they can’t afford public transport. Nobody should be stuck after a night out because they cannot pay their own way home. And public transport will be even more important as we try to transition away from dependence on cars. Social prosperity for the future recommended free local transport, taken to be covered by buses, and Labour has announced an important step in that direction. Retired people already enjoy free bus travel and we announced in 2018 that we would extend that to young people – 25 and below. Bus travel is not just an environmentally friendly form of transport. It is not just a way to get from one place to another. On buses we rub shoulders, often literally, with others. It is a space for small acts of generosity: seats being given up for people more in need. It is a space where we all learn, and practise, what it means to live in a community. Free School Meals Social prosperity for the future suggested food as a universal basic service, though only a minimum provision expected to be taken up by a few of the most hard-up in society. For young children, some of whom have been reported as having to scavenge in bins in recent years of austerity, a nutritious healthy meal in the middle of the day is essential to both wellbeing and learning, and Labour announced in 2017 that we would bring in universal free school meals for primary school children. Universal free school meals remove stress and shame for children and parents alike. They allow children to focus on their learning, and their development as members of a community. Libraries, parks, and general local government Many free at the point of use amenities were developed by local authorities: local parks, libraries, lidos and swimming baths included. Austerity has ripped the heart out of many, with libraries being particularly hard hit. Books should not only be available to those who can afford to spend money in bookshops. Generations of young people have learned to read in council libraries. Council libraries are spaces of sharing and education – places that allow one book to circulate throughout a community, expanding imaginations along the way. Parks and other leisure spaces are fundamental for the exercise people need to maintain basic health. But they are also spaces where members of a community can meet one another: while they watch their children play or while they share a basketball court. People should not have to pay to access, or enjoy, these public spaces. When we put local government on a sustainable footing, we believe that will enable councils to restore free-to-use services which have been lost over recent years.

UBS solves climate—public provisioning more sustainable than market systems and key to decarbonizing

Sustainability. Climate heating and ecological breakdown now pose existential challenges to wellbeing. The urgent necessity to move away from unsustainable economic, social, and environmental practices provides a new justification for extending UBS. First, public provisioning systems for healthcare are more sustainable than market systems. For example, the per capita carbon footprint of health care in the USA is two and a half times greater than in the UK and three and half times greater than in several European countries (Figure 1). Second, public services can play a vital role in decarbonising the economy in a just way. For example, Green New Deal programmes to retrofit the vast bulk of the housing stock will require public planning, finance, and management. They will be needed to ensure a ‘just transition’ to lower carbon living, rather than one that will load costs onto the poorest people and communities. Third and relatedly, public consumption through UBS supports sustainable ‘consumption corridors’ (). But does not a further extension of public services encroach upon peoples’ rights to choose how to spend their incomes? Money is fungible so social transfers including UBI permit people to spend income on whatever they want. The case for consumer sovereignty and market democracy needs to be addressed directly if the arguments for UBS are to prosper. I provide elsewhere a to justify this approach. In summary it depends on two things: a non-monetary conception of wellbeing and a disaggregated model of provisioning. Human needs – or the functioning of capability theory – cannot be summed up into a single unit of account; they entail different satisfiers that are heterogenous and non-substitutable. Providing a study course will not directly improve someone’s poor housing conditions. A need-based conception of wellbeing is opposed to the indifference approach of welfare economics, where one service can be traded off against another ().[2] Similarly, we need to challenge the dominant view of the economy as a uniform space within which nameless and substitutable commodities are produced, exchanged, and consumed. Instead there are discrete ‘systems of provision’, such as the food system, the energy system, the housing system, the education system, the care system, and the transport system. These comprise a ‘foundational economy’ of mundane, taken-for-granted networks and services that people depend on every day, such as utilities, telecommunications, and banking ().[3] What these two frameworks have in common is heterogeneity: the varied and incommensurable needs and provisioning systems on which we depend. It is some of these that collective and public services can address in a more equitable and sustainable way.[4] Of course, delivering and implementing UBS will vary greatly across these domains. Let me conclude with one proposal in one country: free bus travel in the UK. This would entitle everyone to enjoy the free bus travel currently available to the over 60s, with major benefits to participation and opportunity. Of course, it would require investment in new buses and routes at convenient times. It would also require regulation, which exists in London but is absent in the rest of the country with calamitous results (monopolies, asset-stripping, fares rising faster than other prices, declining passenger journeys everywhere outside London, poor connections and lack of inter-ticketing, halving of spending on subsidies for social necessary services and ‘forced car ownership’). Yet, this could be rectified at a cost of around 0.4% GDP. Compared with UBI, costs are modest. To provide similar entitlements in childcare, adult social care, housing and infrastructure, as well as transport has been estimated to cost about 4.3% of GDP ().[5] Conclusion In conclusion, there are strong justifications for moving towards UBS as a principled framework for allocating resources and reforming welfare systems. UBS are in-kind benefits that represent a ‘social income’ – an essential component of the means by which individuals and households are able to flourish. The case for it is theoretical - wellbeing is multi-dimensional; normative - the potential of UBS to secure greater equality, social efficiency, collective solidarity, and long-term sustainability; and political – UBS is incremental, relatively cheap, and can achieve superior results to a system of unconditional cash payments alongside markets for commodified services. Of course income transfers are just as important and require reform, but not at the expense of collectively provided in-kind benefits.