Actually there’s still a bunch of problems with a UBI – their author
Mellor 18 [Mary Mellor is Emeritus Professor at Northumbria University, where she was founding Chair of the University’s Sustainable Cities Research Institute. She holds a PhD from Newcastle University and has published extensively on alternative economics integrating socialist, feminist, and green perspectives. She is a founding member of the newly formed World Economics Association and is on the editorial board of several journals.; “Care as wellth: Internalising care by democratising money.”; December 2018; Feminist Political Ecology and the Economics of Care: In Search of Economic Alternatives; Chapter 7; Pg. 120-121; Accessed 7-3-23]//LASA-mackerel
The weakness of most proposals for payment of a basic income is that they envisage funding through general taxation based on rolling up current welfare payments. This raises the problem of the level of payment. Spreading the available money universally may mean that those in most need might see a drop in income. Those unable to access other forms of income may still require means-tested benefits. Also, it would not challenge the difference in status between the public and commercial economies and unpaid care work. A basic income would still be seen as dependent on the ‘wealth creating’ sector, requiring high levels of taxation if a level of income was to be provided that created real choice. The politics of a basic income also needs to be kept in mind. An early proponent was the right-wing economist Milton Friedman (1962). He proposed a negative income tax that would be implemented in place of all direct welfare payments and services. The aim was to solve the demand problem for capitalism. There would always be money in circulation, but it would leave people at the mercy of the market relying only on charity to relieve need. While neoliberalism has not reached this extreme, it has undermined the legitimacy of the welfare state.