The best solution is a combination of UBI and UBS

Ecological Economist Milena Buchs (2021) explores this debate within their ability to meet sustainable welfare criteria – needs satisfaction, planetary boundaries, fairness, and democracy. I have drawn out Buchs (2021) key arguments for and against UBI and UBS. It is revealed through this assessment that, like most politics today, UBI and UBS have been polarised as opposing policies, when what is required is to use both to complement each other and contribute to sustainable welfare (Figure 1). ​ Needs Satisfaction Planetary Boundaries Fairness Democracy UBI Pros ​Removes stigmatised and bureaucratic means-testing Supporting livelihoods through low or no economic growth Funded by progressive taxes ​Greater freedom and capacity for democratic participation ​ Vehicle of freedom and autonomy versus employers and abusive relationships Reduced labour supply and consumption. Low-pay wages increase from financial security and high-pay wages decrease through taxation Associated with lower anxiety/stress, greater sense of social security, reduced individual risk, and feeling connected to state. ​ ​ Reduced consumption that boosts social status. Compensate for unpaid care work More likely for support of green politics. ​ ​ Less incentive for carbon intensive job uptake and investments ​ ​ UBI Cons Concerns of market failures e.g., inflated housing markets Labour supply and consumption could increase to meet higher taxes Removal of existing cash benefits impacting low-middle income groups Workplace democracy remains unimproved ​ Crowding out public services No disincentive for environmentally damaging products Decreased wages in knowledge basic living cost needs are met ​ ​ ​ Funding through environmental taxes not sustainable in the long run Increase in product prices due to taxation ​ UBS Pros Governments provide high quality goods and services Wealth redistribution environmentally beneficial Funded by progressive taxes = redistribution Increased social security, connection to state Higher demand for public sector workers that are in stable jobs ​Government designed environmentally friendly energy and housing Basic goods and services shielded from price increase More support of radical green politics ​ ​ ​ ​ Opportunity for user-led, co-produced, and democratically accountable public services UBS Cons​ The prescription of people’s needs rather than public choice Green policies not inherent to governments ​ Chance it will be managed by top-down large state bureaucracies without much user participation. UBI and UBS can work in tandem to produce redistribution via progressive taxation in a way that is just and protects labour, particularly low-income workers from increases in prices for basic goods and services. An exciting opportunity to note here is that with adequate social security and democratic systems of decision-making, both UBI and UBS can open doors of increased and more open-minded political participation that can create a knock-on effect of further green and fair policy.