The goal of a UBI scheme would be to replace existing benefits---only way to achieve practical feasibility

Of course, many practical issues remain. This report examines the desirability of a UBI, but also attempts to match it to feasibility. So, at what rate should weekly payments be set? Could a scheme be phased in over time, starting with a low weekly payment? How much would such a scheme cost, and what offsetting savings would accrue?

As a UBI scheme would aim to replace a range of current benefits, is it possible to ensure that it could be introduced without unacceptable losses to households receiving such benefits? With such a scheme involving big changes in people’s individual incomes, who would win and who would lose? Is it possible to set the payment at a level that provides enough for an acceptable standard of living? Or would a UBI only be able to meet a portion of basic living costs, as with Child Benefit at the moment? If the latter, some additional means-tested support would need to be preserved, thus retaining some of the complexities of the existing system.

The big issue with a generous UBI is that the gross cost would be high, but there would be substantial offsetting savings in compensation. These would arise from the withdrawal of, or lesser reliance on, a range of existing means-tested and contributory benefits, from compensatory tax changes, and from savings in administration on processing claims, policing benefit claimants and assessing eligibility.21 Indeed, a UBI involves, in essence, the integration and rationalisation into a single scheme of the tax, National Insurance and benefit systems, which currently operate quite separately.