Christina Tönshoff, Ruth Brandherm, Robert Philipps DIREKT 25/ 2017 (NO) UNIVERSAL BASIC INCOME, PLEASE! Lessons from the Debate on the Welfare State of the Future AT A GLANCE The Universal Basic Income(UBI) can be considered a panacea for social problems only until one actually looks at the details. Liberal-conservative approaches aimed at reducing the size of the state are particularly problematic. Nonetheless, lessons for forward­looking social policy can be learned from the dis­cussion. In the era of digitalisation, such policy must create security and self-determination on the labour market and redistribute capital income fairly. One thousand euros for all – without having to work for it? The idea of a universal basic income(UBI) sounds tempting. The younger generation in particular, who see their future job opportunities under threat from encroaching digitalisation and generally favour more flexibility in organising their lives are particularly attracted to the concept. However, when one looks at the idea more closely and tries to assess how it might actually be implemented, some of the suggested models of a universal basic income are found wanting. Following some criticisms of the UBI, this short paper will therefore highlight some considerations that even sceptics might profit from and incorporate in their policy proposals. After all, there must be some reason why this idea has remained an object of debate for decades and resonates across the ideological spectrum. In order to count as universal, the basic income must be paid to individuals regularly and regardless of their efforts at work or other sources of income. This principle aside, however, the various proposals for implementing a universal basic income do not agree on much. They range from left-alternative to liberal-conservative approaches, differing in how they are funded, the level of the basic income and how they envisage social security and labour market policy. In the debate, there­fore, the first question always is, which universal basic income are we talking about? The sheer versatility of the various models is one of the reasons why the universal basic income keeps resurfacing in the political debate. In the 1980s, UBI proposals were mostly post-capitalist in nature. In the face of the German labour market reforms known as“Hartz IV” in the early 2000s, it was discussed as a potential way out of poverty, precariousness and the compulsion to get a job. Nowadays, the basic income is being debated in the context of digitalisation and the related upheaval on the labour market and also finds supporters among Silicon Valley’s tech-billionaires, as well as the managers of large German companies. Given that the idea of a universal basic income just won’t go away, one has to ask what makes the idea so attractive. As already mentioned, the sheer range of approaches means that some form of basic income is available or could be developed to fit every social problem or political inclination. As a result, the UBI appears to be a kind of panacea. Among other things, it is supposed to do away with the compulsion to get a job, provide for security as jobs are lost to automation, redistribute capital income fairly and radically simplify social security. These goals are not always compatible, however. The“emancipatory basic income”(Emanzipatorisches Grundeinkommen) suggested by the German left-wing party Die Linke, for instance, would make additional payments to people with special needs, such as parents-to-be or people suffering from chronic disease. However, a system like this one, tailored to individual needs, would fly in the face of a scheme aimed at radically reducing bureaucracy, of the kind favoured by certain other supporters of a UBI. >