Post photo: Banknotes | © Pixabay
The idea of an unconditional basic income has become more and more popular in the last few years, and I was also very warm to it at first. But if something sounds too good to be true at all, you should take a closer look at the whole thing.
Roughly explained, every citizen and probably also every other person living in the country or the European Union should have access to a basic income, the amount of which is still to be determined and must be adjusted again and again, which comes from the overall budget of the Federal Republic, the other participating countries or possibly also from the budget of the European Union — which is particularly true for countries that have never been able to finance themselves.
The currently prevailing opinion is that the unconditional basic income is financed from the additional taxation of goods and services and from other taxes on those who, in the majority opinion, have far too much money. However, the killer argument is that the unconditional basic income is intended to replace all other transfer payments from the state to citizens and other people living in the country and that it can therefore be financed.
Even if I'm not an expert in financial matters, I have my doubts when it comes to financing an unconditional basic income. On the one hand, these would be that the additional taxation of the rich can be more of a one-off action, since they will lose their financial resources or will no longer regenerate them. And on the other hand, the state will hardly voluntarily give up the steering function of transfer payments, so that further transfer payments, such as child benefit, travel allowances, building allowance, climate protection subsidies or whatever they are called, will be added to the unconditional basic income - and that alone is already the Affordability of an unconditional basic income in question.
Irrespective of whether a basic income can be financed, I ask myself the question of its effectiveness. I can only think it's a good thing that, viewed positively, the state is restricting its steering function to us citizens, but I rather believe that, viewed negatively, the state would like to further expand its power function over the citizens in the best basic socialist understanding and further bars self-determination, especially since the amount of the unconditional basic income will be a purely political decision that is unlikely to be based on the actual needs of the citizens or other people living in the country.
And this is exactly the core question of basic income, who actually benefits from it?
The top performers among us will be given additional financial aid so that they can lead an even better self-determined life. This is probably also the hope and the reason why the unconditional basic income seems so attractive to many at first glance; I would also be very happy about a few hundred euros more a month, because I could then squander them as I please or do something completely different. And the nice thing about it would be that for citizens like me, the amount of a basic income would actually not have any existential significance - so for the first time a win-win situation for responsible citizens.
An unconditional basic income also has only good sides for employers, because it relieves the companies and also offers the chance to make work even cheaper than before, since every employee is strengthened by the basic income and is no longer necessarily dependent on adequate remuneration for his work and thus entirely new negotiating positions are opened up for the collective bargaining partners. But here I also see a back door that socialist dreamers leave open with the basic income, namely that they not only use this argument to politically determine the amount of the basic income, but as a result also politically cement the level of every wage — and with it want to completely abolish the market function.
But the crux of the matter is who does not benefit from the unconditional basic income at all? And those are the weakest in all societies, namely the underage citizens themselves. In a nutshell, even if we no longer want to admit it in our social market economy and society crammed with aid projects, there are still many citizens who are not independent with money be able to do business and not come of age even with an unconditional basic income.
However, since an unconditional basic income widens the gap between those citizens who develop personally with it and those who cannot do anything productive themselves with it, a precariat is cemented as a result, from which there can no longer be any escape .
Unless, contrary to the actual idea of an unconditional basic income, the state grants the precariat even more and even more comprehensive transfer payments, which will ultimately lead to an inflationary development overall, which will overwhelm every society and also the market economy and at least in the medium term the social market economy with it abolishes all its advantages, which cannot be neglected. I don't want to speculate now about what will come after that: real socialism or predatory capitalism.
Even if you count yourself among the possible winners of an unconditional basic income, I would like to point out that it doesn't help for all of us as a whole and especially for those who actually depend on our help, and we therefore, instead of the idea of a to build a basic income that should combat the causes of immaturity and poverty.
That's why, instead of an unconditional basic income, I'm calling for compulsory education for everyone, and new ideas on how to better care for and support fellow citizens who are resistant to education and their children.
"The goal of the future is full unemployment, so we can play. That's why we have to destroy the present politico-economic system."
Arthur C. Clarke, interview with Los Angeles Free Press (April 25, 1969: 42-43)
