What is the Unconditional Basic Income?

With a basic income, no one goes to work anymore. Or?

Do we only go to work to make money? And does that mean that we won't go to work anymore if we get the money that way?

If you ask people whether they would continue to work with a basic income, 90% answer with a clear yes. If you ask the same people if they think the others would continue to work with a basic income, 60% answer no. Most of us don't seem to do our job just for the money – but don't admit this motivation to others.

Current research shows that both too low and too high remuneration can harm work motivation. If the remuneration is adequate, it takes a backing from other factors as a motivational incentive: recognition, personal growth or social contacts. Work shapes our identity and structures our everyday lives.

But what about the many "parasites" who are already making themselves comfortable in the social hammock at the expense of others? The lazy unemployed person is portrayed as a mass phenomenon – but it is not: About one million Hartz IV recipients go to work, but do not receive enough wages to get by without the basic security.

The narrative of the lazy unemployed is dangerous: it declares the economic situation to be the failure of the individual. This fuels the fear of unemployment and thus increases the acceptance of wage dumping.

With a basic income, the bad jobs are left behind. Or?

We live in a society with a high division of labour. No one can take care of themselves completely alone, we are dependent on each other. Therefore, the concern is understandable that in a society with a basic income, no one wants to do the jobs that are important but unpopular.

Why are some jobs less popular than others? Because they are more stressful or dangerous than others – or rather because they are too poorly remunerated in terms of the degree of stress or danger?

If the basic income strengthens the freedom of the individual to refuse poorly paid work, then this work would undoubtedly have to be made more attractive through adequate remuneration in order for it to continue to be done. Wouldn't that actually be a step towards more justice in the labour market? The basic income cannot be financed. Or?

The calculation seems simple: If 83 million people in Germany receive a basic income of e.B 1,000 euros a month, this will cost us almost one trillion euros a year, three times the federal budget. So the basic income is not affordable, is it? Not true, because this frequently made calculation is fundamentally wrong.

First things first: There is no one basic income concept, but dozens of financing models. They all have one thing in common: At the beginning of the month, each person receives a fixed amount in the account – but at the same time contributes to the financing of this amount according to his possibilities through taxes. The difference between basic income and tax burden determines whether someone in a society with a basic income has more or less money in their pocket.

Depending on the financing model, people with low incomes have more money at their disposal, the so-called middle class about the same amount and the richest a little less than before.

Most people today already have a kind of basic income: Hartz IV plus health insurance contribution and rental cost assumption is also about 1,000 euros – but is not unconditional, but causes demotivation, existential anxiety and mistrust.

Higher earners also already receive a kind of basic income in the form of the income tax allowance, i.e. the lower part of the income that does not have to be taxed.

The basic income is essentially a tax reform that replaces this allowance with the distribution of the same money at the beginning of the month. Neither the state nor us citizens incur additional costs – but the advance payment creates new trust, security and room for manoeuvre. The money is already there, it just doesn't work so well.

With basic income, prices and inflation rise. Or?

If all people receive additional money, it will inevitably lead to rising inflation and higher prices. Or not?

The idea that basic income requires extra money in our financial system is simply wrong. The entire money supply remains the same, it is only distributed differently within the system. That is why there is no rising inflation.

Price shifts, on the other hand, could actually occur with basic income: man-made goods, for example, could rise in price compared to machine-produced ones. Above all, such goods and services, in the production of which people only want to be involved in return for appropriate remuneration, could become more expensive.

This can be seen as a "normalization of prices" for goods and services. Why do geriatric nurses, kindergarten teachers or teachers earn so much less than bankers today? In a society with a basic income, all employees would have a fair basis for negotiation on a labour market in which supply and demand are on an equal footing. The basic income is unfair because even the richest get it. Or?

At first glance, the idea that people who really "don't need" it also receive a basic income is difficult to bear. So heavy that it often leads to the absurd statement: "Before the rich receive basic income, I don't want it and prefer to stay poor!"

This is a fallacy, because people with high incomes or assets only seem to receive the basic income: it is transferred to their account at the beginning of the month just like everyone else. In a fair basic income society, however, there would be higher tax rates at the same time, which would be borne above all by people with high incomes. The bottom line is that these people then pay more taxes than they receive basic income.

So why do you have to pay out the basic income to everyone in the first place? Quite simply, on principle! Only if everyone receives the basic income does it break away from the concept of social benefits for the needy. Because neediness must be proven, it is the basis for paternalistic action, stigmatization, discrimination and ultimately the division of society.

This is the real strength of the basic income idea: By treating all people equally up to the threshold of the first 1,000 euros, we strengthen their freedom to take personal responsibility – because no one has to feel that they are hanging on to the drip of others anymore. Could it even be the end of all envy debates if we are suddenly all in the same boat?

Basic income punishes those who go to work. Or?

If everyone receives basic income, are the working people the stupid ones because they sacrifice their time and energy – but end up with the same thing as everyone else?