It’s worth noticing that it’s impossible to maintain universality without being prepared to ‘hold your nose’ and give money to ReallyBad People, and that arguing for that position is likely to be unpopular, politically salient, and plain suicide for lawmakers.
This might be the case in the US but it’s not the case universally. E.g. Finland’s basic income experiment, while ultimately discontinued and sabotaged in many ways, still had enough political support behind it to actually get to the point of a two-year national trial. A basic income has also been on the agenda of at least a couple of Finnish political parties (the Green League and the Left Alliance) for a long time, with them having gotten a respectable-if-not-earthshaking vote share of around 7-11% each in various national elections. (For comparison, the three biggest parties in this year’s parliamentary elections got about a 20% vote share each.)
Political views can also shift rapidly. E.g. something like same-sex marriage would have been utterly unthinkable and plain political suicide only some decades back. (E.g. it was only back in 1993 that the US military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy was considered a step forward for gay rights.)
It also occurs to me that Finland has some semi-”universal” benefits that are at least commonly understood to maintain their popularity exactly because they are paid to everyone who passes a very basic eligibility criteria. In particular, the amount that you’re paid child benefits depends only on the number of underaged children that you have and you being a permanent resident of the country—it’s not tied to your income or any other factors.
I’ve often seen it claimed that the system enjoys wide support exactly because it’s universal for all parents, so everyone who has children has a reason to be in favor. Some people do feel like it should be made less universal, but mostly in the direction of “what’s the point of giving it to those who are already the wealthiest and don’t need the extra money”—I don’t recall hearing anyone saying that it should be restricted because of some of the recipients being Really Bad People.
Finland also has housing allowance which feels pretty UBI-like to me, since anyone with a low enough income (and who is a permanent resident) is eligible to get it to cover part of their housing expenses.
This might be the case in the US but it’s not the case universally. E.g. Finland’s basic income experiment, while ultimately discontinued and sabotaged in many ways, still had enough political support behind it to actually get to the point of a two-year national trial. A basic income has also been on the agenda of at least a couple of Finnish political parties (the Green League and the Left Alliance) for a long time, with them having gotten a respectable-if-not-earthshaking vote share of around 7-11% each in various national elections. (For comparison, the three biggest parties in this year’s parliamentary elections got about a 20% vote share each.)
Political views can also shift rapidly. E.g. something like same-sex marriage would have been utterly unthinkable and plain political suicide only some decades back. (E.g. it was only back in 1993 that the US military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy was considered a step forward for gay rights.)
It also occurs to me that Finland has some semi-”universal” benefits that are at least commonly understood to maintain their popularity exactly because they are paid to everyone who passes a very basic eligibility criteria. In particular, the amount that you’re paid child benefits depends only on the number of underaged children that you have and you being a permanent resident of the country—it’s not tied to your income or any other factors.
I’ve often seen it claimed that the system enjoys wide support exactly because it’s universal for all parents, so everyone who has children has a reason to be in favor. Some people do feel like it should be made less universal, but mostly in the direction of “what’s the point of giving it to those who are already the wealthiest and don’t need the extra money”—I don’t recall hearing anyone saying that it should be restricted because of some of the recipients being Really Bad People.
Finland also has housing allowance which feels pretty UBI-like to me, since anyone with a low enough income (and who is a permanent resident) is eligible to get it to cover part of their housing expenses.