Will Universal Basic Income Cause Inflation?

  • The Universal Basic Income (UBI) is a proposed system that would give individuals with a minimal income to help prevent poverty and close economic gaps.
  • Some proposals propose that a UBI be paid to anybody earning up to a certain amount of money (e.g., $50,000 per year), whether or not they are employed. Other suggestions propose that a UBI be distributed only to people who have lost their jobs especially, those who have lost their jobs due to automation.
  • The main argument against, or disadvantage of, a universal basic income system is that it has the potential to produce runaway inflation, raising the cost of living.

Is there a link between universal basic income and inflation?

The UBI is ineffective in compensating for inflation because it causes inflation. In this situation, higher inflation would lead to higher UBI rates, exacerbating the inflation problem.

What are the drawbacks of a universal basic income programme?

Universal Basic Income (UBI) deprives the poor of much-needed tailored assistance by taking money from them and giving it to everyone. UBI is prohibitively expensive. UBI reduces the incentive to work, causing an economic downturn and a labor and skills deficit.

Is Universal Basic Income beneficial to the economy?

UBI results in increased job growth and a reduction in school dropout rates. People are protected by the UBI guarantee against sluggish pay growth, low earnings, and job insecurity induced by the rising gig economy, such as Uber/Lyft driving and short-term contracts.

Why is it a good idea to have a universal basic income?

A UBI would provide a livable salary to every adult aged 18 and up, similar to how Social Security provides a fixed income to seniors and retirees. Americans would receive direct monthly payments regardless of financial necessity, dubbed “Social Security for all” by some.

The basic concept no-strings-attached direct cash distributions has several versions. A universal basic income is, well, universal. However, some argue for a more limited approach, in which payments are only made to those who are truly in need.

What would the cost of a universal basic income be?

A UBI of $1,000 per month for every person in the United States would cost $4 trillion per year on a gross basis; limiting it to adults would cost $3.1 trillion. As an example:

  • The defense budget is $686 billion per year. The cost of doing so, whether through deficit spending or increased taxes, may slow economic growth. The Penn-Wharton Budget Model, for example, concluded that supporting UBI with a payroll tax would cut GDP by 1.7 percent in the first ten years in their 2018 analysis of a $500 per month per adult UBI:

They also discovered that funding the cost with deficits will cut GDP by 6.1 percent in the first ten years:

Is welfare a source of inflation?

A documentary about a priest who brought three or four university students to see street-sleepers in a dismal region of Kowloon aired recently on a local television channel. The program depicted a priest and students visiting homeless people on the street in order to have a better understanding of what life is like for the impoverished. This was all about pity, but there was no mention of how university students could assist homeless people in improving their lives, developing skills, or entering the workforce. University students are expected to come up with more inventive ways to assist the poor. A similar comment may be made regarding the Chief Executive’s recent Policy Address, in which he showed sympathy for families who choose not to have a second child due to a lack of living space.

Sympathy is a word that refers to personal feelings and should only be used in specific situations. But it would be nave to believe that sympathy can be converted into economic policies, particularly when it comes to welfare. In Hong Kong, it has almost become a clich that the poorest portions of the population must be protected. While sympathy is understandable, extending blanket assistance to these individuals is not the solution. The question is, in fact, how to improve the marketability of people with low abilities. While we must be compassionate toward the poor, we must equally encourage them to contribute to the economy. In other words, assistance is required, but we should also assist them in becoming self-sufficient.

There are significant theories about government expenditure that should be respected without putting undue strain on other areas of the economy. In bad times, government spending typically rises, as it should to avoid a slump. When the economy is doing well, however, government spending should be curtailed. This is due to the fact that increased government expenditure in good times is akin to “pouring oil on the fire” and might result in inflation.

The recent push to increase welfare spending may have unintended repercussions by raising inflation. The economic situation in Hong Kong in 2014 is far from ideal. On the one hand, the Policy Address’s pledges of long-term development will take time to fulfill. The economy, on the other hand, is not likely to expand significantly.

Furthermore, when welfare spending rises, it is possible that firms in Hong Kong, particularly small businesses, will raise their pricing. The explanation for this is straightforward. Businesses anticipate that once households have more money to spend as a consequence of increased government assistance, consumers will tolerate higher pricing. As a result, rising welfare costs will lead to inflation. Inflation is predicted to climb significantly in 2014. Prices will rise as a result of increased welfare spending, hurting everyone, including welfare beneficiaries. Life will be harder for non-welfare recipients as their purchasing power is undermined. Inflation will undermine the benefits of welfare increases for welfare beneficiaries. Because there will be little inflation during a recession, welfare spending should only increase when low-income people want assistance.

However, if government assistance spending continues to rise in normal economic times, firms will see an opportunity to boost their pricing. If economic growth is not available, or is not rising at the same rate as welfare spending, stagflation will occur from rising inflation combined with low growth. This is precisely what the Hong Kong economy does not want because it will negatively impact everyone. The government will have to spend even more money on welfare as a result. When economic growth is modest, the budgetary burden continues to rise. We must assist the poor, but when assistance becomes politicized, the economic repercussions can be disastrous. Hong Kong’s authorities must avoid turning the city into a welfare state.

The author is an associate professor at City University of Hong Kong’s Department of Economics and Finance.

What factors influence inflation?

Cost-push inflation (also known as wage-push inflation) happens when the cost of labour and raw materials rises, causing overall prices to rise (inflation). Higher manufacturing costs might reduce the economy’s aggregate supply (the total amount of output). Because demand for goods has remained unchanged, production price increases are passed on to consumers, resulting in cost-push inflation.

What causes price increases?

  • Inflation is the rate at which the price of goods and services in a given economy rises.
  • Inflation occurs when prices rise as manufacturing expenses, such as raw materials and wages, rise.
  • Inflation can result from an increase in demand for products and services, as people are ready to pay more for them.
  • Some businesses benefit from inflation if they are able to charge higher prices for their products as a result of increased demand.

Is Universal Basic Income preferable to welfare?

  • Financial help that is simple and easy, with minimal bureaucracy: Current welfare systems are also difficult to administer and understand for both recipients and administrators. Housing vouchers, food stamps, and other services would be replaced by a universal income.
  • Lower administrative costs than traditional welfare: Because the scheme is so simple, it would cost governments less money. Cash payments to everyone would eliminate the need for time-consuming income-verification documentation.
  • Increased funding for young families: Some governments are concerned about the decline in birth rates. Young couples would feel more confident about starting a family if they had a guaranteed income.