The Institute for Global Prosperity has produced a report proposing the introduction of a range of universal basic services. The principle is the same as the principle of the National Health Service, education in schools, or the road network: providing universal services would offer a foundation for everyone in the society. The fields in which they are proposing basic services are shelter, food, transport and “information”, which includes phone, television and the internet.
The schemes are not all worked out in the same way. The proposals that would be genuinely universal are for public transport (extending the equivalent of pensioners’ bus passes to everyone) and communications. The food service they propose is essentially a residual network for poorer families, replacing food banks and soup kitchens; the model for housing is an extension of existing social housing stock. Neither would be universal.
They also compare the costs of their scheme with Universal Basic Income. It’s not a completely fair comparison, because the provision they are proposing for housing and food is not provision for everyone; if they were genuinely offering either of those on a universal basis, the costings would look a lot different. It is fair, however, to remind people of the alternative to Universal Basic Income. People need an income so as to buy goods and services on the private market; it may be possible to take those services out of the market altogether.
Both the universal schemes they propose, and the underlying arguments, are interesting and thought-provoking. I’m persuaded by the ideas of the universal bus pass and a universal infrastructure for the internet; I think others may need more work; but it’s a debate that’s well worth engaging in.