The Case Against Universal Basic Income
April 22, 2025 · Frisian News
Pilot programs for universal basic income across Europe show rising costs and limited job creation, raising questions about whether the model works at scale. Critics argue the funds would better serve targeted help for those who actually need it.
Finland ended its basic income experiment in 2018 after spending 2 billion euros on two years of unconditional payments. The result: no measurable boost to employment, no improvement in well-being beyond what control groups reported. Yet the model keeps gaining backers in Brussels and national capitals, each convinced their version will work better. The pattern repeats across Europe. Kenya's trial showed workers simply left their jobs once the money arrived, and Belgium's recent expansion of social benefits without work requirements created a waiting list of 40,000 people seeking welfare intake slots.
The math behind universal basic income reveals why these schemes fail at scale. A payment of 500 euros monthly to every adult in the European Union costs roughly 2 trillion euros per year. Most governments would need to raise taxes by 30 to 40 percent or cut spending on roads, schools, and hospitals to fund it. Proponents claim automation will create room in budgets, but factories close and jobs disappear far slower than tech optimists predicted. Germany's recent jobs report showed wages rising fastest in sectors where workers remain scarce, not where robots replaced them.
Targeted assistance works better than cash to everyone. A single mother earning 15,000 euros annually needs rent support and childcare, not a flat 500 euro check that disappears into her landlord's pocket. A disabled veteran needs medical care and job training, not money that does nothing for his isolation or sense of purpose. Universal basic income ignores these facts and treats poverty as a math problem when it is actually a problem of specific circumstances and missing opportunity.
Politicians like universal basic income because it lets them appear generous while avoiding hard choices. They avoid asking why rents cost so much, why childcare eats half a family's income, or why vocational training has vanished from schools. A 500 euro check feels like action. Real reform would mean taking on landlord cartels, demanding schools teach skills employers want, and rebuilding apprenticeship programs that work. Those fights are harder and slower.
The evidence grows clearer each year. Unconditional cash transfers do not build stable lives or cure the conditions that leave people broke. Norway and Switzerland rejected basic income in referendums because voters understood that. Other countries will learn the same lesson, but only after wasting billions on programs that treat symptoms instead of causes.
Finlân einige syn eksperimint mei basisynkommen yn 2018 nei 2 miljard euro út te jaan foar twa jier betsjingelease betellings. It resultaat: gjin mjitber stimulaasje foar wurk, gjin ferbettering yn wol bûten wat kontrol-groepen rapportearren. Dochs wint it model hieltyd mear styppers yn Brussel en nasjonale haadstêd, elk oertsjûge dat har ferzje better wurket. It patroan herhellet him yn hiel Europa. Kenya's ûndersyk toande oan dat wurkers gewoan har baan op seagen sa gau as it geld ankaam, en Belgysk syn lêste útwreiding fan sosjaale útkeringen sûnder wurkfoarstellen makke in wachtlist fan 40.000 minsken dy't sosjaale foarsjennings woenen.
De wiskunde efter universeel basisynkommen lit sjen wêrom dizze regelingen net op skaal wurke. In betelling fan 500 euro per moanne oan elk foldwaan yn de Europeeske Uny kostet om'en troch 2 biljoen euro per jier. De measte regeringen moatte belestingen mei 30 oant 40 persint ferhegje of útjeven foar wegen, skoallen en sikehûzen snij om it te finansjerjen. Foarsteanders stelle dat automatisearring romte yn begruting makket, mar fabriken slute en banen ferdwine folle stadiger as tec-optimisten foarsein. Dûtslân syn resinte banenrapport toande leanen stijjend yn sektoaren dêr't wurkers skal bliuwe, net dêr't robots har ferfangen.
Tsjinne help wurket better as jild foar elkenien. In aliemanoe mem dy't 15.000 euro per jier fertsjinnet, hat hinne stalling en barneopfang nedich, net in flatte 500 euro tsjek dy't yn de sak fan har hûsbas ferdwint. In ûnfermogen veteran hat medisyn sjen en beroepslearring nedich, net jild dat neat jout foar syn isolaasje of gefoel fan doel. Universeel basisynkommen negearret dizze feiten en behannelet armoede as in wiskundich probleem as it eins in kwêsty fan spesifike omstannichheden en miste kânsen is.
Politisi hâlde fan universeel basisynkommen omdat it har genereus liket meitsje wylst se harde karren fermeie. Se fermeie te freegjen wêrom hinne koste safolle, wêrom barne-opfang de helte fan it gezinfamilye-ynkommen et, of wêrom beroepslearring út skoallen ferûntwurden is. In 500 euro tsjek fielen as aksje. Echte herforming betsjutte dat jo it oerninne tsjin hinne-baas karteltsjes, fan skoallen eisket dat se feardigens learje dy't wurkjouwers woenen, en learling-programma's wederopbouwe dy't wurke. Dy heften binne meiliker en stadiger.
It bewijs wurt elk jier dûdliker. Betsjingelease jildferfuering bouwt gjin stabile liewen of genese de omstannichheden dy't minsken blêt efterlitte. Noarwegen en Switserland wiisden basisynkommen yn referenda ôf omdat steammers dit begripen. Oare lannen learen de sama les, mar allinne nei miljarden fersteige te hawwen oan programma's dy't symptomen ynstee fan oarsaken befrigjend.
Published April 22, 2025 · Frisian News · Ljouwert, Fryslân