As Ireland’s $1,500-a-month basic income pilot program for creatives nears its end in February, officials have to answer a simple question: Is it worth it?
With four months to go, they say the answer is yes.
Earlier this month, Ireland’s government announced its 2026 budget, which includes “a successor to the pilot Basic Income Scheme for the Arts to begin next year” among its expenditures.
Ireland is just one of many places experimenting with guaranteed basic income programs, which provide recurring, unrestricted payments to people in a certain demographic. These programs differ from a universal basic income, which would provide payments for an entire population.
A lot of gatekeepers in the comments who seem to love the idea of a UBI, but hate any attempt to test the viability of one.
I think this is a great step towards proving the benefits of a UBI for the greater population. I believe supporting the arts is always a positive endeavour, so using them as the pilot program kills two birds with one stone. I think that randomising who gets to enter the pilot program may allow some people to game the system, but the benefits outweigh the possibility of one schyster scamming a paycheque. The lottery system stops this becoming a bonus for established or famous artists, and supports creatives in all areas.
All in all, this is a good thing, and the people who want “all or nothing” are short sighted.
How many more before people are convince it works? I think this is one of those studies or referendums where the powers-that-be and its supporters keep running the test until they get the one result they want. Besides, with the burgeoning automation, UBI is needed. If not, at least universal basic services could be done instead, where we are provided with housing and utilities for free, if the concern that over-accumulation of capital through free handouts might lead to abuse or crash the economy or some vague similar notions
There’s been lots of studies, it works.
You can’t just do a "study’ of UBI. Every single study attempt I’ve seen looks like: -They have funding from something or another, they do not model the taxation half at all -They end up means testing because they can’t model taxation, so they fixate on those in need exclusively. -They tend to last maybe a year or two. The beneficiaries know this is a limited term benefit and need to make the most of it. -They do not target everyone, so the local market won’t even notice the difference in base earning power. You still have lots of poor people excluded from the study. -They did not just force people into the program, participants had to actively seek out participation.
What the experiments have repeatedly proven is that welfare can work to give motivated poor people a needed reprieve to get their feet on solid ground, which we already knew. We haven’t had an actual “study” of real UBI, just studies on welfare that they say is about UBI. About the only difference from actual welfare programs is that the participants are not audited to try to make sure the benefit shuts off the second they get a job. Which may be a good indicator at least that auditing the benefits could stand to be more lax.
UBI might work, but to date we haven’t actually tried it in any useful way. We have universal income in some places, but it’s generally well short of even basic.
Social Security for seniors is UBI, that’s the biggest study you’ll every find. Also, Alaska gets dividends. I think you’re looking at it very narrowly for some reason.
Alaska is too small a payout. No one could have even basic needs meet there. It faiils the criteria for “basic”.
To receive social security, you can’t earn too much money. You generally have to choose either receive benefits or work. Also your payout depends on your specific pay in. You have to get paid during your younger years to “earn” your social security.
True, but Social Security is big enough to live on.
Still based on taxes, they know how to make it work. It’s Basic Income regardless. I’m cool with that as a start.
Has the concept of UBI been around long enough to fulfill your requirements? A 20-year study across a large population would of course be superior, but shorter-length studies with less people are necessary to prove/disprove whether those large scale studies should be funded. Not to mention the ethical implications of forcing someone into a large scale study like that before any results have been shown at all.
I think it’s fine to be skeptical of anyone considering UBI to be “case closed”, but small studies being done before large studies is standard practice. You can’t give that kind of grand scale funding to every hypothesis that pops into someone’s head, so it’s a reasonable way of determining what shows promise and should be looked into more.
It’s less a matter of needing years under its belt and more about paying out an actual basic income to everyone regardless of means testing or work requirements and without an expected end date for participants. We’ve just not seen it done at all.