What will happen in the future as advancements in technology lead to a drastic reduction in the number of jobs? What will happen to people who have spent their lives training and working at one profession only for that profession to be made obsolete by the creation of technology and machinery? This is where we must be creative and think outside the box in order to improve our current system of welfare to be better adapted for the future, while becoming more cost effective in the present. To do that, a Basic Income Guarantee will provide all citizens a base amount of cash from the government and replace many facets of our current welfare system. This issue has become very prevalent in recent years, with a few countries even voting on whether or not to adopt this system. It is of importance to everyone, as a Basic Income Guarantee will affect all. By giving a flat amount of money, this will allow the poorest to stretch their money further, without all of the restrictions of our current system. This also gives those not struggling to make ends meet somethings extra to fall back on in our rapidly changing job climate. This helps those who are out of work or struggling to find work, not through their lack of ability, but only because of our advancements as a society leaving them behind. A Basic Income Guarantee, with some reservations and stipulations, should replace our current welfare system as it has a better social morality, makes more fiscal sense, and improves upon many of the issues people have with our current system. 

In order to adequately address the benefits and drawbacks of a Basic Income Guarantee and properly evaluate whether it is a realistic system for the future, one needs to have an understanding of what it is and everything it entails. A Basic Income Guarantee is an economic system implemented by a government as a form of welfare. This system is, “a government ensured guarantee that no one's income will fall below the level necessary to meet their most basic needs for any reason” (Radulich 3). A Basic Income Guarantee would be universal and have no requirement to work. It would still offer incentive to work for anyone who desired to live above the most basic level. By providing a most basic level of income this helps the poorest without necessary oversight and gives those with a job a safety blanket in case of an unexpected job loss. To understand Basic Income Guarantee, one must only not understand what it means, but also the context around it. While a Basic Income Guarantee has been an idea since the early 1900’s it has only gained traction more recently (Radulich). It was considered briefly in the 1970’s in the United States, but had faded away as an idea. However, over the past few years, the idea has resurged. This has culminated in the first ever vote on a Basic Income Guarantee occurring in June 2016 in Switzerland but received only 23% support ("Switzerland's voters reject basic income plan."). This increase in attention has led to Basic Income Guarantee becoming a relevant topic in modern political discussion. Nonetheless, there is still a vast gap in information on Basic Income Guarantee, as many are unaware of this system and many of the facts around it.

To properly form an argument about Basic Income Guarantee, many aspects of Basic Income Guarantee must be examined. These aspects consist of the social morality of a Basic Income Guarantee, the fiscal logic of a Basic Income Guarantee, and the evident improvements that can be made on our existing welfare system. The social morality covers the many freedoms and adaptation provided by a Basic Income Guarantee that are advantageous. Basic Income Guarantee’s cost effectiveness and simplification make monetary sense. Lastly, our current welfare system has a plethora of flaws, and while no one economic policy is perfect, Basic Income Guarantee would allow for vast improvements. 

Social benefits are an important part to the case for a Basic Income Guarantee, as while numbers and logic are useful, the most powerful approach is often that which connects on an emotional level. The first aspect of this is the freedom being given to many people now, new responsibility, especially for the poorest of society. They must now be entrusted to make decisions with the money given as support from the government as opposed to being told what they can and cannot buy. However, this does have some benefit as, “given the fungibility of money and with subjective autonomy granted to citizens, the recipients of the cash have to be at least as well off as the recipients of the food because the first group can buy the food if that is what is best for them” (Munger 505). When allowed to choose for oneself what is most necessary, this allows for the poorest to get what they need, and not be forced into spending their already limited income on what they do not need. This thereby allows them to stretch their money as far as possible, making the most of their available funds. Basic Income Guarantee also helps to eliminate some of the bad connotations for those who need help surviving day to day, “since it is a universal right for everyone and only conditional on citizenship or residence, there can be no stigma because everyone receives it” (Raventós 22). By eliminating this, it improves the morale and pride of the poorest in our society, allowing them dignity. This will help to normalize receiving assistance from the government and make it less of a burden. This increased freedom and improved public opinion allow Basic Income Guarantee a significant advantage. 

Fiscally, a Basic Income Guarantee is greatly advantageous to our current system despite its seemingly massive cost on the surface. When evaluating the expense and effectiveness of a Basic Income Guarantee, it is important to look at all aspects, and not just the total cost. There are two major studies that can be used to get a good grasp of how a Basic Income Guarantee system could be set up and what its costs and benefits would be. The first study evaluates the implementation on Basic Income Guarantee in its worst possible form. The results still show increased net income for the majority of citizens, all except those earning over $500,000. This system also encourages those working jobs with income below the basic income they will receive, to continue to work whereas many other systems would lead to them giving up that work, as they received the same net income with or without the work (Munger 509-511). The second study evaluates tax data from Catalonia in Spain and applies hypothetical models of a Basic Income Guarantee to discover whether they have legitimate application in the real world. This study depicts nations choosing an ambitious adjustment, with net gains to over 50% of population, or conservative adjustment, with net gains to 70% of the population, to the tax codes to finance the Basic Income Guarantee. The ambitious example would provide more benefit to the poorest while nevertheless maintaining a net gain for the majority of the population. The more conservative example, while still providing enough to the poorest, gives a gain to a larger amount of the population (Raventós 159-170). These two examples outline how a Basic Income Guarantee will improve the net income of a majority of people in a way that is financially efficient and cost effective. 

Another important aspect of the debate for a Basic Income Guarantee is that while it may not be perfect, and not all agree on it, it is an improvement on our current convoluted welfare system. A Basic Income Guarantee allows for increased flexibility and freedom, something that as jobs become animated, will be very important. This is because there is a rapid change in the job market, “whether you like the idea or not, there won't be an alternative because decent-paying jobs are disappearing for millions of people… 40 percent of jobs are now contingent, meaning they're part-time, independent contractors, Uber drivers” ("As Our Jobs Are Automated, Some Say We'll Need A Guaranteed Basic Income."). This drastic change it the type of jobs means a major drop in economic security. This is caused by the lack of concrete nature to many of these jobs, as a worker can quickly and easily be replaced by another or even by technology or machines. Basic Income Guarantee also benefits from its independence and streamlining of our current system, “the flat income tax would be entirely independent: since all income is taxed at the same rate, there is no need to define a tax unit” (Atkinson 3). By simplifying the tax system, this allows for a more efficient and cost effective system. The Basic Income Guarantee would also encourage work among those with the lowest income, “there would be no special payment to those who are unemployed, as under social insurance or social assistance. A person returning to work, whether part time or full time, would not lose benefit” (Atkinson 3). In the current welfare system, a person who works for minimal income and still receives assistance from welfare receives the same net income whether they work or do not, since their benefits are cut as their income increases. This leads to the incentivization of unemployment amongst the poorest, something that makes no logical sense. On the contrary, Basic Income Guarantee will promote employment, as whether or not they work, this person will receive the same amount regardless. This encourages someone who wants to increase their earnings to work, while allowing those unemployed to maintain their benefits. These major improvements that Basic Income Guarantee makes are in themselves enough reason for it to be considered, but considering all the advantages as a whole, it is understandable why a Basic Income Guarantee has gained such momentum in recent years.

The counter argument to a Basic Income Guarantee has many facets, but they all share a concern about uncertainty, as many of the information on Basic Income Guarantee is only studies and hypothesis. One major issue held with the Basic Income Guarantee is the replacement of many current systems. This is likely to cause some backlash, “also, in the case of a BIG, they must show that there is a high probability that a scaled-down BIG really would replace all of the existing programs for the poor and near poor. This is hard to do because the various interest groups that favor the existing programs will not sit back: they will fight to keep some or all of those programs” (Henderson 499-500). This argument makes some sense, as naturally people will be opposed to losing their benefits, but to say that Basic Income Guarantee is a bad system only because some people will fear the worst is ludicrous. Another proposed counter to Basic Income Guarantee is to instead install and educational guarantee and use the money to instead fund education for all (Whaples  532). While this idea sounds nice in practice, one major issue lies in the fact that not every job and career path requires the same amount and type of education. Therefore, providing people with a basic income to use as they chose would better allow them to pursue adequate education as opposed to spending money on overeducating people for a limited number of jobs that those skills will be used for. 

A major point against a Basic Income Guarantee is its large cost. With that large cost comes risk, “it’s not just that a basic income would be a risky bet based on murky data. The bigger objection is that it’s an unnecessary bet. Existing safety-net programs could be expanded and tuned to eliminate poverty about as effectively but much less expensively, and they could continue to focus on providing jobs and the incentives to take them” (Freedman 53). This statement has much validity to it, as it is a big risk, but in order to be well prepared for the future, it is appropriate to adjust our system sooner, rather than after the problem has already become too big of an issue to properly deal with. Still those against Basic Income Guarantee claim that people, “will lose incentives to work” (Freedman 52). However, the author later goes on to refute that statement, “since the payout is likely to be far from generous, perhaps barely enough to live on, most people will probably choose to supplement their checks with work. The basic income will free them to pursue jobs with better pay, benefits, and conditions, or to look for more meaningful work—even if that work is lower-paying or nonpaying” (Freedman 52).  Many against a Basic Income Guarantee seem to doubt human will and intentions, and while it is not safe to always put one’s trust in others intentions, there is sufficient evidence to back up this claim. Most people would want to work to be able to live above a most minimal level of existence, and so that argument in completely invalid. While there are real concerns about a basic income, and a debate on some of those issues, such as cost, is necessary, a Basic Income Guarantee is a legitimate solution to our welfare system that should be considered for the future. 

This quote from Maximilien Robespierre has significant relevance to the Basic Income Guarantee debate, despite is age, “What is the first object of society? It is to maintain the inviolable rights of man. What is the first of these rights? The right to exist. The first social law is thus that which guarantees to all society’s members the means of existence; all others are subordinated to it” (Raventós 7). Despite some of the drawbacks the Reign of Terror might have on the judgement of Robespierre’s character, this quote has a poignant truth about the responsibility of government. A governments most important task is to insure its citizens have the right to exist, and our current welfare system is lacking the ability to protect that now and in the future. In order to adequately protect this right, a Basic Income Guarantee needs to be implemented to deal with the evolution of our economy. While there will be many new changes and new costs and systems put in place, this will be necessary to ensure a future where everyone has a right to exist. While there are still many issues facing the Basic Income Guarantee, it deserves to be discussed, as its implementation of lack thereof will have a profound impact on the future, not just for us but for our county. In order for that future to be as bright as possible, a Basic Income Guarantee should be used to replace our current system of welfare. 
