For Universal Basic Income

Despite how I look, I’m no Andrew Yang but it doesn’t take a genius to recognize that the sole idea of Universal Basic

Income is plausible, excellent, and valuable in today’s society.

Senators, it’s for the following reasons I give you today I urge you to vote in affirmation of this legislation for the following

two reasons: One, Universal Basic Income ensures economic stability, and two, I’ll be responding to the points of the

negation.

Firstly, Senators, Universal Basic Income ensures economic stability. To take precedence, according to Thomas Husted at

the Southern Regional Science Association, in 1981, Alaska was ranked 30 out of the 50 states on income inequality; by

2015, the state had jumped to number two. This is expanded upon by Kirby Posey from the United States Census Bureau,

Alaska's improvement in income equality is largely attributed to the implementation of its UBI program that began in

1976. According to the Basic Income Grant Coalition, Nam-e-bia's UBI program, the Basic Income Grant reduced

household poverty rates from 76% to 37% after one year which is a 39% reduction. Child malnutrition rates also fell

from 42% to 17% in six months. We can help more people and that’s the truth of the matter. John McArthur, a Senior

Fellow at the Brookings Institution, states that 66 countries in extreme poverty could afford to implement what he calls

"extreme poverty-ending cash transfers." The United States itself is capable of helping over 40-million people in poverty

when we consider Universal Basic Income.

This is expanded upon by participants in India's UBI trial that helped improve their health by enabling them to afford

medicine, improve sanitation, gain access to clean water, eat more regularly, and reduce their anxiety levels that

arrived due to a lack of money. Senators, we must choose the decision to represent the people and what’s best for the

people thus meaning we must affirm.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Back-up Contention: Secondly, guarantees job production.

According to Caroline Lucas and May Bulman two skilled writers from Independent. The guarantee of UBI protects people
from sluggish wage growth, low wages, and the lack of job security caused by the effects of the growing "gig" economy
such as Uber/Lyft driving, short-term contracts, and increased automation in the workplace. This is expanded upon by
Robert Reich, an American economist, professor, author, and former Secretary of Labor. UBIs enable people to stay in
school longer and participate in training to improve skills or learn a trade. Researchers from the Roosevelt Institute created
three models for US implementation of UBI and found that under all scenarios, UBI would grow the economy, increasing
output, employment, prices, and wages. According to the Social Science Research Network, Uganda's UBI trial, the Youth
Opportunities Program, enabled participants to invest in skills training as well as tools and materials, resulting in an increase
of business assets by 57%, work hours by 17%, and earnings by 38%. Expanded upon by the Basic Income Grant Coalition,
the Basic Income Grant trial in Namibia from 2007 to 2012, enabled parents to afford school fees, buy school uniforms, and
encourage attendance. As a result, school dropout rates fell from almost 40% in November 2007 to 5% in June 2008 to
almost 0% in November 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Secondly, Senators, the issues of the negation.

Senators, we must represent the people and to do that we must take precedence of what has occurred in other countries.
They’ve shown improvements and a much stronger quality of life financially. There are improvements, there are benefits,
and most of all, an increase of financial sustainability. We must affirm.

Against Universal Basic Income

Despite how I look, I’m no Andrew Yang but it doesn’t take a genius to recognize that the sole idea of Universal Basic
Income is risky, dangerous, and outright disastrous. Senators, it’s for the following reasons I give you today I urge you to

vote in the negation of this legislation for the following two reasons: One, Universal Basic Income fails in our society, and

two, I’ll be responding to the points of the affirmation.

Firstly, Senators, it fails in our society. Senators, the plan of action provided by Senator ______________ is irresponsible.

According to Ian Goldin, professor at the University of Oxford If UBI was set at a level to provide a modest but decent

standard of living it would be unaffordable and lead to ludicrous deficits causing much higher taxes or reallocation of

resources from other areas such as health and education. Leading to higher inequality and poverty and continue to

worsen unemployment and other benefits with the passage of this legislation.

Expanded on by Peter May, who has a background experience in the economy, this leads to UBI undermining social

cohesion. Social cohesion has a goal for individuals to gain not only income, but meaning, status, skills, networks and

friendships through work. Senators, by passing this legislation, we would be getting rid of all of this by delinking

income and work, while rewarding people for staying at home, is what lies behind social decay. Crime, drugs, broken

families and other socially destructive outcomes are more likely in places with high unemployment, as is evident in the drug

pandemic in the United States, UBI worsens it.

The impact is far from simple, Senators, by passing this legislation we’re undermining incentives to participate in

society. And by diminishing them, no decent society should tolerate dire poverty or starvation. But for those who are able,

help should be designed to get individuals and families to participate in society; to help people overcome unemployment

and find work, move cities, you name it. Safety nets should be a lifeline towards meaningful work and participation in
society, not a guarantee of a lifetime of dependence.

Secondly, Senators, the issues of the affirmation.

Senators, we ought to take action and fight for the idea of the American Dream, that each individual deserves the right to

work free of discrimination because for deacdes this idea has been fought for in the Supreme Court Price Waterhouse v.

Hopkins, McDonnell Douglas Corporation v. Green, Arizona v. Farah Manufacturing Corporation, and this list continues

and by affirming there would be no point for the cases that have been fought due to a life of dependence. Senators, we

must affirm.