Do you support a universal basic income program?

Yes, but this will need to be refined to make sure that the system is not being abused. Hard working people in full time employment should not struggle for necessities while those who do not want to work are being financially supported.

The government should do all it can to encourage people into work, and ensure that all jobs pay enough to cover basic necessities including food and housing.

Yes but checks should be made to make sure people aren't taking advantage of this. People who are capable of working should be working.

Eventually as more automation comes in, in order to give people the ability to retrain towards a different career.

No, a universal basic income (everyone receives benefits) will detract from the welfare state (those who really need benefits receive them).

Yes, but only if you show clear evidence of wanting to work. I don't want the minority of people who just sit on their arses to get it, or those who just waste our taxes paying for their medical bills as a result of smoking which they continue to do even while understanding the consequences to their health.

I think everyone should be entitled to this but the length of time allowed for this to continue should be reviewed

I believe heavily on universal basic income as it ties with my beliefs with Ai taking on standard tasks in the day to day jobs task. I feel like you should be able to build investment portfolio automatically from hedge funds and crypto from government back companies that follow government regulations. There needs to a system or framework where people can opt in or out of investing a portion of the universal basic income. If jobs are unavailable in future there needs to be some sort of system in place we’re people are not left behind cause of a flawed system.

No, they should receive benefits based on their desire to work and gold down a job, which is not the case currently. Those who cannot work due to health reasons should receive enough money for the basic necessities

Food should be free. Housing should be cheap and limited. People should work when they are able to do, so they keep their power and their say, and they contribute to the economic growth and innovation of the country.

Yes, but it should ONLY cover absolute essentials and it should not be paid to the person, food vouchers should not cover alcohol, tobacco or high-sugar/calorie items.

People who are able to work without massive disadvantages should not receive support on the same level as those who are unable to

Yes for those who earn less than a certain amount. But it should not encourage those on lower incomes to not work.

Yes but strict rules on applying for work and only a limited amount of time allowed for the necessary allowances

Yes but the system should be monitored maybe by a bank card being provided which is restricted and audited.

Yes, But the UK is to soft on allowing people to claim, We need to get people working and contributing to the economy. we need a culture change there are far to many lazy people that have it too good

I agree with it but I recently claimed it due to having a baby and it doesn't really benefit me due to owning my own house. I know people who do nothing and don't want to work and get everything given to them. It's not a fair system.

Yes, but there needs to be stricter requirements, e.g have to actively show they’ve been looking for a job and tried rather than automatically receiving.

Yes, but it should be tiered depending on how long you have paid into the system. Those that have never paid Tax and NI should ONLY be able to afford accommodation and food. Any money for non-essentials should have to be earned.

Only if applied fairly, generally the working people pay in to benefit those who do not contribute to the system

Yes but has to be reviewed and can only last so long, people need to prove they are seeking employment.

Yes, but only if those people are in work and continuously prove they are working a minimum of hours per week.

Yes but it should be based on income per person and shouldn't be less for people already receiving benefits

It should be given to people who only work as an incentive and people who don't work get a lower amount

It would be a fairer way of doing things, at the moment people who work on minimum wage are no better off than people who don't work

Yes, everyone should be provided with a basic standard of living but these should be in the form of vouchers not cash so they cant be spent on other things.

No, I think UBI is a flawed system. We should look at minimum income or a basic income priced well below the level needed to meet all essential needs.Secondary benefits would need to be retained to provide additional supports for at risk groups.

Support should be given but we should normalise use of vouchers rather than cash tonensure money goes where it should and isn't mispent

Yes, but only in tandem with broader economic control preventing landlords/corporations from raising prices in response.

The UK should adopt a negative income tax to incentivise work but also insure no one is left on the bread line.

I think it’s important for those who actually need it for basic necessities e.g fill out medical form

I support basic income for everyone with lower earnings, but people earning hundreds of thousands of pounds shouldn’t get it

I'm all for a safety net, but it depends on how much it would be. Those who currently take advantage of benefits systems may also take advantage of this. We shouldn't pay enough to discourage people to work and spend and put back into the economy, but we should cover the very basic needs so no one goes without heat or food. This would help those with children, only able to work part time, the disabled, and those on low income etc.

Yes but it should be proportionate to income/ proof of inability to work required for those who receive the most money

It should be a safety net. If someone comes out of work they should get help at the rate they were payed at. But people who are choosing not to woke should get food vouchers and minimal support to make working more appealing

Yes but only if they genuinely cannot work and are not just cherry picking the types of work they’d prefer to do, then not working because it’s easier and they can’t get the work they’d prefer!

There should be requirements needing to be met before a payment is received. Such as how many hours worked

Yes, but only if the figures add up. Work should always pay. This should replace state pension & other benefits. Only British citizens should be eligible

Yes, but it should come with demands that benefit the general public. A way to pay back. But can be dependent on circumstances

Yes, unless you're lazy and choosing not to work cause you can't be asked or decided to have loads of kids you can't feed

Yes as long as this does not discourage people from working. Allowances should be made for people taking maternity leave or taking a break to raise a child as long as they then return to work once the youngest child is at school.

Yes, but if someone is capable of working they they're amount should be lower to encourage them to find work.

Yes but the people who are claiming this that can work should be actively and proving they are looking for work to stay on it and there should be a maximum time you can be on it.

Yes but people should be encouraged to find work or they should do volunteer work like litter picking to receive their full benefit.

It should support people until they have an income from a workplace. People able to work should be in work.

In principal I agree but I feel like this money would be abused. Instead provide this service in the form of food/bill vouchers .

Yes, but offer significant incentives to work ,for those able bodied, and provide opportunities and education programmes to the unemployed.

Only implement if AI takes over a lot of jobs. If it is introduced, tax it on a curve so that the richest receive essentially nothing from it while the poorest receive more.

People should demonstrate a level of contribution to community to be eligible for any Universal Income. This could include charity work and or community work of X hours a week to be eligible.

This would need to be tied to rent control, otherwise it’s just a subsidy to landlords. Better to just have proper rent control etc and actually manage the cost of living.

No, because only the people who need this should get it, and if the situation got so bad that it did they should get it

I support universal basic income going to those who have work and are struggling, or to those who cannot work. Those who can work without a relevant reason such as recent loss of a loved one should not receive universal basic income.

yes, evolving technologies in the AI field are likely to make people require such a programme in the future

Yes, but only as a measure to prevent the mass unemployment, homelessness and societal breakdown likely to occur from the increasing threat of artificial intelligence to human workers

Yes, but only because of the rise of automation and the resulting permanent, mass-unemployment currently predicted.

Yes, but more should be spent on getting teenagers and young adults into jobs that fit their skill set.

No, a programme of direct provision of basic necessities e.g. food and clothing, rather than money would be more effective.

Only for people who cant work and really need it. Not for people who dont want to work. And if they keep having children every year to keep claiming them, then no. Because before you focus on having children loads of children you should be able to look after them, not someone else.

Every job should pay people enough to afford food and housing but tougher jobs like being a soldier in the army should pay a lot so there is a lot of insentive for people to push themselves into big jobs so they can afford more nice treats.

I think it should be offered to households with critically low incomes and people who are unable to work

Yes, as long as such income is contingent upon a citizen being required to work full time unless they are unable to work due to having a disability; having been made redundant and actively involved in job seeking and training; having required community service obligations as part of probationary requirements; having a full time volunteering role in the community; or having reached of standard retirement age

as long as they work while being in the program

Should be case dependant, perhaps a qualification system could be implemented to recieve it.

It probably will be needed in the future, but isn’t needed now.

Not yet. Need to see it rolled out somewhere and working first.

More evidence is required to establish its effectiveness

This is a novel idea, but I'd have to see a properly justified and fully costed case before making any judgment.

Yes, but whilst people are living off of this, they should receive help and assistance to get themselves back on their feet.

It should be designed too help people who are 100% registered disabled and unable or struggle too manage fulltime working hours who are genuinely trying but are treated unfairly and can't save too afford a house or anything due to benefits not allowing savings despite them being 100% registered fully disabled.

Depends on the amount, a little extra for people every month would be helpful but too much could encourage people not to work if their bills are covered by the sum given.

I think this may incentivise people to not work and live off the governments money but I believe that some basic necessities should be provided for to lessen the monetary strain on people

Yes but to an extent that it will only cover basic needs as it should not incentivise people to not work or gain education in order to receive more money. It should be below the minimum wage to ensure that people without jobs can still afford to eat but should not deter people from working and using other people taxes to benefit their own lives

Yes, but if they are in receipt of benefits then they do not receive this. This should be for those working as a top up, not for those who scrounge.

Yes, but it is not compatible with either the cost of housing or the taxation regime in their current guides.

Yeah, provided we get the infrastructure up and running, would take a while to properly implement though

Yes and no - the income should not be high enough to replace work but high earners in the top tax bracket should not receive it.

It is an interesting idea that should be investigated further as to whether is is affordable and what economic and societal effects is has.

Yes, but it should only be offered to those who require the assistance, to which detailed assessments should be done to fully apply

Depends on the results of the UBI trial that is currently taking place in the UK due to conclude in 2025

People could receive a basic income only if they work a minimum amount of hours/days, a slight income increase would apply if they worked more hours/days than the required minimum. If you don't work then you receive the standards benefits which would be lower than the national income. People unable to work due to long term disabilities could still receive the national income.

No- Instead, a guaranteed minimum income that is given to those most needing it, to cover basic costs such as heating, food, and social housing, with benefits increasing with the more you work.

Yes, but not for high earners who don’t need it. Eg. The Scottish minimum guaranteed income structure.

yes people should have enough income to cover basic necessities but they should also be encouraged to contribute to society and maybe do voluntary work. I do think if too much support is given then it does encourage people not to work

It should be job dependant however women and men should be paid the same wage for their line of work however with the different risk levels of jobs the higher risk should receive more pay

Yes. Provided we know if these people are actively looking for long-term work to get of these benefits

Yes for people on lower/mid incomes, but this should not be given to those who earn more, for example over £50,000 (individually; not households)

Yes, provisions should be put in place for when Artificial Intelligence begins to fill certain job areas.

No, instead fund public services, and have free transport, utilities, and education. UBI will only cause landlords to put up rent and increase the cost of living etc.

No, Universal Basic Income is a form of wealth distribution from tax payers to corporations in order to maintain a Capitalistic Growth based economy.

Yes, but those who can work should either volunteer in the community or show they are actively looking for work.

Yes this would solve lots of problems like homelessness and poverty though I think with the amount of debt the country is in tax prices may go up and may harm the country economy

No, but increase benefits, and people should be able to apply for monetary help to meet their basic needs, but it definitely should not be paid to rich people.

Yes but on the condition that beneficiaries provide basic services/work that improve the community they live in to be eligible. Exceptions can be made for long term illness or caring for a terminally ill family member e.t.c

There are too many people out there cheating the system at the expense of hard working tax payers. Unless you are medically unable to work or raising children of a young age you should be doing some kind of work.

You should Never be better off not working , but support should be there for those who need a top up to a basic wage .

Yes for the people who absolutely can’t work or live in less employable areas but not for people who have too many kids or don’t want to work

Yes, but you should be expected to work a certain amount of hours to gain this privilege. Families under limited circumstances, such as single parent households (whether the children are over 18 or not) and etc, should expect an exception due to having other responsibilities.

Yes, to those who financially need it. If you can’t financially provide necessities including food and housing for you or your family then those people should receive income for it.

Yes if you're working you should afford to live.not can't work you should still be able to work. End myth of benefit recipients in luxury!