# FILE NAME: 00000851.soc
# TITLE: Should we pay everyone a basic income of GBP 400/month? [aa2cdc85fc522bac9e2109d828c3e564]
# DESCRIPTION: 
# DATA TYPE: soc
# MODIFICATION TYPE: original
# RELATES TO: 
# RELATED FILES: 
# PUBLICATION DATE: 2025-10-12
# MODIFICATION DATE: 2025-10-12
# NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4
# NUMBER VOTERS: 5
# NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4
# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - A universal basic income of £400 per month would be a good idea, but only if the amount was enough to cover the essential needs of food and shelter. If the amount was too small, it would not have the desired effect of helping people to live more comfortably, and may even have a negative effect on the economy. If the amount was too large, it could discourage people from working, as they would be able to survive without working. This would also have a negative effect on the economy. If the amount was just right, it could help to increase the economy, as people would be able to take more risks and start new businesses, knowing that they would have a basic income to fall back on. It could also help to reduce the gap between the poorest and the wealthiest, as everyone would be able to have the basic essentials of life, and then work more to get more luxuries.
# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In principle, the idea of a universal basic income is a good one, however in practice there are some issues that need to be addressed. The first is that the amount of the basic income is not enough to live on. If people are unable to work for legitimate reasons, such as illness or disability, they will not be able to survive on the amount. The second is that the amount may be too high for people who are able to work, and may disincentivise them from seeking employment. We believe that this issue can be addressed by making the amount of the basic income dependent on the level of disability of the recipient. A person who is unable to work due to illness or disability would receive a higher amount than a person who is able to work but chooses not to. The third issue is that the amount of the basic income is not enough to cover the cost of housing. We believe that this issue can be addressed by making the amount of the basic income dependent on the cost of housing in the area. This would ensure that people in expensive areas would receive a higher amount than people in cheaper areas.
# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We believe that a universal basic income is a good idea in principle. It would allow people to have the freedom to make choices that they otherwise might not be able to make, due to a lack of financial security. It would also reduce the gap between the rich and poor, and reduce the risk of poverty for those who are unable to work for legitimate reasons. However, we also believe that it would be unfair to give the same amount to everyone, as it would mean that those who are already wealthy would be getting money that they don't need. We would prefer a model where everyone is given a basic income, but those who are wealthy would receive less. However, it would be very difficult to define what "wealthy" means, as it is a very subjective term. We would also be concerned that it would make people lazy, and less likely to work, as they would know that they would be receiving a basic income regardless of whether they work or not. We believe that this is a risk, but it would be worth trying out in a controlled manner, in order to see what the effect is on society.
# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - A universal basic income would be a good idea, as it would help people who are struggling to make ends meet. However, the amount should be calculated to ensure that it is enough to cover people's basic needs and also ensure that it is not so high that it is a disincentive to work. The group also agreed that it should be taxable, as this would be a fairer way of ensuring that the wealthiest in society contributed more to the economy, and also help reduce the gap between the richest and the poorest.
2: 3,1,2,4
1: 3,2,1,4
1: 1,4,3,2
1: 2,1,3,4