全民基本收入方案利弊談

Last week, I pondered how society should protect or compensate people whose jobs have been lost to the forces of globalisation or technological change. I did not, however, discuss the most obvious idea of all: that we should simply give people money — a basic income for everyone, regardless of what they do or what they need. It’s the ultimate social safety net.

不久前，我思考了社會應該如何保護或者補償因爲全球化或者技術變革的影響而失去工作的人。然而，我沒有討論一個最顯而易見的想法：我們應該直接給他們錢——爲每個人提供基本收入，無論他們是做什麼的，或者他們需要什麼。這是終極的社會安全網。

For an idea that is so far from mainstream political practice, the payment of a basic income has had astonishingly broad support, from Martin Luther King Jr to Milton Friedman. It’s on the lips of the policy wonk community too: the Freakonomicspodcast recently devoted an episode to the case for a universal basic income. The Royal Society for Arts, a venerable British think-tank, has published a report enthusiastically supporting the idea. Dutch journalist Rutger Bregman is just as keen, as outlined in his recent, eloquent book Utopia for Realists.

提供基本收入的想法雖然遠遠偏離主流政治實踐，但從馬丁•路德•金(Martin Luther King Jr)到米爾頓•弗裏德曼(Milton Friedman)，這個想法獲得了驚人廣泛的支持。政治學究們也對這個想法進行了討論：魔鬼經濟學(Freakonomics)播客不久前的一集就專門討論了應不應該提供普遍基本收入。受到業界敬重的英國智庫——英國皇家藝術學會(Royal Society of Arts)發表了一份報告，熱情洋溢地支持了這個想法。荷蘭記者呂特赫斯•佈雷格曼(Rutger Bregman)也同樣熱衷於這個想法——他在論述有力的近作《現實主義者的烏托邦》(Utopia for Realists)中，對這個想法進行了概述。

Policy experiments are also on the way. The charity GiveDirectly has just announced plans to run a randomised trial in which 6,000 Kenyans will receive a basic income for more than a decade. Various Silicon Valley types — with one eye on the looming Robot Job Apocalypse — are making serious-sounding noises about running experiments too. Pilots are planned in Canada and Finland, and the Swiss have a referendum on the topic in June.

政策實驗也即將進行。慈善機構GiveDirectly最近宣佈了實施一項隨機試驗的計劃。在該實驗中，6000名肯尼亞人將在逾10年的時間裏始終獲得基本收入。多家關注着即將到來的“機器人工作末世”的硅谷典型公司，正在嚴肅地聲稱要進行一些實驗。加拿大和芬蘭規劃了試點計劃，而瑞士則將在6月就這個問題進行全民公投。

Could a basic income really work? The answer is yes. But the plan may be more painful than some of its advocates are willing to admit.

基本收入真的有可能起作用嗎？答案是肯定的。但該計劃帶來的痛苦可能會比一些支持者願意承認的要多。

First, let’s establish what we’re talking about. A universal basic income is a cash payment from the state, paid to everyone unconditionally. For the sake of being concrete, let’s call it ￡10 a day. That seems like a lot of money to be giving to absolutely everyone, but it’s within the bounds of reason. Such a payment would cost ￡234bn a year across 64 million UK residents, so it could be largely paid for by scrapping all social security spending, which is ￡217bn.

首先，讓我們界定一下我們所討論的事情。全民基本收入是國家無條件對每個人進行的現金支付。爲了切合實際，我們就以每天10英鎊計算。因爲真正人人有份，所以這似乎是很大一筆錢，但總的金額尚在合理範圍內。對6400萬英國居民進行這樣的支付每年將花費2340億英鎊，基本上可以通過取消所有社保支出（每年2170億英鎊）來負擔。

There are lots of other proposals that one might call a basic income. Leftwing advocates might want far more than ￡10 a day but that would require a huge expansion of the state, with much higher taxes. The more libertarian proponents of the idea might also approve of a higher basic income, in exchange for a rolling back of state-provided services. Privatising the entire health and education system in the UK would free up ￡240bn, easily enough to double the basic income to ￡20 a day for every man, woman and child. But that money would need to cover school fees and medical bills.

有很多或許可以稱爲基本收入的其他提案。左翼的基本收入支持者可能希望基本收入的金額遠超每天10英鎊，但這就需要政府進行大規模擴張，稅金也要高得多。偏自由主義的基本收入支持者可能也會認可更高的金額，以換取減少由國家提供的服務。將英國的整個健康和教育體系私有化能夠解放2400億英鎊的資金，能夠輕鬆地將每個男人、女人和孩子的基本收入提高一倍至每天20英鎊。但人們還需要用這筆錢來支付學費和醫療費。

All this is within the bounds of affordability. But is it desirable? Here are two big question marks over the idea.

這些都在可承受範圍內。但這樣做是否可取？以下是對這個想法打出的兩個大大的問號。

The first is whether people would simply stop working. Several large experiments conducted in the US and Canada in the late 1970s and early 1980s suggest that a minimum income would encourage people to reduce their hours a little. If such slacking-off undermined the tax base, the entire project could become both economically and politically unsustainable.

首先是，人們是否會乾脆不再工作。上世紀70年代末和80年代初在美國和加拿大進行的幾項大規模社會實驗表明，最低收入會鼓勵人們略微減少工作時間。如果這種懈怠削弱稅基，整個計劃在經濟和政治上都可能變得不可持續。

But the tax base is probably safe enough, because the people who might be tempted to quit work and live on ￡10 a day are not the people whose taxes pay for most state spending. In the UK, the richest 15 per cent of taxpayers — people who pay at least some tax at the 40 per cent rate — supply about two-thirds of income tax revenue. Few of these people are likely to find the basic income a tempting inducement to leave the labour force.

但稅基很可能相當安全，因爲那些有可能想要辭去工作、依靠每天10美元的基本收入過活的人，並非爲政府支出提供最多稅金的人。在英國，大約三分之二的所得稅收入來自於最富有的15%的納稅人，他們至少按照40%的稅率繳納了一部分稅。這些人中，幾乎沒有人可能會認爲基本收入是促使他們辭去工作的誘人因素。

In some cases, we might celebrate a decision to stop work. Some people volunteer; others care for children or relatives; some might use the income to fund themselves as they stay in education or retrain. Some, alas, might use the money to stay alive as they write poetry.

在某些情況下，我們可能會稱讚辭職的決定。一些人投身志願工作；其他人照顧孩子或親人；一些人可能會利用這筆收入資助自己繼續學業或者投入再培訓。還有一些人（唉），可能會用這筆錢養活自己，同時繼續寫詩。

The second objection is more worrying: if the welfare state is to be replaced by a basic income, it will provide far too little for some. A tenner a day is less than half the new UK state pension, so it’s hard to imagine pensioners embracing the idea with much gusto.

第二個反對理由更令人擔憂：如果基本收入取代了福利國家，它給一些人提供的就太少了。每天10英鎊還不到新體制下英國養老金的一半，因此很難想象領養老金的人會樂於接受這個想法。

On the other hand, if the basic income is to be supplemented by a raft of special cases — people with disabilities, people with expensive rent, people who are elderly — then it may become as complex as the tangle of benefit entitlements it aims to replace, or hugely expensive, or both.

另一方面，如果要用大量的特例處理來補充基本收入——殘障人士、繳納高昂房租的人士、老年人——那麼這個體系可能會變得和它想要取代的這個錯綜複雜的福利體系一樣複雜，或者成本高昂，或者兩者兼而有之。

Andrew Hood of the Institute for Fiscal Studies says that compared with current welfare benefits, a basic income would “either be a lot less generous or a lot more expensive”. Take your pick.

英國財政研究所(Institute for Fiscal Studies)的安德魯•胡德(Andrew Hood)表示，和當前的福利相比，基本收入“或者吝嗇得多，或者昂貴得多”。請自行挑選吧。

In the end, the idea appeals to three types of people: those who are comfortable with a dramatic increase in the size of the state, those who are willing to see needy people lose large sums relative to the status quo, and those who can’t add up.

最終，這個想法會吸引三類人：那些願意看到政府規模大規模擴張的人；那些願意看到窮人和現狀相比失去一大筆錢的人；和那些算不好數的人。

A basic income makes perfect sense once we arrive at an economy where millions work for low wages while automation produces a bountiful economy all around them. The debate turns on whether that world has already arrived.

如果我們的經濟發展到了這樣一個階段——無數人幹着低薪工作，自動化爲他們提供了一個全方位的富足經濟，基本收入就非常合情合理了。那麼辯論的重點，就轉爲世界是否已經達到了這個階段了。