The unemployment benefit has been around in its current form for more than seventy years.
It has changed over the decades. The current system currently designed to last the next forty years, which roles both housing and unemployment as one monthly payment. How ever with its initial design, it is designed on a case by case basis, and is expected that claimants follow the set rules, now these rules are static.
The wider problem with this system or even the one prior to this, is the system is setup for the skills based job seeker, as well to some extent for those with money.
The system wasnít designed for any claimant to exist or live on it for years, the advantage to this system, is with the ongoing changes in the wider employment sector, the UK government is half way there with this concept for introducing a payment to a proportion of the population who will find themselves unable to re-skill by the ever needing increase in skills of a society that is using more technology to increase production.
Housing benefit covers millions of UK residentís rent, a more recent benefit available since the late 70ís, it is designed solely for those on low page incomes.
Any Universal system will need to adapt to the price of rents. And since housing benefit is only claimed by those on a very low income, this particular provision would probably need to be allocated for rent.
The universal basic income is not a new idea. It dates back to the founding of the US, Thomas Paine proposed the idea, but never took off.
The question now is, what will happen to those on the low social economic side of the economy. How will future employees earn their money, if the jobs of today are being removed. As the machines began to do this fifty years ago in the western countries of the UK, Germany and the US.
Income inequality, how will those poorest in society pay their rents, bills, live a dignified life. So few people seem to understand, that the get a new skill or set of skills isnít viable for a group of society.
The have nots, those who have a diminished voice in society due to their academic ability not on par with those who can earn a middle class wage or much higher.
A universal income of say $1,307, or £1,000 a month could be given at first to small percentage of a population, study, and tried to see what well being and life chances, and choices are made by individuals. Most of this will be a supplement to existing incomes, or savings.
†It could then be implemented to a more nationwide. In the United States, this concept isnít new, but would face controversy due to the fact that the society doesnít have a welfare system unlike across the Atlantic some countries do have some provisions.
While supporters of a universal system express the advantages of this system, such as saving money, having money to give to others, than if only being employed with one source of income. As well, giving the opportunity to do other types of activities, such as creative pursuits.
Even the possibility to avoid protests in the future especially during an election campaign, for those who's employment has been removed due to mechanization, and automated systems.
While opponents of this concept have expressed negative examples of what this could bring about, people will less likely to want to be employed. A society of dependence, bad habits, drug usage, mental health problems as a result of not having a routine.
In the United Kingdom.
An idea of how a universal system could work, to examine a more better example. The welfare system there has had multiple benefits for years, decades. The welfare system has had unemployment benefit, as well as a provision called housing benefit.