Question

The politicians believe that an automated future can generate enough taxes to provide a guaranteed income for all citizens. In fact, in 2017 Finland began an experiment in universal basic income where all 2000 participants receive $600 per month regardless of income, wealth and employment status.

Question 1: Using either the categorical imperative or utilitarianism, is universal basic income ethical? If so, is it appropriate? Why or why not?

Question 2: What other solutions can be developed to address the negative consequences of automation? Please elaborate?

Answer 1

ANSWER 1. As per fact from the country Finland , they follow the concept universal basic income in 2017, in order to reduce inequalities of income and wealth between public in the country . This concept applied on 2000 partcipants. It is designed policy for the poors. From the point of view, poverty , unemplyment, seems to be good. And also follow the concept of equality. But , from the tax payer , point of view it not seems good. As, they work hard , and earn money but if government distributes equal amount among the people, which shows dissatisfaction among some part of society. It was funded by private contribution. Discouraging low wages .  

ANSWER 2. This automation create various types of confusion among the people and also discourage the people who are hardworker so it is suggested that 'pay as you earn' concept.It lose the motivation to the workerwhich result to million of workers to stop working and also cost of implimenting universal basic income is estimated to be high. It also crreate inequaties among the public .