The Department of Social Protection launched a Public Consultation on Potential New Working Age and Targeted Child Payments in May 2026. This is the text of Basic Income Ireland’s submission.
1. Introduction
This submission is on behalf of Basic Income Ireland, an Irish advocacy group.
Basic Income Ireland endorses the central aims of the proposals for a Targeted Child Payment (TCP) and Working Age Payment (WAP). These are stated in the consultation document as
- providing support for more families
- providing more consistent support across different families
- increasing take-up of support
- ensuring that work pays
- reducing inconsistencies in the treatment of employed and unemployed people
- simplifying the choices for recipients
We also endorse some of the central strategies of the proposals. Specifically we endorse:
- linking changes to support for children with changes to support for adults
- making the net benefit of payments depend on income rather than days worked
- integrating the support system with Revenue data to allow for real-time changes in the net benefit of payments
- paying attention to diverse circumstances so that no lower-income households are worse off as a result of the change
Our view, however, is that these aims and strategies could be more completely and effectively pursued by means of a system of Universal, Unconditional Basic Income (UBI).
UBI would involve making a regular, individual, direct payment to every individual resident of Ireland (or, in the case of children, to their parents or guardians) with the level of payment varying only by age. UBI targets payments to lower-income households by means of the tax system rather than means-testing.
In the rest of this submission, we follow the Discussion Paper by using as a baseline the current maximum level of social welfare payments, namely
- Child Benefit of approximately €32 per week
- Child Support Payment of €58 per week for children under 12 and €78 per week for older children
- Jobseeker’s Allowance of €254 per week
We use the term ‘market income’ to refer to an individual’s income from employment, self-employment and investments.
For the sake of a clear exposition, we deal first with WAP and then with TCP.
2. UBI contrasted with WAP
In this comparison, we rely on our paper A Model of Basic Income for Ireland, available at https://basicincome.ie/quinn-baker-paper-november-2023/. Other models are possible.
Under a UBI scheme, every adult aged 18 to 66 would be entitled to a weekly payment of €254 per week.
Targeting
The net benefits of payments would be targeted to lower-income households by means of a charge on market incomes that we have called the Universal Basic Income Contribution (UBIC). In our model, UBIC applies at different rates to different bands of income, and has the effect that an individual with a market income of about seven times the basic income payment will have paid back the equivalent of that payment. Other models with the same objective could be constructed. This is just one model that we have developed in detail.
Take-up
Unlike WAP, UBI would operate in a way that ensures virtually universal take-up, because every habitual resident of Ireland would receive it. Although the Discussion Paper identifies lack of take-up as a serious problem in relation to child supports, it does not acknowledge that there is also a problem of take-up for adult supports. By making WAP a payment that individuals would have to apply for, it fails to address take-up adequately.
Dynamic Adjustment
Both WAP and UBI are structured in a way that the net benefit paid to employed people would immediately respond to changes in their incomes. But it appears that in a WAP system, this would operate in a more cumbersome, less efficient way, because real-time data from Revenue would have to be linked to the Social Protection payment system to adjust payment levels. By contrast, UBI would involve a constant payment to employees while their take-home pay would be adjusted directly by Revenue. In our model, employees would receive this payment as part of their normal payroll experience.
Self-employment
The Discussion Paper identifies several difficult issues that arise in relation to self-employed people, including the variability and uncertainty of their income. The paper does not provide any clear solution to these problems, merely noting the possibility of ‘taking the average of income over a longer period’ (than what?). This is a major weakness of the proposal. By contrast, in a UBI system, self-employed people would all receive their basic income payments on a regular basis. Higher income families would pay UBIC at a level that effectively recouped their payments, which they would budget for in the same way as self-employed people currently manage their tax liabilities.
Individualisation
Unlike WAP, UBI is an individualised payment, which is consistent with the general shift to individualisation that has already occurred in the tax system. The household-based assessment set out in the Discussion Paper fails to recognise that each individual in the household has their own needs and ambitions, that not all households are fair in the way they share their incomes, that administrative determinations of cohabitation are intrusive and unreliable, and that household compositions are always changing. We therefore strongly support UBI as a system of individual entitlement. Household-based assessment is a relic of the breadwinner model of family relationships.
3. UBI contrasted with TCP
Under a UBI scheme, every child under 12 would be entitled to a weekly payment of approximately €90 per week and every child over 12 to a payment of approximately €110. These payments would be made to their parents or guardians.
Targeting
The net benefit of these payments could be targeted to lower-income parents/guardians by means of a charge on market incomes above a certain threshold, similar to UBIC. Although Basic Income Ireland has produced a detailed model of basic income for adults, we have not yet modelled basic income for children in detail. One possible model would be to apply this charge to each parent or guardian on a band of their taxable income. The size of the band and the rate of charge would be set so that a parent with an income at the top of the band would have paid back the equivalent of one half of the current Child Support Payment, leaving the current level of Child Benefit unaffected. The width of the band would depend on the number of children receiving basic income. A charge so structured would recognise the individual contribution of each adult in two-adult households and would benefit one-parent families. But we emphasise that this is just one broad model that could be explored.
Take-up
Unlike TCP, UBI would operate in a way that ensures virtually universal take-up, because all families now receiving Child Benefit would receive basic income for their children. The Discussion Paper identifies lack of take-up as a serious problem, but by making TCP a payment that parents would have to apply for, it fails to address take-up adequately.
Dynamic Adjustment
Both TCP and UBI are structured in a way that the net benefit paid to employed parents and guardians would immediately respond to changes in their incomes. But it appears that in a TCP system, this would operate in a more cumbersome, less efficient way, because real-time data from Revenue would have to be linked to the Social Protection payment system to adjust payment levels. By contrast, UBI would involve a constant payment to all parents/guardians while their take-home pay would be adjusted directly by Revenue.
Self-employment
The Discussion Paper notes in relation to WAP, but not in relation to TCP, that difficult issues arise in relation to self-employed people. The paper does not discuss how the means of families relying on self-employment income – one of the groups currently excluded from Working Family Payment – could be effectively assessed for TCP. This is a major weakness of the proposal. By contrast, in a UBI system these families would all receive their children’s basic income on a regular basis. Higher income families would pay a charge that effectively recouped these payments, which they would budget for in the same way as self-employed people currently manage their tax liabilities.
Individualisation
Like TCP, UBI would result in the net benefits of child support for people with low incomes being greater than those with high incomes. If the charge were structured in the way outlined above, this would operate on an individual basis, so that individuals with high incomes would receive no net benefits beyond the current rate of Child Benefit. It would operate consistently across different individuals. Unlike TCP, it would distinguish between the incomes of adults in the same household and recognise the role that each of them has in supporting their children. This would be consistent with the general shift to individualisation that has already occurred in the tax system.
To reiterate the points made earlier, the household-based assessment set out in the Discussion Paper fails to recognise that each individual in the household has their own needs and ambitions, that not all households are fair in the way they share their incomes, that administrative determinations of cohabitation are intrusive and unreliable, and that household compositions are always changing. Household-based assessment is a relic of the breadwinner model of family relationships.
4. Additional Considerations
Lone Parents
The Discussion Paper notes the challenges faced by lone parents and the mechanisms by which the current system has responded to these. We acknowledge that a UBI system could need to adopt mechanisms with a similar intent. One simple mechanism would be to pay a top-up payment to lone parents in addition to their basic income. If thought necessary, this top-up payment could be targeted by means of a surcharge similar to that suggested in relation to children’s basic income.
Additional Supports
The Discussion Paper notes that the current system attaches certain additional supports to some transfer payments. We acknowledge that a UBI system would need to address these benefits to ensure that no lower-income households were worse off than at present.
General Caveat
We do not pretend to have all the answers to the complex issues addressed by social protection systems. Our model is not a blueprint but is intended to show the general structure of a basic income system. What we are confident of is that a UBI system is a better basis for dealing with issues of poverty and inequality than the more traditional proposals outlined in the Discussion Paper.
4. Conclusion
As the Discussion Paper notes, the current system of support for children and adults is based on obsolete assumptions and needs an overhaul. However, the proposals discussed are too modest in their ambition and fail to meet the challenges of contemporary society. These challenges call for the introduction of a Universal, Unconditional Basic Income.
Basic Income Ireland would welcome the opportunity to participate in any further discussion of these issues.