Universal basic income can be part of a solution but is not a panacea. Some advocate paying everyone in society a flat amount to compensate for the lost Universal basic income (UBI) can be expensive, inefficient compared to most alternatives because it goes to the non-poor, and underplays the value of meaningful work for well-being.(...) Many countries have elements of UBI in place, such as universal child benefits or social pensions, so while it is not a panacea, it can be part of a solution. Consider the issue of costs and efficiency. If UBI was set at 25% of median pay, it would cost about 6.5% of GDP in an average advanced economy and 3.75% of GDP in an average emerging market . Most countries could not afford this additional spend and would have to substitute UBI for existing welfare programmes – so the efficiency of UBI must be compared to that achieved by existing safety nets. (source)