“The basic income should replace all specific benefits.” Discuss.

In opening, it would be worthwhile to establish a general parameter when we consider the concept of ‘specific benefits.’ Should this simply entail the discretionary employee benefits offered by companies and corporations? Or, should we also consider public benefits provided by states and governments?
Due to the vagueness of this topic, I will loosely consider them both, but with particular emphasis on one or the other, depending on the direction that I find whilst following my thoughts through writing.

To start, I will course my mind towards ‘the basic income should replace all specific benefits’…. With consideration to companies and corporations.
Again, this really comes down to a matter of perspective. From the standpoint of a corporation, there are a great many attractions to offering specific discretionary employee benefits, primarily, it can reduce the short-term (month-to-month, and year-to-year) cash outflow obligations. Employees can be an easily manipulated bunch of people, and often find great satisfaction in the non-cash benefits afforded to them from their employers, such as company gym and spa memberships, health and dental plans, stock options, you know, all of those easily discounted services that are available to corporations that enjoy negotiating authority and can provide these services at a discount on the dollar. It can be far cheaper in the long-term to provide an additional ‘x’,000$ worth of benefits to a large number of employees than paying that same valued sum in cold hard cash.. There aren’t many discounts available to corporations when it comes to increasing an employees pay cheque..

This all draws my mind to the school of thought that ‘cash is king.’ I would personally find it far more attractive to receive pound sterling, or its equivalents in luau of any ‘special benefits’ (short of exploitative powers), as cash empowers an individual to make their own decisions, and seek out items or services most specific to their needs and desires, the ‘special benefits’ being offered by an employer might not be your first, second, or three-hundredth choice as a purchase, if you were paying for it with your own money, and yet that is exactly what you will find yourself doing- paying for it in place of an increased basic salary.
However, as I never intend to remain under the employ of any individual for more time than it takes for me to learn the ways of their world, I seldom care for the perspective of the employee, it being impossible to self-identify.
Instead, I find myself most motivated by the notion that I can buy ‘special benefits’ at a discount on the dollar, and package it to an employee as a philanthropically inclined benefit towards becoming and remaining under my vassalage and furthering my personal fortune.

If the intention of the topic was instead to be considered with regards to state and government-provided benefits, the argument could be something as mundane as.. ‘providing a higher basic income could result in a reduced demand for benefits.’

-Seth Wilkinson