Throughout the history of mankind there have been only a few social problems, the solution of which still remains an unsolved secret. One of these problems has always been and most likely will be the problem of poverty or high income inequality in some countries and social strata, based on an income hierarchy. Many famous politicians, economists and social scientists have taken this problem very seriously and have developed a number of solutions that could eliminate or at least decrease the possibility of devastating consequences of poverty. Perhaps the most ambitious, obvious and, as it may seem at first glance, simple solution to this complicated issue is simply to give people a sum of money sufficient to cover the costs of basic physiological needs and provide financial security, thereby reducing the level of poverty at its lowest. This solution is called Universal Basic Income (UBI) and this idea was first introduced by the famous social philosopher and statesman Sir Thomas More in his well-known book “Utopia”, written in the early 16th century, which describes a society opulent where every member receives a guaranteed income. Nowadays, the universal basic income policy is considered one of the most controversial ways to achieve well-being in a society and is widely debated and discussed in economic forums around the world. Universal basic income is a topic of extreme importance because it can significantly influence everyone's life and therefore this essay will be entirely dedicated to the topic of the effectiveness of this socioeconomic income policy, its advantages and disadvantages, the conclusions drawn from real policy results - life experiments and pilot programs conducted in several countries such as Finland, Canada and many others. We will consider the opinions of the most eminent intellectuals on the past performance of the Universal Basic Income, their future predictions based on in-depth economic analysis and ultimately decide whether it is indeed a solution to the problem of the poverty trap, unemployment and of income inequality in terms of its reduction, leading to the prosperity of the entire society and its members. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay To begin, let's consider the historical empirical evidence regarding economic performance and the effectiveness of basic income. First, let's look at the basic income experiment implemented in Finland in 2017 by the government led by Prime Minister Juha Sipila. Thus, 2,000 unemployed people received 560 euros per month for two years, instead of unemployment benefits. The basic income was paid without any conditions, beneficiaries received the payment despite their employment status. As a purpose of this investigation, the Finnish government wanted to test the impact of this financial incentive on people's desire to start their own business or find a job. The results of the experiment were quite unexpected because, as was correctly pointed out in the BBC News article by Ashitha Nagesh: “Finland's basic income trial has left people 'happier but jobless'”. This means that the recipients of the basic income did not work any less or more during the experiment than those who were part of the control group. However, from the survey it was observed that the recipients experienced greater well-being than the control group, were happier with their lives and less stressed. Furthermore, it was studied that basic income beneficiaries had more trust in other people and social institutions, they also had moreconfidence in their work opportunities and to make an impact. Actually it is clear that the experiment provided unique research materials for the development of the social security model for the future, but the controversial results of one experiment show that those negative expectations of an exodus from the labor market did not come true but , at the same time, Unfortunatelyfor supporters of the basic income policy, not even the most optimistic expectations of scientists that the unemployed will try to find work and start a new business. Second, consider the Ontario Basic Income Project, where in 2017 4,000 people living in Ontario, Canada each received $5,000 to $23,000 per year in monthly payments depending on their social status and position in the hierarchy of income. Contrary to the experiment conducted in Finland, in this case this sum of money was not only allocated to the unemployed but also to the employed (around 70% of the statistical sample of people). However, the results were still quite disappointing, there was no big difference in the employment situation between the experiment participants and a selected comparison group, whose members did not receive the basic income at all. Furthermore, government authorities decided to cancel the project early due to dissatisfaction with the preliminary results of the experiment and its high costs. As former Ontario premier Kathleen Wynne said at the Hamilton economic forum in 2017: “We want to find out whether a basic income makes a positive difference in people's lives.” Again, the aid was expected to last at least three years, however, less than a year later a new provincial government took power and announced that it would cancel the program and instead promise to reform social assistance at the provincial level. As Lisa MacLeod, Minister of Children, Community and Social Services, quoted: “We're hitting the pause button on a patchwork of programs that weren't doing what they were supposed to do, which is support Ontario's most vulnerable.” The effects of the basic income on the lives of people in Ontario were very similar to the effects of the experiment conducted in Finland, meaning that people felt more psychologically inspired but did not actually work harder in terms of working hours . However, the data gives researchers something to analyze and work with. To summarize the arguments listed above, one could conclude that, based on these unfortunately non-random statistical samples, the purpose of the experiment is to address unemployment, encourage the unemployed to take jobs instead of getting unemployment benefits or to encourage workers to develop their financial position has not effectively been achieved. UBI is still a way to reform the social security system, but its potential needs to be explored and improved in terms not just of confidence or some other psychological improvement, but rather of a better response to changes in working life, of use of UBI in business decision making. Now let's focus on the more theoretical and behavioral side of this social policy. Indeed, basic income is considered a great opportunity to take a step forward, a leap point, but what if people's mentality does not change, they do not use money wisely, as demonstrated by experiments in several countries? As it correctly concluded, after one experiment most of the participants were left in the same place with the same problems, even if they became less stressed, this did not help them become more capable of going and doing things.