The idea of a universal basic income has long achieved the rare feat of seducing both the political left and the libertarian right. The redistribution involved in paying everyone an income without any conditions appeals to socialists, while the free-market right likes the absence of bureaucracy inherent in the policy. More recently, it has gained another support base among tech bros, who see it as the future in an idealised robotised world where there is no place for work.

To date, however, boring mainstream economists have persuaded governments not to introduce a universal basic income at any scale by appealing to maths over ideals. When you run the numbers, either the level of basic income is pathetically low or the tax rates needed to fund a reasonable income would be unacceptable. Neither of these outcomes, nor a blend, is desirable.

Before the pandemic, a comprehensive OECD study found that it would always “require very substantial tax rises if it were to be set at a meaningful level”. In the US, for example, the suggested $1,000 monthly payment for all 258mn adults would cost more than $3tn a year. That is roughly equivalent to the combined cost of US social security, Medicaid and Medicare, yet it would provide an income too low to prevent poverty.