The Netherlands May Become the First Country With a Universal Basic Income
The Hague - The strong performance of the Dutch political party Democrats 66 (D66) in the general election on October 29, 2025, where they tied for the most seats, has ignited a conversation about the evolution of political ideologies. Running on an explicitly social liberal platform, D66’s success, which included a proposal for an “individual basic amount” a Universal Basic Income (UBI) by another name, has led many to observe a notable shift in how such policies are framed – from being decried as “Socialist” just a few years ago to now being considered “pragmatic centrism.”
In the recent election, D66, led by Rob Jetten, secured 26 seats in the 150-seat House of Representatives, a significant gain that positioned them as a major force in the next coalition negotiations. Their campaign was characterized by a positive and forward-looking message, with analysts noting that voters were drawn to their “stable, centrist coalition” appeal.
A key plank of their platform was the introduction of an “individual basic amount,” a policy aimed at simplifying the current complex benefits system. This proposal is a form of UBI, an idea that has been debated in the Netherlands for decades. The proposal is essentially a fully refundable tax credit with monthly payments, similar to America’s enhanced child tax credit in 2021, but for all adults instead of most kids.
For those who may argue this doesn’t count as UBI, here’s what Philippe van Parijs—Belgian economist and ‘Godfather of UBI’—has said before about such a design:
“Sometimes we must realize that the best way to reach a basic income is to present it as a refundable tax credit rather than as a paycheck. As simply reducing the taxation of the rich and poor alike, with a cash transfer to those whose tax liability is less than the credit.”
Historically, the concept of a basic income has seen support from various corners of the Dutch political landscape. As far back as the 1990s, figures within D66 publicly favored the idea. The GreenLeft party (GroenLinks) has also previously endorsed a form of negative income tax with the long-term goal of a basic income. However, mainstream parties, including the Labour Party (PvdA) and the conservative VVD, have historically been more hesitant or outright opposed, often raising concerns about the work ethic and the underlying principles of the existing social security system.
The recent success of D66’s proposal has prompted reflection on a potential shift in the political discourse. While direct evidence of the term “Socialist” being widely applied to UBI in the Dutch context in the recent past is nuanced, similar proposals for significant state intervention in the economy and social welfare have often been met with criticism from the right, framing them as fiscally irresponsible and leaning towards socialism. The Party for the Animals (PvdD), which also supports a UBI, has been described as socialist.
Analysts suggest several factors may contribute to this apparent rebranding of UBI-like policies. The framing of D66’s “individual basic amount” as a simplification of bureaucracy and a move towards a more efficient and less paternalistic state may resonate with centrist voters as an echo of Milton Friedman. Furthermore, the ongoing global conversation about the future of work, automation, and economic inequality has brought UBI into the mainstream as a potential pragmatic solution to these challenges.
The success of D66’s explicitly social liberal platform, including a policy that might have once been dismissed as a fringe idea, highlights the dynamic nature of political labels and the potential for ideas to move from the margins to the center of public debate. As coalition talks get underway, the extent to which D66’s “pragmatic centrism” will shape the future of Dutch policy remains to be seen.
D66’s “Individual Basic Amount”: A Closer Look at the Proposal
The social-liberal party D66 centered its successful 2025 election campaign on a significant overhaul of the Dutch social security system, introducing a proposal for an “individual basic amount” for every adult citizen. This plan, a cornerstone of their manifesto, aims to replace the current complex web of benefits and allowances with a single, more direct form of income support.
Core Principles of the Proposal:
The fundamental idea behind the “individual basic amount” is to provide a foundational income floor for all adults in the Netherlands. This would function in two primary ways:
For those with sufficient income: It would act as a tax credit, reducing their overall tax burden.
For those with little to no income: It would be disbursed as a direct cash payment.
This system is designed to simplify the current labyrinthine benefits system, which D66 argues is overly bureaucratic and often difficult for citizens to navigate. The party’s manifesto explicitly states the goal is to move towards a system that offers more financial security and simplicity.
Phasing Out Existing Benefits:
A key component of the proposal is the gradual elimination of several existing allowances. The health and childcare allowances are specifically targeted to be eventually scrapped and integrated into the new “individual basic amount.” This consolidation is intended to streamline support and reduce the administrative overhead associated with the current multi-benefit system.
Funding the Transition:
D66 plans to finance their ambitious overhaul through a broader restructuring of the tax system. One of the primary funding mechanisms outlined is the phasing out of the existing mortgage interest tax relief. Additionally, the party has proposed increasing taxes on wealth and introducing a “millionaire’s tax” to generate further revenue. This approach signals a shift in the tax burden, aiming to create a more progressive system to support the basic income.
A similar implementation approach in the United States could be achieved by simply replacing the standard deduction—where a ~$16,000 deduction is applied to earnings and the remainder taxed—with a standard credit where a ~$3,600 credit is applied to taxes owed on earnings, where negative credit would be paid monthly of up to $300 a month in a deficit-neutral way without any need to raise tax bracket rates. Adding Elizabeth Warren’s wealth tax proposal could then bump that amount to ~$400/mo.
Unspecified Amount:
While D66 has detailed the framework and funding intentions for the “individual basic amount,” the party’s election manifesto and related documents do not specify a precise monetary figure for this proposed income. The plan is presented as a foundational step that will be further developed and increased over time.
The proposal is part of a broader vision for a “new, smart economy” and a society that provides a stronger safety net for its citizens. The success of D66 in the election indicates a significant portion of the electorate is receptive to this vision of a simplified and more direct form of social security.
While D66’s 2025 victory platform featured a full “individual basic amount,” the evidence base they likely used to sell it came from a series of major municipal experiments conducted in the Netherlands roughly between 2017 and 2020.
It is important to clarify that these were not “true” Universal Basic Income experiments (as they were not universal), but rather experiments with the existing social assistance laws. They were often referred to locally as “trust experiments” or by specific names like Utrecht’s Weten wat werkt (”Know what works”).
Here are the details on how they were designed and what they found:
The Design: Testing “Trust” vs. “Punishment”
The experiments were born out of frustration with the strict 2015 “Participation Act” (Participatiewet), which forced welfare recipients to apply for a high quota of jobs, accept any work offered, and face stiff financial sanctions for non-compliance.
Six major municipalities—Utrecht, Groningen, Tilburg, Wageningen, Nijmegen, and Deventer—got permission from the national government to deviate from these strict rules for a set period to see what would happen if they treated recipients differently.
Most of these cities used Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs), dividing welfare recipients into different “treatment” groups:
The Control Group: Kept under the standard, strict regime with mandatory job applications and sanctions.
The “Exemption” Group (Trust-based): Completely freed from the obligation to apply for jobs or attend reintegration courses. They would continue to receive their benefits regardless of their efforts to find work.
The “Intensive Support” Group: Received extra, tailor-made guidance and personal attention from caseworkers, rather than standard bureaucratic processing.
The “Earnings Release” Group: Allowed to keep a larger portion of any income they earned from part-time work on top of their benefits (aimed at fixing the “poverty trap,” where earning money usually resulted in an immediate 1-to-1 loss of benefits).
The Results
The findings, published in 2020, were nuanced but provided powerful ammunition for parties like D66 advocating for a shift away from strict conditionality, and were also quite similar to the results from Spain’s B-MINCOME experiment.
1. Employment Effects were Neutral (which was good news)
The most critical finding for proponents was that people did not stop working. Critics had feared that removing the obligation to apply for jobs would make people “lazy.” The experiments proved this wrong. The groups that were exempt from strict rules found paid work at roughly the same rate as the group that was forced to apply for jobs under threat of sanctions.
2. Significant Boost in Well-being
While employment didn’t skyrocket, almost every other metric did for the “trust” groups. Participants reported:
Better health: Less stress and fewer mental health issues.
Increased trust: A much higher degree of trust in the government and social institutions.
Social participation: Many used their newfound freedom to do volunteer work or provide informal care, which they hadn’t had the energy or time for when forced to constantly apply for jobs they weren’t going to get.
3. Part-time Work Increased
In some cities, specifically the groups allowed to keep more of their outside earnings, there was a noticeable increase in part-time employment. This is an identical finding to the labor impacts of Alaska’s small annual UBI and suggests that financial incentives (the “carrot”) works better than sanctions (the “stick”).
Conclusion used for the 2025 Platform
The key takeaway D66 likely leveraged for their successful 2025 campaign was that the expensive, bureaucratic apparatus of monitoring and punishing people was effectively useless at getting them into work, but very effective at making them miserable.
By pointing to these results, they could argue that their proposed “individual basic amount” was not radical “socialism,” but scientifically-backed “pragmatism”—a way to achieve the same economic outcomes while vastly improving public health and reducing government bureaucracy.
Composed with Gemini 2.5 Pro in thinking mode and grounded by Google Search following my directions and system instructions; I performed human oversight, sourcing, and editing.
If you support my UBI work, please share this post and click the subscribe button. Also consider making a monthly pledge in support of my work to have your name appear below.
Special thanks to my supporters: Gisele Huff, Haroon Mokhtarzada, Steven Grimm, Bob Weishaar, Judith Bliss, Lowell Aronoff, Jessica Chew, Tricia Garrett, Katie Moussouris, A.W.R., Daryl Smith, Larry Cohen, John Steinberger, Philip Rosedale, Liya Brook, Frederick Weber, Dylan Hirsch-Shell, Tom Cooper, Joanna Zarach, Mgmguy, Albert Wenger, Peter T Knight, Michael Finney, David Ihnen, Steve Roth, Miki Phagan, Walter Schaerer, Elizabeth Corker, Albert Daniel Brockman, Natalie Foster, Joe Ballou, Arjun Banker, Tommy Caruso, @Justin_Dart, Felix Ling, S, Jocelyn Hockings, Mark Donovan, Jason Clark, Chuck Cordes, Mark Broadgate, Leslie Kausch, Juro Antal, centuryfalcon64, Deanna McHugh, Stephen Castro-Starkey, and all my other patrons for their support.