貧窮和分配不均的情況日益惡化，使得許多社會問題的產生，然而現行社會安全制 度並無法完全滿足幫助弱勢的初始目標，因此本文認為政府應該積極的探尋其他方案。 雖然基本所得的概念出現已有一段時日，國外也不乏實驗性施行的案例，不過對於其施 行成效，各方仍多存疑慮。且從理論層面結合民間部門與政府部門的決策，探討基本所 得制度的施行效益與成本的文獻也屬有限。因而，本文嘗試建構一個包含租稅—補助制 度的一般均衡模型，藉以比較分析社會福利從現行的資產調查制度改革為無條件基本所 得制度時，對跨代的個人經濟行為的影響，以及世代貧窮與分配不均現象的改變。
理論模型的設計不同於基本所得文獻的單期、部分均衡研究框架，延伸為兩世代分 工的生產模式，且工資率與利率內生決定。接著本文採用數值模擬方法，觀察租稅—補 助制度改革的部分均衡效果，即從現行的資產調查方式逐步往基本所得制度推進時，在 維持政府預算平衡的前提下，勞動參與、勞動供給與資本供給的變動，以及對社會貧窮 狀況與所得不均度的影響。
主要的研究結果如下:基本所得制度比起資產調查制度，有著較高的勞動參與、勞 動供給以及儲蓄，同時對於改善所得不均的情況也擁有更好的表現。但是，當所得稅率 較低時，基本所得制度對於貧窮指標的表現不佳。在世代分配上，越低的所得稅率，會 使得兩世代所得落差越大，而實施基本所得對於代際間的分配不均也有改善的效果。

The worsening situation of poverty and the distribution inequality of wealth as well as income causes many social issues. The initial goal to help disadvantaged can’t be achieved by the current social security system, thus this article believes that the government should seek other schemes actively. Although the concept of basic income has emerged for a period of time, and there are also plenty experimental cases abroad, many doubts still remain about its effectiveness. In addition, the literatures which integrating the decision-makings of private sectors and public policies to investigate theoretically the effectiveness and cost of a basic income scheme are few. As a result, this article attempts to establish a general equilibrium model with tax and transfer systems to analyze the impacts on personal economic behavior, poverty and inequality across generations when the social welfare is reformed from the current means-tested system to an unconditional basic income.
Different from the existing single-period and partial-equilibrium research framework, this article develops an overlapping-generations setting in which the young and the old generations supply labor and capital respectively to a production sector with the gross wage rates and the gross interest rate being endogenous. Using numerical simulation methods, the article examines the partial equilibrium effects of a movement towards universal benefits on labor participation, labor supply, capital supply, and social poverty as well as income inequality while keeping the balance of government budget.
The main research results are as follows: A movement towards a universal system leads to higher labor participation, and the increase of labor supply and savings. Meanwhile, compared to means testing, a basic income system has better performance on the improvement of income inequality. However, when the income tax rate is low, the basic income system performs poorly on poverty alleviation. In terms of intergenerational distribution, the lower the income tax rate, the greater the income gap between generations. The implementation of basic income is expected to improve the intergenerational inequality.

目錄....i
表目錄....iv
圖目錄....v
第一章 緒論....1 
1.1 無條件基本所得介紹....2 
1.1.1 無條件基本所得的概念....2 
1.1.2 基本所得的出發點....3
1.1.3 與社會福利制度的比較....4
1.1.4 對無條件基本所得的質疑與回應....5 
1.2 研究動機….9
1.3 研究目的與方法....12 
第二章 文獻回顧....16 
2.1 基本所得制度與其他政府移轉支付制度的比較....16
2.2 基本所得制度的實驗性施行與成效分析....18 
2.3 基本所得制度的理論研究....22 
第三章 理論模型分析....26 
3.1 疊代的勞動供給與跨期消費模型....26 
3.1.1 租稅與政府移轉支付制度....27 
3.1.2 四種租稅—補助狀況下的跨期選擇模型....29 
3.1.3 比較靜態分析....35 
3.1.4 非凸性的終身預算限制與勞動供給....46 
3.2 社會勞動供給、資本供給與商品需求....52 
3.3 社會勞動需求，資本需求與商品供給....59 
3.4 政府預算....60 
3.5 一般均衡....64 
3.6 小結....66 
第四章 數值模擬....71 
4.1 模擬方法與變數設定....71 
4.2 勞動參與、勞動供給與人均儲蓄....74 
4.3 平均稅率與最大補助額....77 
4.4 貧窮指標與不均度指標....81 
4.5 小結....89 
第五章 結論....93 
參考文獻....97 
附錄....101 

表目錄
表 1:外生變數變動對四種租稅ー補助情況下最適決策的影響....43 
表 2:兩世代個人的勞動供給、消費與儲蓄:終身預算可能一....53 
表 3:兩世代個人的勞動供給、消費與儲蓄:終身預算可能二....55 
表 4:基本所得制下兩世代個人的勞動供給、消費與儲蓄....58 
表 5:政府的稅收與移轉支付:終身預算可能一....61 
表 6:政府的稅收與移轉支付:終身預算可能二....63 
表 7:貧窮指標與不均度總覽....85 
表 8:年輕世代所得分佈總覽....87 
表 9:年長世代所得分佈總覽....88 

圖目錄
圖 1:1977-2018 戶數五等分位組之所得分配比....11 
圖 2:情況一、情況三的淨所得與休閒時間關係....47 
圖 3:情況二、情況四的淨所得與休閒時間關係....47 
圖 4:預算限制可能一之勞動參與的工資門檻....50 
圖 5:預算限制可能一之勞動供給跳躍的工資門檻....50 
圖 6:稅率組合和年輕世代勞動參與的關係....75 
圖 7:稅率組合和年輕世代人均勞動供給的關係....76 
圖 8:稅率組合和人均儲蓄的關係....77 
圖 9:所得水準和平均稅率(所得稅率為 0.4)的關係....79 
圖 10:所得水準和平均稅率(所得稅率為 0.5)的關係....79 
圖 11:稅率組合和最大補助額之關係....80

伍大開、陳國樑 (2018)，“以遺產稅資料分析我國財富分配不均與財富之組成，” 《經濟論文叢刊》，46(4)，523-567。 
行政院主計總處(編) (2018)，《107 年家庭收支調查報告》，台北:行政院主計總處。 
何思賢 (2018)，“台灣實施全民基本所得之情境分析，”碩士論文，台北:國立 政治大學。 
李淑容 (2018)，“八年以後:新貧家庭貧窮動態追蹤研究，”《東吳社會工作學 報》，35，37-75。 
吳寶華 (2018)，“[無條件基本收入]-以臺灣為例之初探，”碩士論文，台北:國 立臺灣師範大學。 
林宗弘 (2017)，“台灣民眾如何看待全民基本收入制度?”《思想》，34，127- 146。 
倪世傑 (2017)，“全民基本收入:希望還是幻影?”《思想》，34，173-197。
連賢明、曾中信、楊子霆、韓幸紋、羅光達 (2020)，“臺灣財富分配 2004-2014:以個人財產登錄資料推估，”《經濟論文叢刊》，(即將出版)。 
廖美 (2017)，“全民基本收入是一種補償，”《思想》，34，159-172。 
蕭郁雯 (1999)，“凡裴瑞斯論基本所得，”碩士論文，嘉義:國立中正大學。 
謝世民 (2017)，“全民基本收入與正義，”《思想》，34，147-158。

Tyler, P (2018)，“改革派還是激進派?台灣基本收入運動的論述與策略之研究，” 碩士論文，台北:國立政治大學。 
Atkinson, A. B. (1970). “On the measurement of inequality,” Journal of economic theory, 2(3), 244-263. 
Atkinson, A. B. (1987). “On the measurement of poverty,” Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 55(4), 749-764. 
Atkinson, A. (2002). “How Basic Income Is Moving up the Policy Agenda: News from the Future,” Congress paper presented at the 9th BIEN (Basic Income Earth Network) Congress, Geneva.

Banerjee, A., Niehaus, P., & Suri, T. (2019). “Universal basic income in the developing world,” Annual Review of Economics, 11, 959-983.
Browne, J., & Immervoll, H. (2017). “Mechanics of Replacing Benefit Systems with A Basic Income: Comparative results from a microsimulation approach,” The Journal of Economic Inequality, 15(4), 325-344.

Creedy, J. (1998). “Means-tested versus Universal Transfers: Alternative models and value judgements,” The Manchester School, 66(1), 100-117.

Creedy, J., & Dawkins, P. (2002). “Comparing Tax and Transfer Systems: How might incentive effects make a difference?” Economic Record, 78(240), 97-108. 
FitzRoy, F., & Jin, J. (2010). “Efficient Redistribution: Comparing basic income with unemployment benefits (No.5236),” Institute of Labor Economics. 
Forget, E. L. (2011). “The Town with no Poverty: The health effects of a Canadian guaranteed annual income field experiment,” Canadian Public Policy, 37(3), 283- 305. 
Foster, J., Greer, J., & Thorbecke, E. (1984). “A class of decomposable poverty measures,” Econometrica: journal of the econometric society, 52(3), 761-766. 
Francese, M., & Prady, D. (2018). “Universal Basic Income: Debate and impact assessment,” International Monetary Fund.

Haarmann, C., Haarmann, D., Jauch, H., Shindondola-Mote, H., Nattrass, N., van Niekerk, I., & Samson, M. (2009). “Making the difference! The big in Namibia basic income grant pilot project,” Assessment Report.

Honkanen, P. (2014). “Basic Income and Negative Income Tax: A comparison with a simulation model,” Basic Income Studies, 9(1-2), 119-135.

Kangas, O., Jauhiainen, S., Simanainen, M., & Ylikännö, M. (2019). “The basic income experiment 2017–2018 in Finland,” Preliminary Results. Reports and Memorandums of the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health, 9.

Noguera, J. A., & De Wispelaere, J. (2006). “A plea for the use of laboratory experiments in basic income research,” Basic Income Studies, 1(2).

Standing, G. (2017). “Basic Income: And how we can make it happen,” Penguin UK. 
Standing, G. (2013). “Unconditional Basic Income: Two pilots in Madhya Pradesh,” In A background note prepared for the Delhi Conference.
Piketty, T. (2014). Capital in the Twenty-First Century. Harvard University Press.
Van Parijs, P., & Vanderborght, Y. (2017). Basic Income: A radical proposal for a free society and a sane economy. Harvard University Press.