Generate an appropriate title for the given text. The generated title must be short and include the main topic of the text. The preferred titles are under fifteen words.
Example: But Eluned Morgan conceded that it would be "difficult for us to stop" from a legal point of view. Her comments were criticised by a Labour AM. Alun Davies said threatening legal action "sounds like the last breath before you're thrown out of the pub". Mr Davies said he was not convinced the Welsh Government would "have a leg to stand on" in trying to shape international trade deals after Brexit. Following Donald Trump's comments during last week's trade visit that the NHS would be "on the table" in any future trade talks between the UK and the USA, Eluned Morgan said there was "absolutely no prospect whatsoever of us allowing the Welsh NHS to be part of any negotiation." The US President then rowed back on his initial comments following criticism from a number of MPs. Asked about her response to President Trump's remarks as she gave evidence to the Assembly's Brexit committee on Monday, Ms Morgan said "legally, it would be difficult for us to stop because we don't have a veto over trade". "Politically, I think it's extremely unlikely to happen," the international relations and the Welsh language minister said. "They [the UK Government] should not be concluding any trade agreements without consulting us where we have the power." Ms Morgan explained that UK and Welsh government officials are working on an agreement or 'concordat' for how future trade deals are negotiated. During a robust exchange, the Labour AM Alun Davies said: "I want something which is in law to which I can hold you to account and which colleagues in Westminster can hold the UK Government to account. "The argument we'll make life difficult for them, it sounds alright on the street, but it's not the reality of intergovernmental relations." "The United Kingdom has to find a way of functioning. "At the moment, your answers aren't giving me any confidence that there is that structure in place because, if the Welsh Government's argument is, 'we'll see you in court', it's not a very impressive argument either for the continuation of the structure of United Kingdom as a state or the commitment of the government within the United Kingdom to actually work together," he added. Responding to the criticism, Ms Morgan said: "Is the current intergovernmental structure adequate? "Absolutely not... and it's not just in relation to trade, it's in relation to almost every aspect of government policy. So, that infrastructure needs to be built."
Example solution: NHS Wales: Court action if trade deals affect service?
Example explanation: The output phrase is the appropriate title for the given text and it highlights the essence of the passage.

Problem: By Andrew WalkerBBC World Service economics correspondent The Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce (RSA) is recommending a basic universal income. In a new report, the author calls the approach the best alternative "to help people improve their own lives". The RSA estimates that its proposal would cost about an extra 1% of annual national income (GDP). The idea is in principle fairly straightforward: a standard payment is made to every citizen. The report illustrates how it might work using data for taxes and benefits in 2012-2013. The basic income for people aged between 25 and 65 would in this example be £3,692. There is a pension of about double that amount for those older than 65. There would be a basic income for children too: for the first child it would be higher than the working age adult basic until they reach school age. Above that age, and for all children after the first, it would be below that level. Radical change The proposal does involve some cost, but it does replace many existing benefits and it would eliminate the personal income tax allowance. The basic income would mean there would not be the need for the first slug of earnings to be tax-free. It would clearly be a radical change - so why does the RSA think it necessary? Anthony Painter, its director of policy and strategy and author of the report, says: "The welfare state has become incredibly complex whilst locking those it seeks to help in a vicious circle of low pay, insecurity and an intrusive state." The RSA's plan picks up an idea that has gained popularity in recent years. Finland is undertaking a pilot scheme, although it will not report its results until 2019. Some cities in the Netherlands are also looking at the idea. There is also a debate in Switzerland about introducing a basic income. In the UK, the idea is being promoted by a group called the Citizen's Income Trust (CIT) and the RSA proposals are based on their ideas. The potential advantages include simplicity of administration given that you only need to establish that the person receiving it is a citizen. There is a nod in the RSA proposal to the political debate in the UK about European migrants and benefits. They would be eligible only after contributing for a number of years. Welfare trap One of the aims of the proposal is to reduce the disincentive to work - or to work more - that comes with the withdrawal of means-tested benefits. As a recipient's income rises, entitlement to most benefits declines and they can be left with only a very small amount of any additional income. It's known as the poverty trap or welfare trap. If there is no means testing, the disincentive would come from income tax and national insurance. The RSA does also include some means-testing in the basic idea. For people with incomes over £75,000, their entitlement would be gradually withdrawn, completely so for any with an income of more than £150,000. There is also a complication in these proposals: the treatment of housing costs. They vary so much around the country that it is difficult to build them into a single national basic income. The RSA proposal does not cover housing costs, and it suggests investigation of various possible reforms of housing benefits that are means tested. The RSA suggests further work on three options for housing costs. Two of them would involve withdrawing the benefit with rising income, and one would not, although it would be linked to local housing market conditions. Losers Tim Blackwell, writing in the New Statesman, identified housing benefit and council tax as a major weakness when he looked at the CIT proposals. He said that the combined effect of tax, national insurance and the withdrawal of housing benefit and council tax support was to leave the individual with just over 10% of any additional income they might earn. In terms of how wins and who loses, much depends on the precise of levels chosen, but is certainly possible that there will be groups who lose out. Under the CIT scheme, Mr Blackwell wrote that "lone parent tenants in need of childcare would do very badly". This general approach has been supported by the Green Party in the UK. It is also advocated by Sam Bowman of the Adam Smith Institute, a think tank that is not party political but is vigorously pro-free market in its outlook. But the approach does have its critics. Some argue that if there is a guaranteed basic income, some people will choose not to work. For many the idea of simply giving people cash is very unpalatable.

Show your work and conclude with the exact phrasing "Therefore, the final answer is [answer]." where [answer] is just the final number or expression that solves the problem.
user
Solution: Think tank floats 'basic income' idea for all citizens