We don't need it

We already have Guaranteed minimum income for the poor (RMG), Unemployment compensation, Minimum income, Benefits for children, ...

Unconditional Basic Income (UBI) has important advantages (See page Arguments/advantages).

We support only those who need it (social selectivity)

Those who have enough income don't need financial help from the state.

This would be much easier to afford.

Unconditional Basic Income (UBI) has important advantages (See page Arguments/advantages).

With UBI you could considerably reduce other expenses. E.g. Guaranteed minimum income for the poor would be replaced by UBI, Retirement pensions and Salaries of civil servants would be reduced by the amount of the UBI, Employers could reduce salaries by the amount of UBI (and pay more taxes), ...

If you get Guaranteed minimum income for the poor (RMG) or Unemployment compensation it's not financially interesting to accept poorly paid work because amounts paid by the state would be reduced or canceled. In some cases you would have to reimburse RMG. With UBI you would benefit from every Euro earned (perhaps reduced by (low) tax rates).

UBI would not be affordable

With simplistic calculations you can show that UBI would ruin even rich countries.

Miscellaneous models to compensate the expenses have been described during the last decades. If you find a bad one continue to search! Several models might get good results.

Unconditional Basic Income (UBI) allows to reduce or eliminate several considerable expenses. E.g. Guaranteed minimum income for the poor would be replaced by UBI, Retirement pensions and Salaries of civil servants would be reduced by the amount of the UBI, Employers could reduce salaries by the amount of UBI (and pay more taxes), ...

UBI has a positive impact on the economy (See page Arguments/advantages). This increases total income of the state.

Few people would get (much) more money than today (if you reduce other expenses). So it shouldn't cost much more than the current system.

UBI has important advantages (See page Arguments/advantages). It's ok if this has a considerable cost.

UBI should be introduced progressively. E.g. begin with a small amount and increase it in several steps, include more and more categories of persons (children, students, poor, retired, unemployed, ...). Then people would understand that the impact on the state's budget is low or even positive. It would allow to adjust the accompanying measures to compensate the expenses.

People would stop working

There is a risk that more people than today wouldn't work or at least work less. (Already today most children and old people don't work, many people are searching unsuccessfully for jobs, some even don't want to find a job).

Globally people do more unpaid than paid work (for family, associations, ...). Salary is not the only reason (and certainly not the best) to contribute to society.

Most people want more than the minimum. With UBI most would continue working to afford more.

Polls reveal that most people would continue working if they got UBI (the same job, perhaps less hours or change the job).

Most people who would stop paid work would continue to contribute for family, associations, art, research, politics, ...

Due to better technology we need less people to produce enough.

Nowadays many people lack motivation and deliver badly. Their productivity is far from optimum. They should leave their current job and choose something they really like to do.

People who freely choose their job are motivated. Their employer cares for good working conditions. This increases productivity. We need less working hours to produce enough.

Those who live on UBI couldn't afford high consumption and thus reduce negative impact on the environment (climate, pollution, ...).

That's communism?

Communism failed due to

  • Absolute power of the "representatives of the people"
  • Very powerful bureaucracy
  • Repression of initiative and freedom

Unconditional Basic Income (UBI) is better than communism

  • Personal initiatives get boosted
  • Everybody may have a successful life if he really wants
  • UBI reduces bureaucracy
  • UBI gives people maximum of freedom

Social tourism

Migrants might invade our country to get Unconditional Basic Income (UBI).

This problem exists already today. Many people try to come to the rich, democratic countries hoping for a better life. Current solutions should work even in a future with UBI.

UBI should be introduced simultaneously in all European Union countries. If it works well the other countries will follow the example. Or introduce UBI first in the poor countries.

We should help people in poor countries and increase development aid budgets. Development aid should be paid as UBI to the people and not to corrupt or inefficient institutions. See Pilotproject in Namibia which shows that this is very efficient.


That's finally the real problem.

Nearly everybody knows people who shouldn't get UBI (the neighbour, foreigners, lazy youngsters, rich capitalists, ...). That's why Unconditional Basic Income (UBI) is considered a bad idea.

As this is not a "good" argument people stick to other arguments to justify their refusal of UBI.

Negative income tax is better

A negative income tax only covers the amount missing to get a basic income. That costs a relatively small amount and could be introduced more easily. This would eliminate poverty.

But with this solution it would be financially uninteresting to accept a job if the salary is not considerably better than basic income. Negative income tax would make black labour very attractive at least in the low salary sector.

With Unconditional Basic Income (UBI) every paid work is financially interesting because UBI is not reduced if you earn money.

UBI has many more advantages compared to negative income tax (see page Arguments/advantages) like reducing bureaucracy, positive impact on the economy, ...


FaLang translation system by Faboba