Objections and Responses

Abstract

This chapter is made up of three articles. The first two respond to the ‘We can’t afford it’ objection, the first in general terms, and the second by being clear about the difference between ‘Basic Income’ and ‘Basic Income scheme’, which objectors to Basic Income rather too often confuse with each other. A Basic Income is always an unconditional income paid regularly to every individual; a Basic Income scheme is a Basic Income, with the levels for different age groups specified, the funding method specified, and any changes to existing taxes and benefits fully specified. Showing that a particular Basic Income scheme would be unaffordable does not prove that Basic Income is unaffordable. It only requires one Basic Income scheme to be affordable for Basic Income to be affordable. The third article is a response to authors who called something a Basic Income when it was not one. Their criticisms of an income-tested benefit were entirely reasonable. What was not reasonable was to say that the same criticisms could therefore be made in relation to Basic Income, which they cannot. The global Basic Income debate is important, so it needs the best available evidence and the best possible logic.