In this chapter we shall study a number of objections commonly made in relation to Citizen's Basic Income:

• • we shouldn't pay people for doing nothing;

• • immigration would go up;

• • people wouldn't work;

• • we can't afford it;

• • if a Citizen's Basic Income scheme abolished means-tested benefits then we wouldn't know to whom we should give passported benefits such as free school meals;

• • there are lots of problems that it wouldn't solve;

• • it would increase public expenditure;

• • the money could be better used on other things;

• • and more …

None of the objections listed has a necessary connection to any particular political ideology. Indeed, they can be found across the political spectrum. We could regard this as a difficulty or as an advantage: a difficulty, because the objections have to be answered for parties and individuals attached to a wide variety of different political ideologies; and an advantage because if the objections can be answered then it should be possible to achieve and maintain crossparty agreement to implementing a Citizen's Basic Income scheme.

We shouldn't pay people to do nothing

This usually means: nobody should receive an income from the government if they are not gainfully employed or looking for employment. The simple response to this objection is that we are already paying people to do nothing, and the way in which we do it discourages them from increasing their earned income. A Citizen's Basic Income would pay people to do nothing in such a way that they could experience more of an incentive to earn additional income, learn new skills and spend time caring for others and volunteering in their communities.

But at the heart of the objection lies a valid principle: reciprocity. This is often taken to imply that the citizens of a country have a duty to contribute to society before society can be expected to provide for them. This might once have made sense: but today much employment is short term, new investment often results in a loss of employment, and the duty to be gainfully employed is now problematic: for how can there be a duty to be gainfully employed when for many people there is no opportunity, and when often what is available is part-time employment when what is required to lift a family off means-tested benefits is well-paid full-time employment?