Introduction The concept of UBI or universal basic income has been gathering force all over the world. In the year 2016, Switzerland voted on introducing UBI across the nation (though the idea was eventually rejected); India has been contemplating substitution of UBI for its current welfare state; and Finland has been testing the concept on certain citizens (Straubhaar, 2017). UBI implies categorical cash payment flowing on a month- by- month basis to all citizens from the nation’s budget. Funds are transferred from the public accounts to private citizen accounts right from their birth until death; recipients need not apply or be qualified for any preconditions in order to enjoy this benefit. The amount paid ought to incorporate the sociocultural maintenance minimum. But ascertaining this minimum subsistence level remains a political, rather than economic decision. In this paper, a case is made against the UBI, established by utilizing supportive arguments.

Arguments against UBI

UBI entails robbing the poor of their money and distributing it among everybody. Such an act will serve to only increase destitution, denying necessary targeted support to the poor. Poverty-ridden individuals encounter various adversities addressed via extant anti- poverty mechanisms like food stamps, child assistance and medical assistance. UBI initiatives typically make use of finances targeting lower social classes and distribute it to the whole society (ProCon.org., 2017). They are costlier as compared to focused welfare initiatives owing to several individuals lacking more than mere cash. This system fails to tackle other issues like addiction, lack of ability and sickness that play a role in promoting poverty.

UBI eliminates workers’ motivation to work, thereby having negative impacts on the economy, as well as resulting in a dearth in skills and human resources. Earned income inspires individuals to put in efforts, achieve success, acquire capabilities and collaborate with peer. But if society is paid unconditionally...

A clear example is America where food stamps and welfare have caused certain individuals to refrain from seeking jobs (Robins, Spiegelman & Weiner, 2013).
Lastly, UBI is overly costly. Trials held in Finland and Oakland California, besides budget estimations made by countries like the United Kingdom reveal potential UBI expenditure to be well above national tax collections (ProCon.org., 2017). A research into estimated UBI levels for America, France, Finland, Switzerland, the UK and Germany led to the conclusion that UBI levels for reasonable living standards were "impossibly costly”; Either basic earnings levels were much too low, or costs linked to offering it were much too great (ProCon.org., 2017).

The above three arguments are cited owing to their practically adding up, or to their being tested and proving to be qualified within the real world via trials or scholarly researches. The first two negatives are rationally reasonable whereas the last is a tried and tested one, thereby being supported by reliable research information.

The “believing” questions for arguments supporting UBI

The first point in supporting UBI is grounded in an erroneous assumption which is: income gaps, healthcare quality gaps and destitution are associated with the earnings of a household over some particular duration. UBI’s chief aim is providing sure earnings to all households; this, however, does not mean healthcare quality haps, income gaps and poverty are reduced. Decrease in the latter is governed chiefly by expenditure- and savings- to earnings ratio. Decreased income gap may not be regarded as an advantage of implementing UBI, since every individual’s earnings are simply increased by a set standard factor (this is not applicable to income disparities). Finally, healthcare quality may only experience improvements via access to suitable living conditions and healthcare.

The second advantage highlighted…