Universal Basic Income and its Critics: a Reply to Preston

Michael Goldsmith

Michael Goldsmith replies to David Preston’s criticisms, arguing that most of them are refutable. He covers eight separate points but highlights what he takes to be the two most important: that his paper is an attempt to explore a philosophical concept rather than being a practical analysis of Universal basic Income, and that linking eligibility to “notional obligation to pay taxes involves a circularity in terms of non-earners”. He replies that, indeed, the whole point was to explore a philosophical concept, and that some circularity is inevitable.