Sign in to cast your position.
Means-tested benefits trap people, because every extra pound earned withdraws support, so the effective tax rate on the poorest can pass 70%. A universal payment removes that cliff. Everyone knows the current system is too complex, and the Finnish trial found recipients reported less stress with no fall in employment.
The Finnish trial paid two thousand unemployed people, so it says little about paying every adult. A payment large enough to live on costs roughly a fifth of GDP, which means higher taxes on the same low earners my opponent wants to help. Targeted support puts money where need is greatest, for example disability and housing costs that a flat payment ignores.