Common Objections to UBI—And Why They Don’t Hold Up
When people first hear about Universal Basic Income, objections pop up fast. They come from genuine fears, deeply held values, and old assumptions about how society “should” work. But each objection is also an invitation—an opening to clarify what UBI actually is. Most concerns fall into four big categories:
“It’s too hard. We’ll never pull it off.”
This is defeatism disguised as realism. We've spent trillions of dollars on programs that often do more harm than good—means-testing, bureaucracy, and patchwork charity that barely hold things together. You don’t get to dismiss a good idea just because the bad ones failed. UBI isn’t impossible. It’s just different. And in trial after trial, it works.
“It’ll cost too much.”
Compared to what? Poverty is expensive. Just look at the costs of crime, chronic illness, housing insecurity, school dropouts, and lost productivity. Then add in the overhead of programs designed to sort the “deserving” from the “undeserving.” The alternative to UBI isn’t free. It’s just hidden in a thousand broken systems.
“Some people don’t deserve it.”
The idea that we need to “sift” the worthy from the unworthy is where we lose the most—financially and morally. It’s expensive, intrusive, and ineffective. Just give the cash to everyone. Even if a few people sit in their apartment all day doing nothing, that’s not a failure. As long as they use the money for food and shelter, they’re sending powerful market signals about real human needs. That’s productive.
And for the rare cases where someone truly fails to care for themselves? Charities will still exist—and they’ll be better equipped to help, because they’ll be building on a floor of guaranteed income instead of scrambling to cover a crater. Yes, some small support infrastructure will still be needed. But it will be smaller. Cheaper. Kinder.
“This is socialism.”
Really? UBI is a release valve on the capitalist engine—not a replacement. Instead of the government trying to micromanage poverty with dozens of overlapping programs, it does one simple thing: gives people cash. No bureaucracy. No strings. Just freedom and trust. If anything, UBI gets the government out of the business of managing poverty. And it strengthens the market by giving people the ability to participate in it.
Objections: Some Nuance
“They can do it themselves.” This feeling is summed up in the saying: “If a man will not work, he shall not eat.” But this worked when time provided a sufficient return. Progress broke that link. There was a time when you could plant a field, build a house, fish or hunt, start a fire, and survive. It is literally impossible for a person in modern society to live like that. We got too good at providing the basics, and to access it you need cash. Working multiple jobs at minimum wage could still leave a family unable to make ends meet. Minimum wage itself is one of the “gifts” we give that cost more than a direct transfer of cash. With a basic income, say $1000 a month, we’re certainly not making ends meet, but we provide a floor so that with work, many more of our neighbors will stop living on the edge.
“People will stop working.” Let’s measure what matters. We’ve treated traditional paid work as sacred, even when it’s meaningless, cranking the handle just to pad the GDP. With basics covered, people redirect energy—trials show it: family, businesses, skills. That’s growth, not grind. This is the true source of economic growth: not forced participation, but empowered individuals making meaningful contributions. UBI allows people to become agents of change, leading to benefits that extend far beyond just monetary value. It’s not a loss of work, it’s a shift toward purposeful, valuable work.
“Some will waste their time.” How do we miss the hypocrisy? We freeze, fearing laziness below while shielding it above. But what’s waste? You couch-rot and doom-scroll when you’re stressed. Rent’s paid, you don’t rot—you breathe, heal, move. A rested mind beats a starving one for real contribution. And if someone uses their time differently than you, does it matter? Don’t assume the worst. The market might not price their time, but it hears their signal—and that’s the point, not the hypocrisy, we need.
“Some people will get into trouble.” It’s a fair concern—stability can be dangerous. But let’s be honest: addiction and crime are more often born of desperation than stability. Cash relieves that pressure. It doesn’t guarantee people will thrive—but it makes it far more likely. And that doesn’t mean we abandon support systems. Far from it. Some will still struggle, and that’s where charity, mentorship, and healing come in. Cash isn’t the end of care, it clears the way for deeper, more meaningful help.
“The poor make bad decisions.” Many people underestimate the role that luck plays in landing someone in poverty. And then they make another mistake by thinking that bad decisions are what keep them there. Studies show that it’s not that poor people make bad decisions, it’s that all of us are at risk of making sub-optimal decisions when faced with scarcity. Fix the problem, not the people. And then, when people are no longer in survival mode, they are in a position to make the best long-term decisions. We’re all better off if we don’t leave some of us stuck operating in such dire circumstances.
“People will take advantage of it.” People game the system today because we’ve made it profitable to do so. They can take advantage of the generosity of lots of strangers. They can become experts at jumping through the hoops created by multiple aid agencies all trying to get important service to the needy. People are rational. They will take the easiest path to profit. UBI takes care of much of this. If someone comes up to you for a handout, you can direct them to a charity that you know can now offer more than a Band-Aid. They can help them stretch their monthly check to get themselves set on a solid foundation. Universality is key. Everyone gets it, and everyone knows that everyone gets it. Additional aid is an investment of time which can’t be stacked like redundant dollars. Of course there will always be those who need additional support. Today we decide who is deserving of food at shelter. We know who is: everyone. With UBI we only need to determine who is deserving of extra aid. That’s a hard question that does deserve a human touch.
“It just doesn’t seem right to pay people for nothing in return.” Even if it doesn’t feel right, what if it solves the problem? There are a lot of people suffering. Many more are right on the edge. If this provides breathing room that allows many to contribute more fully, at a much lower cost, who cares if there are a few that literally do nothing? The main thing is that they take care of themselves. As long as they use the money to buy their food and shelter, we don’t have to worry about it. And the evidence says they will. And then you’re done with them. Don’t let the potential of a few slackers rob us of the chance to fix it for the rest of us. You can do the math. It would take a lot of slackers to make this a bad idea. It’s worth giving it another try.
“This eliminates character-building opportunities.” It’s a sound idea. No pain no gain. We can all look back on struggles and see how we grew from them. But that’s not what we’re talking about here. Millions of kids going to bed hungry? This is a catastrophe. Just like we’d pull people out of the rubble after an earthquake, we should make sure they’re fed. Get them on solid ground. A floor doesn’t weaken; it steadies.
“This ‘handout’ will rob people of their dignity.” Then stop calling it a handout. Call it what it is: a dividend on progress. There are plenty of tax breaks reserved for those who can already afford it, and no one’s ego gets bruised. And there's no market mechanism to reward people for automating their own jobs out of existence. This is a fair, rational way of paying them back. Alaska’s paid everyone since ’82—no shame, just results. It’s not a handout. It’s earned. And when people take it, we all benefit. We should be thanking them.
“We’ll lose underpaid workers.” Good. No one should stay in a job just because they can’t afford to leave. If UBI forces some jobs to raise wages or automate tasks that shouldn’t need humans in the first place, that’s a market doing its job. Desperation is not a business model. Markets will pay up or innovate—either way, we win.
“People will be harder to win over.” Our convoluted approach to poverty is a steep price to pay, but it’s true that you can use it to win someone to faith or a political position. Or at least get them to say they’ve been won. But isn’t it better to feed the belly and then win them through the heart and mind? UBI is cheaper, and it creates minds that are still reachable, just less manipulable. We don’t want drones, we want debate. UBI doesn’t spoil—it sharpens.
“Inflation will spike.” More cash, higher prices—landlords gouge, stores jack up eggs. It’s the reflex. But we’re inflating now, the dumb way: aid nobody wants—rotting food, empty shelters—burns labor, fuel, stuff, hiking costs anyway. UBI cuts that: cash signals real needs, no bloat. We overproduce food—surpluses rot while kids skip meals. Markets adjust—Alaska’s $1,000–$2,000 yearly didn’t crash; Stockton’s $500 steadied. Phase it in slow—supply catches up, no jolt. Waste distorts prices; precision eases them. Inflation’s our mess—UBI might clean it.
“The rich shouldn’t get it too.” Why pay millionaires? It feels wrong—cash to folks who don’t need it. But universality’s the magic: no forms, no stigma. Alaska gives every resident a check—poverty drops, no resentment. Means-testing is a trap—$50 billion yearly on welfare admin alone. Tax it back from the rich—progressive rates claw it easy. The point’s not fairness in every dollar; it’s a system that works. Everyone’s in, no one’s out—simplicity beats nitpicking. Rich or poor, you’re a player, not a beggar.
“We’ve tried this already, and it doesn’t work.” Look into the trials more closely. Based on a wide variety of metrics of wellbeing, the trials tell a really good story. There is, however, one metric you need to be careful with: paid work hours. If the trial is an honest implementation of UBI, you might find paid work hours decreasing in special cases, like moms choosing to care for kids or young people staying in school longer. Some negative income tax rate trials show a larger decrease in hours worked, but these generally involve benefits that are phased out quickly as earnings increase. This creates a strong disincentive to work. True UBI doesn’t involve such a disincentive. But more importantly, we need to make sure we measure what matters. Societal contribution and paid work are not the same thing.