Proposition Side

Opening Statement

Ladies and gentlemen, esteemed judges, and respected opponents, today we stand in strong
support of the motion: A Universal Basic Income (UBI) is the best solution to address income
inequality in the 21st century. In an era marked by rapid technological change, precarious
employment, and widening gaps between rich and poor, UBI offers a bold, evidence-based, and
humane approach to ensuring that everyone has the means to live with dignity and opportunity.

What Is Universal Basic Income?

Universal Basic Income is a social welfare policy in which every citizen receives a regular,
unconditional sum of money from the government, regardless of employment status or
wealth123. Unlike traditional welfare, UBI is universal and does not require means-testing or
work requirements. Its core aim is to reduce poverty, ensure basic needs are met, and provide a
safety net for all145.

Argument 1: UBI Directly Reduces Poverty and Income Inequality

The most compelling evidence for UBI is its proven ability to reduce poverty and narrow income
gaps. By providing a guaranteed income floor, UBI lifts the poorest out of poverty and ensures
that no one falls below a minimum standard of living456.

 In Brazil, a pandemic-era cash transfer program similar to UBI cut the poverty rate to its
lowest level in 40 years within just six months4.

 Namibia’s Basic Income Grant reduced household poverty from 76% to 37% in one year,
and child malnutrition dropped from 42% to 17% in six months4.

 India’s UBI trials led to improved health, nutrition, and sanitation for participants4.

These results are not isolated. Across continents and cultures, UBI pilots have consistently
shown that direct cash transfers reduce poverty and inequality more effectively than complex,
means-tested welfare systems568.

Argument 2: UBI Improves Health, Well-Being, and Social Stability

Income inequality is not just an economic issue-it is a root cause of poor health, mental distress,
and social instability. UBI addresses these problems at their core by giving people the resources
to meet their basic needs, reducing the stress and anxiety associated with financial insecurity49.

 In Manitoba, Canada, the Mincome experiment saw hospitalizations for accidents,

 UBI enables people to leave abusive relationships, invest in their children’s education,
and escape cycles of deprivation that perpetuate inequality4.

By ensuring everyone has a financial safety net, UBI fosters healthier, more resilient
communities.

Argument 3: UBI Empowers Workers and Stimulates Economic Growth

A major driver of income inequality in the 21st century is the rise of insecure, low-wage, and
precarious work. UBI gives workers bargaining power and freedom of choice67.

 With a guaranteed income, people are not forced to accept exploitative or underpaid
jobs-they can seek better employment, invest in education, or start businesses67.

 UBI supports unpaid care work, often performed by women, by recognizing and
compensating this vital contribution to society5.

 By increasing consumer spending, UBI stimulates demand for goods and services,
supporting local economies and promoting growth57.

Far from discouraging work, studies show that UBI can increase full-time employment and
entrepreneurship, as seen in Stockton, California, and Hudson, New York, where employment
rates rose significantly during UBI trials9.

Argument 4: UBI Simplifies Welfare and Reduces Bureaucracy

Traditional welfare systems are often complex, stigmatizing, and expensive to administer. UBI’s
universality eliminates the need for means-testing, reducing administrative costs and ensuring
that help reaches everyone who needs it5810.

 UBI removes the “welfare trap,” where people lose benefits when they start earning,
discouraging upward mobility10.

 It provides a simple, dignified solution that treats all citizens equally, reducing the stigma
associated with receiving government support58.

Argument 5: UBI Is Adaptable to Modern Economic Challenges

The 21st century is characterized by rapid automation, globalization, and economic shocks. UBI
is uniquely suited to these challenges:

 As automation replaces jobs, UBI provides a buffer, ensuring that displaced workers do
not fall into poverty7.
  During crises like the COVID-19 pandemic, UBI can be quickly deployed to provide
immediate relief, as seen in multiple countries9.

 UBI offers flexibility for people to retrain, relocate, or pursue new opportunities without
fear of destitution7.

Addressing Counterarguments

Some argue that UBI is too expensive or that it discourages work. However, evidence from pilot
programs shows that UBI can be funded through progressive taxation or redistribution of
existing welfare budgets10. Moreover, trials in Finland, Stockton, and elsewhere found no
significant reduction in work effort; in fact, some saw increases in employment and
entrepreneurship9.

Others claim that targeted welfare is more efficient. Yet, targeted systems often miss those in
need due to bureaucratic hurdles, while UBI ensures no one is left behind810.

Conclusion

In a world where income inequality continues to rise and millions remain trapped in poverty
despite economic growth, Universal Basic Income stands out as the best solution for the 21st
century. It is effective, evidence-based, and rooted in the principle that everyone deserves a fair
chance at a dignified life. UBI reduces poverty, narrows income gaps, improves health and well-
being, empowers workers, and prepares societies for the challenges of the future.

For these reasons, we urge you to support the motion: A Universal Basic Income is the best
solution to address income inequality in the 21st century.

Thank you.
Opposition Side

Opening Statement

Ladies and gentlemen, honorable judges, and esteemed colleagues, today we stand in firm
opposition to the motion that “A Universal Basic Income (UBI) is the best solution to address
income inequality in the 21st century.” While UBI is often presented as a bold, transformative
policy, a closer examination reveals that it is deeply flawed-economically, socially, and
practically. Far from being the best solution, UBI risks worsening poverty, undermining work
incentives, and diverting resources away from those who need them most.

Argument 1: UBI Increases Poverty by Diluting Targeted Support

The fundamental flaw of UBI is its universality. By giving the same amount to everyone,
regardless of need, UBI diverts scarce resources away from the poorest and most vulnerable
members of society. Existing welfare programs-such as food stamps, Medicaid, and child
assistance-are specifically designed to address the complex hardships faced by those in poverty.
UBI, by contrast, often uses funds from these targeted programs to provide payments to
everyone, including the wealthy and those already financially secure128.

As Robert Greenstein, president of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, warns:

“If you take the dollars targeted on people in the bottom fifth or two-fifths of the population and
convert them to universal payments to people all the way up the income scale, you’re
redistributing income upward. That would increase poverty and inequality rather than reduce
them.”2

Research by the OECD in Finland, France, Italy, and the UK found that UBI would not effectively
reduce poverty rates or improve outcomes for the poorest groups2. In fact, many households in
the bottom three income quintiles would be worse off under UBI schemes2. UBI does not
address the root causes of poverty-such as health, skills, or addiction-and is therefore less cost-
effective than targeted welfare programs2.

Argument 2: UBI Is Financially Unsustainable

The cost of implementing a meaningful UBI is astronomical. Providing every adult with even a
modest monthly stipend would require trillions in annual government spending369. For
example, a $1,000 per month UBI in the United States would cost about $3.81 trillion per year-
about 21% of the country’s GDP and 78% of its tax revenue269. Even after eliminating other
welfare programs, the net cost remains over $1.4 trillion annually2.

Experiments in countries like Finland have shown that even small-scale UBI pilots are
“impossibly expensive,” increasing government deficits by several percentage points2. In the
UK, estimated implementation costs range from £8.2 to £160 billion, which is “clearly
unaffordable” according to former Minister of State for Employment Damian Hinds2. Economist
John Kay concludes that in all major economies, UBI at a level that guarantees an acceptable
standard of living is either “unacceptably low, or the cost of providing it is unacceptably high”2.

Argument 3: UBI Undermines Work Incentives and Economic Productivity

A core principle of prosperous societies is that income is earned through work, which fosters
motivation, skill-building, and social cohesion. UBI, by providing unconditional income, risks
undermining this ethic159. Critics argue that guaranteed income could reduce people’s
incentives to work, leading to higher unemployment rates and lower economic output59.

Historical evidence supports this concern. Guaranteed income trials in the United States in the
1960s and 1970s found that recipients worked fewer hours1. The Swiss government opposed
UBI, arguing it would entice fewer people to work and exacerbate labor and skills
shortages2. Economist Allison Schrager notes that a strong economy relies on people being
motivated to work hard, and UBI, by providing guaranteed security, removes this motivation2.

Furthermore, with basic financial needs met, some workers may choose to work less or not at
all, leading to reduced taxable income and a shrinking labor force45. This could negatively
impact economic growth and the sustainability of public services.

Argument 4: UBI Entrenches Low Wages and Precarious Work

Rather than empowering workers, UBI could inadvertently subsidize low-wage and precarious
employment. By providing a financial cushion, UBI may allow employers to continue offering
low pay, knowing that workers’ basic needs are covered by government payments2. This could
normalize insecure, short-term, or zero-hours contracts, entrenching the very precarity UBI
claims to solve2.

Anna Coote of the New Economics Foundation cautions that UBI could become akin to the
American tipping system, where employers rely on customers-or, in this case, the government-
to supplement inadequate wages2. This risks perpetuating income inequality rather than
alleviating it.

Argument 5: UBI Does Not Address the Root Causes of Inequality

Income inequality is a complex, multifaceted issue. UBI, as a blanket solution, fails to address
the underlying causes-such as education gaps, health disparities, and lack of access to quality
jobs25. Simply providing cash does not cure addiction, poor health, or lack of skills2. Targeted
interventions-such as investments in education, healthcare, and job training-are far more
effective at tackling the root causes of inequality.
Moreover, UBI’s one-size-fits-all approach ignores the specific needs of different groups. For
example, people with disabilities, single parents, or the elderly may require more support than
able-bodied adults without dependents78. UBI risks leaving these vulnerable populations
behind by replacing tailored assistance with a flat payment.

Argument 6: UBI Risks Inflation and Erodes Its Own Value

An often-overlooked risk is that injecting large sums of money into the economy could drive up
demand and prices, resulting in inflation5. As prices rise, the real value of UBI payments could
erode, negating any benefits for recipients-especially those on the lowest incomes5. This
creates a vicious cycle where the poorest are once again left behind.

Conclusion

In summary, Universal Basic Income is not the best solution to address income inequality in the
21st century. Its universality dilutes support for the poor, its cost is unsustainable, it undermines
work incentives, and it fails to address the root causes of inequality. Far from being a panacea,
UBI risks increasing poverty, entrenching low wages, and destabilizing public finances. Instead,
we should focus on strengthening and expanding targeted welfare programs, investing in
education and healthcare, and addressing the structural factors that drive inequality.

For these reasons, we urge you to reject the motion. Thank you.