A Universal Basic Income for Everyone

The question

How to approach this discuss both views question

A discuss-both-views essay asks you to explain two opinions fairly and then give your own.

1. Introduce both views and say you will discuss them.
2. Paragraph 1: the first view with reasons and an example.
3. Paragraph 2: the second view with reasons and an example.
4. State your own opinion clearly (in the introduction or conclusion) and keep it consistent.

How to plan this answer

Structure

1. Introduction: paraphrase the proposal (a payment to every citizen regardless of work), outline both views and state your own position clearly.
2. Body 1: the view that a universal basic income relieves financial pressure and frees people to pursue creative, caring or entrepreneurial work. Give one concrete example.
3. Body 2: the view that the payment would discourage paid work, especially for lower-paid jobs. Explain the mechanism, not just the claim.
4. Body 3: weigh the two views against each other, showing which concern depends most on how the scheme is designed (amount, funding, who qualifies).
5. Conclusion: restate your opinion and name one condition that would make it workable.

Idea bank

• Security to take risks: a guaranteed payment would let someone leave an unsatisfying job to retrain, write or start a small business without fearing rent arrears.
• Finland ran a trial from 2017 to 2018 giving a monthly payment to a sample of unemployed people. Employment effects were modest, while recipients reported better wellbeing and less stress.
• Unpaid care work: a payment would recognise parents and carers who do essential work that currently earns nothing.
• Incentive problem: if the payment is high enough, some people may cut back hours, and sectors such as care homes, cleaning and hospitality could struggle to recruit.
• Funding: a scheme for every adult would need large tax increases, which could reduce incentives for high earners and raise questions about public spending on health and schools.
• Middle option: a targeted or income-linked credit rewards work while still protecting people who cannot work, a counter-proposal that answers the discouragement argument.

Useful vocabulary

• a guaranteed income: A guaranteed income would set a floor below which no citizen could fall.
• unconditional payment: An unconditional payment is made whether or not the recipient is in work.
• a disincentive to work: Critics argue that a generous payment could act as a disincentive to work.
• to pursue creative work: Freed from money worries, many people might choose to pursue creative work.
• to cushion against: The scheme would cushion households against sudden job losses.
• a poverty trap: Benefits withdrawn as earnings rise can create a poverty trap.
• to be offset by: The cost of the payment could be offset by higher taxes on high earners.
• to tip the balance: A sufficiently high payment might tip the balance in favour of leisure.
• unpaid care work: Unpaid care work is essential to families but earns no wage.

Common mistakes

• Confusing a universal basic income with means-tested benefits, so that arguments about benefits being withdrawn do not apply.
• Mixing both views into one paragraph, when the task asks for each view to have its own paragraph with equal depth.
• Stating an opinion in the introduction and then softening or reversing it in the conclusion.
• Making vague claims such as 'people would be happier' without explaining the mechanism that produces the effect.
• Ignoring the funding question, which is the most common practical objection to the proposal.

Examiner tip: Give each view its own paragraph with the same depth, then reach a clear verdict and show that it depends on how the scheme would be funded and designed.