Basic Income: The Policy That Changes Everything

by Matthew Johnson, Kate E. Pickett, Daniel Nettle

Basic income can no longer be dismissed as a utopian idea — it’s being tested worldwide. But can it truly transform economies and societies?

This book dives into real-world examples, revealing how basic income reshapes lives. It explores the ripple effects of financial security—better health, stronger communities, more education, meaningful work, and engaged citizenship. By breaking the cycle of poverty, basic income unlocks access to essentials like food and housing, empowers people, and fuels long-term thinking and entrepreneurship

Tying together theory with groundbreaking evidence from real-world trials, this book shows why basic income isn’t just possible—it’s the vital solution to our age of crisis, paving the way for a fairer society.

137 pages, Kindle Edition

First published May 27, 2025

About the author

Librarian Note: There are more than one author in the Goodreads database with this name.

Matthew 2^ Johnson: GR Author, Science Fiction, Fantasy, Magic Realism
Matthew 3^ Johnson: GR Author, Fantasy
Matthew 4^ Johnson: Science Fiction, Fantasy, Short Stories
Matthew 5^ Johnson: Organic Life
Matthew 6^ Johnson: Biography for Children, History

Reviews

[Will Ruark · Rating 3 out of 5]

I am not proud of how much time it's taken me to digest this policy argument, but I am glad I took my time to acutely understand the components of this persuasive piece. A genuine struggle I had reading was the argument's repetitive nature. However, Johnson's claims forced me to understand the idea of unconditional basic income in a more eclectic way than I had previously: framing the policy in the context of not just its effects on poverty, but also those on health, crime and the productiveness of the economy as a whole.

To best appreciate this work, I would approach it with an outlook to learn about the psychology of poverty and the impoverished rather than to be convinced about an economic policy. I suggest this approach because the truth of UBI (empirically) lies in the fact that we do not know what its outcomes would be on a nationwide scale indefinitely. Much of the data and psychology in this piece used as evidence make it sound like the answer to reduce poverty is obvious and even easy, but it skirts around the lack of evidence regarding a real, long-lasting macroscale introduction of UBI that would accurately compare to the economies of the UK and the U.S.

I think there are some really fantastic explanations of interesting psychological concepts related to those in and around the poverty line, and I don't think that the piece's arguments are entirely wrong or unfounded (there are some excellent case studies taken around Britain, in addition to several well-explained moral justifications). In my opinion however, when dealing with the implementation of a financial policy that would affect literally everyone in any given country, the argument lacks a certain completeness. I think that policy introduction is deeply connected to individual impact and reaction, and while it can bleed into results on a nationwide/macro scale, it is not synonymous with those outcomes and thus cannot act as a replacement.

[Darran Mclaughlin · Rating 4 out of 5]

We hosted a launch for this book last week. It is a snappy, succinct manifesto in favour of a Basic Income. It provides a lot of evidence that a basic income is achievable in the UK, and that it would help to mitigate and overcome many aspects of the polycrisis we find ourselves in. It should be possible to make this government policy, and appeal to a huge cross section of the electorate. If Labour adopted it, it would mean that their victory over Reform at the next election would be guaranteed. Instead, they will allow Reform to outflank them on the Left on economic policies, and are instead trying to outflank Reform on the Right on their social policies. This will guarantee their loss, and will shift the UK towards the Far Right. Why would they do this when there is a policy position that would be wildly popular with their voter base, and with a much larger cross section of the electorate? Because a Basic Income would undermine the basis of Capitalism, which they cannot allow.

I like a lot of things about a Basic Income. I like that it offers people individual freedom and choice. A lot of people on the left are opposed to it and say that we should have universal basic services instead. I like that idea too, but I also think that some people on the Left don't trust the idea of giving people money to do with as they will.

However, the fact is that Capitalism absolutely depends on the ability to dominate people and force them to do bad jobs for bad pay and conditions, under the threat of being turfed out of work and made unemployed. If there was a Basic Income set at a level at which people could live, they would not be forced to take a really shit job at which they are treated badly. They could hold out and find something they prefer, or do something else with their time. Capitalism could not survive this.

[Luke Glasspool · Rating 4 out of 5]

Whilst the arguments made are interesting, the book goes into as much depth as a performative male when you ask them to describe one piece of feminist literature they’ve read (I could never).

[Julia Hines · Rating 5 out of 5]

Short, easy to understand book about basic income.

Well-researched and compelling writing.

The book is co-authored by an impressive team, all from different academic backgrounds.

Worth a look.

[Callen McDonough · Rating 5 out of 5]

Everyone should read to understand the argument for a common sense policy.

[Ivey · Rating 4 out of 5]

-1 star for being *brit ish* but otherwise so good and why can’t we just have good things

[Luke Cunnah · Rating 5 out of 5]

All those in favour say aye