Sir, – While I do not think that anyone would protest at Michael McDowell's trite observation that we should "think carefully" and "be alert to the possibility of unintended consequences" when considering any significant change in policy, his comparison between the proposal for a universal basic income and the ban on bedsits is superficial and misleading ("Bedsit ban offers a warning on future income supports", October 27th) .
The implication of such a comparison is clear, namely that a universal basic income is quite likely to produce some perverse effect that is contrary to its objectives that is similar to that which may have arisen from the ban on bedsits.
However, there is no attempt to point out any similarity between these two proposals other than the fact that they seek to achieve significant change and that they can probably be described, like innumerable alternative proposals, as “well-motivated”.
Further, the specific negative consequences that may arise from a universal basic income that he does refer to are hardly unforeseen and peripheral, but rather at the very core of the debate on the desirability of such a scheme.
If there is anything in this column other than a bland observation that we should look before we leap, then it is a sweeping and inadequately defended proposition that any significant change is suspect or worthy of scepticism.
– Yours, etc,
CHRISTOPHER
McMAHON,
Trinity College Dublin.