In Chapter 1 we recognised that there are two ways to argue towards benefits system reform: we can invent tax and benefits systems on the basis of a set of criteria, and then compare our current systems with the systems that we have invented; or we can ask how we might solve the problems that the current systems have bequeathed to us. In practice we have followed both methods, by constructing a benefits system appropriate to changing employment markets and changing families, and by showing that a Citizen's Basic Income would do this better than our current system. Both methods will be in evidence in this chapter as well as we seek a benefits system that is coherent, simple to administer, and avoids error and fraud, and show that a Citizen's Basic Income would be a considerable improvement on means-tested benefits in these respects.

Our tax and benefits structure should be coherent: its parts should fit together

As things stand, our tax and benefits structure does not fit together. Indeed, the tax system on its own is ‘unnecessarily complex and distorting’. When we add the benefits system, the resultant tax and benefits structure is a very long way from coherent, with different sets of rules for means-tested benefits, National Insurance benefits, Income Tax, National Insurance Contributions, and such universal benefits as Child Benefit. This would not matter if the different sets of rules did not cause problems when people are subject to several of them, but they do. The only regulations that do not cause problems when in combination with other regulations are those for Child Benefit. Similarly, the regulations for a Citizen's Basic Income would not cause problems for the administration of any other parts of the system. This is one of many good reasons for saying that a Citizen's Basic Income would make a good basis for a future benefits and tax structure. (If an unconditional benefit like Child Benefit is taken into account when means-tested benefits are calculated – which it usually is not – then any complication is the fault of the means-tested benefit, and not of the unconditional one.)