[MaxGhenis]

Pegging BI to tax revenue or GDP seems like a good idea to me, though I'd prefer to start with something revenue-neutral like I lay out. As it eliminates welfare cliffs, it seems self-evident that it would not reduce employment. Many other studies on cash transfers have found that they don't reduce work incentives, except for specific populations like new mothers and teenagers, but more evidence with slowly-rolled-out programs would help address this.

Speaking of utopia, what I'd really prefer is for BI to be funded as 100% of land value tax and pollution/carbon taxes. But that could be for another article. Even if nobody's working and everything's automated, we'll still need natural resources to house people and build things, so this would be sustainable.

[overdrivetg]

Yes, totally agreed (/probably poorly described) - start revenue neutral as you have, then the following year just use the % of GDP from this year as the initial "set point". Then you get both: revenue-neutral cold start plus a % pegged to GDP moving forward.

Good idea wrt land-value and pollution/sustainability taxes too, makes total sense.