[undersuit]

>The vast vast majority of the population reject basic income, in favour of a meritocracy, where the harder you work, the more money you can earn.

Then the vast majority of the population are rejecting basic income for the wrong reasons. Nothing about basic income invalidates meritocracy. In fact I would say it strengthens it. No longer is the rat race composed of a hodgepodge of willing, unwilling, and incompetent workers. All the unwilling or incompetent workers drop out. Those that still work have reasons to work besides filling a seat for 8 hours so they can continue to afford a meal .

[tniswong]

Mind explaining how intentionally reducing the explicit tangible rewards of personal merit strengthens a meritocracy?

Is critical thinking no longer a thing?

[undersuit]

Would you mind explaining how you think anyone is "intentionally reducing the explicit tangible rewards of personal merit?"

[tniswong]

In a meritocracy, people earn money by means reaping the rewards of their own personal merit.

The government has no money of its own. So, in order to fund these programs, it must first appropriate said money from the people who earned it in the first place.

This appropriation (taxation) is non-voluntary, and enforced by threat of violence (force of law).

When someone takes something from me by force that I would not otherwise be willing to give them, it is by definition theft.

Therefore, it would seem to me that taxation/theft is an intentional attempt by the government to reduce the rewards of my own personal merit.