[Deregibus]

>Funny how all the proponents of a Universal 'Basic' Income aren't proposing instead to make every 'Basic' item 'Free'.

>After all, if you believe their rhetoric, giving someone $500/mo should be the same as giving them free bread, eggs, milk, some clothes and some movie tickets.

It's not "funny", it's the core part of basic income that separates it from state-run socialism. Not making a determination about what is or isn't basic is one of the key points. You give a person their $500 each month and let them determine what it should be spent on. What is basic for one person may not be for another.

[jarym]

Go back to 1950s USA where average annual salary was just over $3000 - if I told you back then I'd give you $500 a month - almost twice the average salary where do you think we'd all be now? Would we be even here?

Now take your $500 a month and project forward another 50-60 years. What do you think it'll buy you then and why?

By picking a monetary amount - be it $50, $500 or $1000 it IS absolutely making a determination about what's basic. And its doing it based on the living standards and cost of living of today. That's a large part of why its so flawed.

[delinka]

It seems to me it'd have to be specified as a formula based on the "poverty threshold" and "inflation." I really can't imagine just throwing out a number and expecting it to be unchanged for decades.

[theaeolist]

The precise amount will not be enshrined in the constitution. It will be most likely adjusted periodically to ensure subsistence without removing the motivation to work.