[adventured]

It's a problem because universal basic income can't even remotely work mathematically and is wildly regressive. That leaves only the option of taxing the new robotic labor to offset the FICA tax losses from millions of unemployed persons at the exact time when entitlement costs are exploding upwards. There's no other means to fill in the gap that will be left in the tax revenue from any meaningful leap in automation near-term (next 10-20 years). Will those new taxes come to be, and will they make sense (ie not cause chaos and or economic disaster)? At least in the US, one would have to bet against it working out well given the extreme government dysfunction and inability to solve even simple problems; even just the odds of any such taxes getting implemented is a long shot (the Republican Party will oppose it for better or worse).

[zaroth]

Basic income at what level can't even remotely work? Of course there are funding levels where basic income does work, and then everyone is then free to go to work and earn any additional amount they desire.

One key point is that being able to work to subsidize the basic income makes the income much more powerful than "phantom" dollars that disappear as soon as you start to work.

The trick is that the funding level of basic income doesn't have to "fully cover" a family of four. The family of four will be able to supplement the income, rather than today being locked into receiving it. Also, it doesn't mean that programs like SSDI go away, you still can provide national disability insurance.

[Mz]

One of the problems is that powerful people are predicting widespread, permanent unemployment and proposing basic income as a solution to this. Then the same article that says this has glowing, warm stories about how basic income can supplement your underpaid job and says not one word about how dreadful it will be to live in a world where you have to get by on basic income, possibly forever after, with little or no hope of supplementing it with an earned income.

That's a pretty grim picture that no one seems to be acknowledging.

[bitJericho]

What's grim is getting a tooth ache and having no where to go, so you go to the ER, they prescribe you pain meds that don't work, and then tell you to go see your regular doctor, which you don't have, because you're poor.

Grim is having an infection with no way to get antibiotics, but you use your friend's because he had some that he never used.

Grim is going to the food pantry because you ran out of money and then you have to fill out a promise to get financial help if you need to use the food pantry too often, as if you don't know how money works.

Sounds to me like you need to get out more and see how people really live.

I'd rather live in a world where I can't watch all the tv I want cuz i can't afford any, but at least I get basic healthcare.

[Mz]

I am pro universal basic healthcare. I have written about that. I am also homeless and run the San Diego Homeless Survival Guide.

Maybe you should check profiles before saying ugly things like "you need to get out more and see how people really live."

http://sandiegohomelesssurvivalguide.blogspot.com/

http://micheleincalifornia.blogspot.com/p/ir2.html

[maxerickson]

Can you explain more about how a basic income must be regressive?

Like what if it is implemented as a negative income tax?

Would a sub-basic income of $5 (implemented as a negative income tax) be regressive?