[AnthonyMouse]

Basic income doesn't inherently require taxes to increase, especially if you measure it as taxes paid less government benefits received. You're thinking of things in class warfare terms -- someone else gets more money from the government therefore I get less or pay more. Any program that works on that principle is just redistribution of wealth, or naked corruption.

The benefit of a basic income is that it changes incentives. In the existing system you lose government benefits if you take a job, so if the only job you can get pays low wages you have a significantly reduced incentive to seek employment. Higher unemployment means lower tax revenues, lower economic growth, etc. Fighting that is why a basic income is superior to means tested government assistance.

[weddpros]

Say I'm jobless, and I make 1000/m. If I find a job that pays 1100 : - with BI I'll make 1100. That's the value of work. - without BI I'll make 100 + 1000. The value of work is 100.

With BI, people will think "I don't want to work for 100/m" (you know, it's the gov that pays the other 1000/m). You'll hear people say "I'm paid 1000 just to breathe, why work for 100?".

It you want to limit this problem as much as possible, you'll need a basic income of exactly 0.

[streptomycin]

Problem is, rich countries already have welfare systems and hardly anyone would support completely eliminating them. So people are already paid to breathe. The question is how to do so while minimizing perverse incentives.

[AnthonyMouse]

Exactly. The problem right now is that if you have no job, you get government assistance. If you get a job, you lose the government assistance, so a job that pays $1200/month only allows you to keep $200 in your pocket because you've lost $1000 in government benefits by taking the job and no longer "needing" the assistance. We've created a de facto 80+% marginal tax rate on the working class vs. being unemployed, which is economically Very Bad.

[weddpros]

I don't agree with you. If you find a job at 1200$/m you keep 1200$/m in your pocket, not 200... The real problem is if you get paid 80% of that for breathing, because of government assistance!

When you want to help some industry, you'll give subventions to it. It should be no surprise that subventions to unemployment lead to more unemployment!

France (where I live) has a track record : we almost have basic income (it's called RSA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenu_de_solidarit%C3%A9_activ...), unemployment rate is >10%, taxes are record high and growth is NaN.

Recently, I heard a lady (29 yo) tell me that her 1700€/m salary was not enough to compensate for the loss of social assistance. She decided to resign... but 1700€/m is the MEDIAN SALARY in France! 50% earn less than that!

[streptomycin]

I think you're confused about the difference between a basic income and a guaranteed minimum income. What you are describing is the latter, but what we are advocating is the former.

[weddpros]

I just tried to explain that even guaranteed minimum income can discourage people from working. Basic income will have even more severe counter productive effects. I don't see AT ALL why it would not.

[sharemywin]

I think with basic income you would get $2100.

[weddpros]

Sorry, no.

And it's a good thing: imagine the inflation rate if salaries were raised by up to 100% overnight...