[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.

[streptomycin]

No, it's the opposite. That's the main difference between the two, actually. Listen to Milton Friedman: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3ZcF1YjZNs (he explains all this within the first 5 minutes).