[jonknee]

That's absurd, of course people will work. Why does anyone work right now when there are already welfare programs?

By your logic there would be no sense in companies paying bonuses--if you already have a guaranteed salary why would you do anything more than the minimum?

[downandout]

This is not welfare. This is giving money to every single person, and you cannot do that without negatively impacting the value of the currency. Reality sucks, but we still have to live in it.

[jonknee]

How is it not welfare in your estimations? It's nearly the dictionary definition of welfare.

Why would it negatively impact the value of the currency and how is that any different than the current state of welfare (where only some people receive it)?

[downandout]

Because welfare, being given to only a small percentage of the population, can be funded out of taxes from the much larger pool of people not receiving welfare. But if everyone were suddenly on welfare, the system would quickly run out of money. We would then have to print more money.

[brazzy]

Your argument seems to rest on the false assumption that (like welfare) anyyone who receives the basic income is not paying taxes.

In fact, a lot of people would pay considerably more taxes than the basic income they're getting. Yes, that's not perfectly efficient, but still more efficient than the bad-incentive-riddled beaurocracies that exist to ensure that welfare goes only to the "deserving poor".

[chongli]

We would then have to print more money.

You seem to be under the impression that this is not being done already. That impression would be wrong. The treasury creates trillions of new dollars every year.