[netfire]

Why not start with something smaller, like providing "basic food" for everyone, and see what the result is? You could reuse existing programs, like food stamps, where the infrastructure is already in place for most grocery stores to accept payment. (except without the application process)

That seems like a less risky change than trying to provide enough income to cover housing, utilities, clothing, etc. all at once.

[rjsw]

Or just start with a small Basic Income to test out the system.

[netfire]

Also a good option.

Personally, I think I would favor providing something like food through a system like food stamps first. It provides less risk of the money being wasted on addictions (drugs, gambling and other bad financial decisions) and better ensures the money is used to help someone (especially in the case of children, where they are not spending the money, but their parents are).

[rjsw]

But part of the theory behind Basic Income is that people will change their behaviour when given more Agency, restricting what they can spend it on doesn't let us test this.

[seahorse]

Is "basic food" enough without "basic shelter"?

[netfire]

Its better than nothing, isn't it? Basic shelter is a more complex and expensive problem to solve (due to varying costs and lack of existing infrastructure).

I think helping eliminate hunger (especially for children), is a good place to start, without having to make a massive change in how government is run without knowing how it will effect the economy.