
Basic Income Impossibility Theorem - pythia__
http://alrenous.blogspot.com/2016/05/basic-income-impossibility-theorem.html
======
vorotato
This theorem assumes that having basic income does not afford for more
meaningful wealth opportunities, which is pretty much the economic reason it's
brought up. In fact the author of this article never mentions or refutes this
point, so someone didn't do their homework.

~~~
Turing_Machine
This isn't actually any kind of "theorem".

Besides the criticisms here and in the comments on the original site, the
author is completely ignoring the fact that there are also people who would
choose to work under UBI who don't work now (because that would mean the total
loss of existing benefits). Would that be enough to counteract the number of
people who chose not to work at all under UBI? I think it would. Whether
that's true or not, ignoring it completely (as the author does) is engaging in
a straw man argument, not a "theorem".

Under a properly-run UBI system, a person would never be worse off
economically by choosing to work.

I understand the argument that there are people who would just watch TV all
day. Yep, those people exist, but, IMO, most of those people are _already_
doing that.

------
creshal
> On the margin, someone will stop working. There will be less wealth.

Because apparently all work is generating equal wealth, and this is not offset
by people becoming entrepreneurs or investing into their own education to work
higher-wage jobs once finished.

