> Many people find that with a little care, they can live nicely on little
I believe this is the crux of your argument, and I would say that it is a postulate that cannot be assumed. If the "basic income" were $1k, few people would find they could live on it and thus the motivation to work would remain. On the other hand, who would work if they received $1 million per year? What if it's somewhere in the middle? I would argue that the incentive for work would remain if the benefit only brought people up to the poverty line.
Who wants to at live at the poverty line? $20k for a family of 4 affords very little luxury.
> Basic income also risks devaluing money
Do foodstamps make food significantly more expensive for everybody? What is the percentage of all food revenue bought with food stamps?
If 14% of US citizens live below the poverty line, the vast amount of GDP, productivity, taxes and whatever else you want to measure are generated above that line.
I've heard some arguments that a flat livable wage, without eligibility requirements beyond income would obviate the need and overhead for a whole slew of expensive social programs, including social security, welfare, food stamps, and the minimum wage.
Then there are small scale experiments like the one in the original article, though limited in actionable data did not produce behaviors like you described.
So, to answer your question, it can be sustainable because it can replace some expensive and hard-to-administer social programs with a relatively easier to distribute system. There are tangible incentives to earn more than "basic" income, and training to do so becomes easier. Lastly, the bulk of GDP and the tax base are generated by those far above the poverty line.
As I mentioned elsewhere, it's worth noting that $20k/yr goes a lot further when you're working 60hrs/wk at stretching it than when you're working 60hrs/wk at making it.
I don't mean this to play any particular role on either side of the debate - I'm not sure of all the ramifications - I just think it's probably an important point.
I believe this is the crux of your argument, and I would say that it is a postulate that cannot be assumed. If the "basic income" were $1k, few people would find they could live on it and thus the motivation to work would remain. On the other hand, who would work if they received $1 million per year? What if it's somewhere in the middle? I would argue that the incentive for work would remain if the benefit only brought people up to the poverty line.
Who wants to at live at the poverty line? $20k for a family of 4 affords very little luxury.
> Basic income also risks devaluing money
Do foodstamps make food significantly more expensive for everybody? What is the percentage of all food revenue bought with food stamps?
If 14% of US citizens live below the poverty line, the vast amount of GDP, productivity, taxes and whatever else you want to measure are generated above that line.
I've heard some arguments that a flat livable wage, without eligibility requirements beyond income would obviate the need and overhead for a whole slew of expensive social programs, including social security, welfare, food stamps, and the minimum wage.
Then there are small scale experiments like the one in the original article, though limited in actionable data did not produce behaviors like you described.
So, to answer your question, it can be sustainable because it can replace some expensive and hard-to-administer social programs with a relatively easier to distribute system. There are tangible incentives to earn more than "basic" income, and training to do so becomes easier. Lastly, the bulk of GDP and the tax base are generated by those far above the poverty line.