I Think People Should be Paid not to Work, if That's What They Want: Switzerland to vote

[zelticgar]

Zelticgar i can assure you that people with disabilities do need more money.  The money they receive is not just for loss of work, at least not in the UK.

Got it, I'm in the US. so we may be talking past each other We deal with the medical cost/benefits separately from the replacement of income.

Typical disability situation is for income payment through social security disability and then their medical coverage is handled by medicaid or if they have medical coverage from some other source (long term insurance through past employer or via their spouses coverage). In the example in the US i would assume no changes to our already cumbersome medical programs. I'm talking about using it as a replacement to direct monetary payments excluding medical.

 

 

 

[MerenthaClone]

Gregsjt:

Someone who goes from the income of 80hr/week at decent lawyer pay to the presumably relatively spartan guaranteed basic income is going to have one hell of a time paying for the lifestyle he's used to.  And, I mean, if he's working 80hrs as-is he's doing so for a reason and its not because he needs to: after all, he got a decent job, unlike the people currently working those hours because they're at minimum wage trying to keep food on their table.  (Also, he's doing a disservice to himself and his employer:  there's a reason we don't allow medical residents to work more than 80 hours a week, including a 30hr shift where they're allowed to sleep, and its because productivity and the quality of work plummets after a certain point.)

But you keep frothing over the idea that someone undeservering gets a benefit.  Are there potential problems paying for it?  Sure, but you're working from the idea that its morally wrong to try. 

[Dr. Pepper]

 

Who will pay for it?

 

Let's take two people, Sam and Bill.

 

Sam is ambitious, he is smart, he is a hard worker. He got good grades in school, he worked nights during college to pay his rent, he took out student loans to pay for tuition. Now he works in a law firm, he works 80 hour weeks and makes 60k per year. He is still paying off student loans, his wife is pregnant, and he is getting ready to buy a house.

 

Bill didn't give a shit about school, he is lazy, he got shitty grades, he didn't go to college, he started working in a mine when he got done with school. He hates his job.

 

Now the government decides to pay people a minimum wage to stay at home. Bill loves this idea, the government will give him enough money to pay rent and buy some food, he can now sit on his ass all day, drink beer and watch TV.

 

But guess what, in order for the government to pay Bills rent, they're going to have to raise taxes on Sam. So now Sam, the guy who has done everything right in life, the guy who worked hard in school and at his job, has to foot the bill for Bill to stay home.

 

Tell me this, what incentive is there for Sam to continue working 80 hours a week? Heck, if he made the choice to not work he could spend more time with his family, he could catch up on his favorite TV shows, he could go camping, he would have the time to do whatever he wanted. So Sam decides to stop working and he too is going to take the minimum wage and stay at home.

 

How long would it take until everyone decided to stay at home? In order for the government to give they first have to take. What happens when they're isn't anyone to take from?

The problem with all this bullshit you just wrote is that it argues what sort of people you think are superior and the sort you think should just suck it up rather than arguing why a more streamlined social safety net is not workable.  

You've arbitrarily decided what the 'right' way to live is, you've determined that only those who are smart and loved school deserve admiration, you've ridiculously decided that there is something wrong with hating a mine job even though mine jobs fucking suck because you're in a mine for fuck's sake.  You seem pretty certain that poor people want to be poor and would decide to maintain their poverty no matter what.  In your little hypothetical, Bill and Sam make the same choice in the end and yet the language you use spews disgust towards the poor dude while appearing to feel sorry for little Sammy who for some reason decides no longer wants the McMansion and SUV he worked for because he's mad that Billy didn't enjoy developing black lung.  I mean, the obvious question is if Sam wanted to live on the cusp of poverty, why didn't he just do that to start?  There's a mine job with his name on it!

 

[Ser Arthur Hightower]

I believe this is a policy of the UK Green Party, and was in their election manifesto. People more knowledgeable than I about economics said it was unworkable.

Were those the same economically knowledgable people who tout the necessity of austerity?

[Ser Arthur Hightower]

 

Who will pay for it?

 

Let's take two people, Sam and Bill.

 

Sam is ambitious, he is smart, he is a hard worker. He got good grades in school, he worked nights during college to pay his rent, he took out student loans to pay for tuition. Now he works in a law firm, he works 80 hour weeks and makes 60k per year. He is still paying off student loans, his wife is pregnant, and he is getting ready to buy a house.

 

Bill didn't give a shit about school, he is lazy, he got shitty grades, he didn't go to college, he started working in a mine when he got done with school. He hates his job.

 

Now the government decides to pay people a minimum wage to stay at home. Bill loves this idea, the government will give him enough money to pay rent and buy some food, he can now sit on his ass all day, drink beer and watch TV.

 

But guess what, in order for the government to pay Bills rent, they're going to have to raise taxes on Sam. So now Sam, the guy who has done everything right in life, the guy who worked hard in school and at his job, has to foot the bill for Bill to stay home.

 

Tell me this, what incentive is there for Sam to continue working 80 hours a week? Heck, if he made the choice to not work he could spend more time with his family, he could catch up on his favorite TV shows, he could go camping, he would have the time to do whatever he wanted. So Sam decides to stop working and he too is going to take the minimum wage and stay at home.

 

How long would it take until everyone decided to stay at home? In order for the government to give they first have to take. What happens when they're isn't anyone to take from?

Why should there be any incentive to work 80 hours a week? That's insane, in a society where only 1% actually produces the food we eat there is no justification for anyone having to work those hours.

I realise that this is just a small part of your point, but I think it is troubling that anyone would use this as an example, and shows that as a society we are far to obsessed with "living to work as opposed to working to live".

[Ser Arthur Hightower]

Would there not be an inflationary impact from this?

As in, let's say everyone gets $20k dollars a year for free.

So now, let's say they want to aspire to more, and they also do a job then, which pays $30k. So that person now earns $50k in total, where before he would only have earned $30k.

So if this applies to everyone who previously earned $30k, then the guys that used to supply say rental accommodation to this class of people will now be able to charge more for this essential commodity, as there are now millions more people who are able to pay more for it.

In short, where your living expenses were previously $30k, supply and demand would now drive it up to $50k, leaving you in exactly the same boat.

In fact, those who now get $20k from doing nothing will likely be worse off than those who used to get $20k for menial labor, as ‌$20k now buys you less than it did before.

I don't think that's the way to think about it mathematically; either it would only be provided to people that don't have a job and so someone earning $30k would still bring in only $30k, or jobs would pay a lot less, either paying less per hour or simply offering more part time employment.

So your example the person earning $30k wouldn't get support from the government, or would earn closer to $10k from the job and continue to get the $20k basic income.

The economic problem that would occur from this would be the rise in prices of basic requirements; a landlord can raise the rent because he knows the government would cover it, same with food, power and such. (This is basically what has been happening with housing benefits in the UK)

 

So this could only work with wider public ownership and socialist policies, which are only likely within any of our lifetimes/at all if there is mass public unrest due to unemployment and low wages.

[peterbound]

 

Who will pay for it?

 

Let's take two people, Sam and Bill.

 

Sam is ambitious, he is smart, he is a hard worker. He got good grades in school, he worked nights during college to pay his rent, he took out student loans to pay for tuition. Now he works in a law firm, he works 80 hour weeks and makes 60k per year. He is still paying off student loans, his wife is pregnant, and he is getting ready to buy a house.

 

Bill didn't give a shit about school, he is lazy, he got shitty grades, he didn't go to college, he started working in a mine when he got done with school. He hates his job.

 

Now the government decides to pay people a minimum wage to stay at home. Bill loves this idea, the government will give him enough money to pay rent and buy some food, he can now sit on his ass all day, drink beer and watch TV.

 

But guess what, in order for the government to pay Bills rent, they're going to have to raise taxes on Sam. So now Sam, the guy who has done everything right in life, the guy who worked hard in school and at his job, has to foot the bill for Bill to stay home.

 

Tell me this, what incentive is there for Sam to continue working 80 hours a week? Heck, if he made the choice to not work he could spend more time with his family, he could catch up on his favorite TV shows, he could go camping, he would have the time to do whatever he wanted. So Sam decides to stop working and he too is going to take the minimum wage and stay at home.

 

How long would it take until everyone decided to stay at home? In order for the government to give they first have to take. What happens when they're isn't anyone to take from?

 

So, a few things, and let me start by saying that I'm a through and through capitalist.  You need to change your examples though, and part of what you wrote helps add to the already fucked up ideas that people have about work, education, and pay in the US.  

 

1.  There is nothing wrong with not going to college, and working at a mine.  This nation is built on the backs of people like 'bill' and we shouldn't sham the idea of working with your hands, in a mine or otherwise.  The idea that you have to college to be successful is fucking idiotic.  There are plenty of great jobs out there that don't require an undergraduate, and we need to stop convincing our kids that they need to get into massive amounts of debt to live the american dream. 

2.  Miners actually make pretty good money.  I grew in up in what many would call a fucking big mining camp (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miami,_Arizona), and while it's a shithole, that is mostly due to drugs, booze, and crime...not the money you could make working at the mines.  

3.  Paying for bill wouldn't have to cause an increase in taxation.  This idea is one that is frustrating as well and I think perpetuated by politicians to get more money.  We take in a shitton of cash /already/ what we do with it is the problem.  Cutting out a sliver of the defense budget could help fund many programs, and still not cause any damage to our national security.  You ever hear of the JSJ (F35)?  Massive waste of money, and one that could have been spent elsewhere to care for our citizens, and not line the pocket of foreign and domestic contractors.  

4.  Some people actually love their job.  Now I know that I may be an anomaly, but I fucking love what I do.  I realize that it's the greatest job in the world, and not everyone can have what I have, but there is a percentage of people that aren't motivated by the pay (although I do alright).  These people would keep working, even if your doomsday scenario played out.  Providing a vital service, job satisfaction, the camaraderie.  All that is what I come to work for.  Not the feeling of superiority over my fellow man.  

 

Use some different examples, and refine that shit.  

 

[McCracken]

The Bill and Sam story is beyond idiotic and bigoted to boot.  In the real world most Bill's (people working at the bottom of the job market) are not lazy scroungers as you make out but just ordinary people like you and me who want to make the best of their lives.

With a universal income they and their families will start to enjoy a much better quality of life.  In real life it is Bill who is more likely to be working 80 hour weeks as thats what he needs to do to survive.  So with this benefit maybe Bill might decide to work 40 hours instead of 80 and spend more time with his family.  Bill may also quite his job.  If he does its more a reflection of the standards of the job than of Bill.  As Bill will still want to work as people always want more money than the basics and finds work rewarding in of itself (if people were satisfied with just the basics why does nearly everyone keep working beyond the point where they've earned the basics).  If Bill quites his job maybe he will use his time to go to university which he couldn't do when he was younger, maybe he will use his time to create a new company.

 

In real life Sam probably had a shit load of advantages over Bill.  Sam will be white and from a middle class home.  So he won't face any of the discrimination that Bill had to.  Also he comes from a stable home and went to an excellent school.  His perants were always able feed him and help him with his homework when he was a child and with uni appliacation when he grew up.  Sam worked hard but he had a lot of help on the way.  He knew that if he did work hard he could become a hot shot lawyer just like his dad.  Bill knew not to dream big, after all nobody from his town/neighbourhood ever achieved anything beyond a minimum wage job and thats if they were lucky.

Nether the less Sam will recieve the universal income just like Bill on top of his wages but Sam might have to pay a little extra tax.  So maybe Sam is slightly worse off or maybe slightly better off.  If Sam is overworked and he probably is.  Then maybe the universal income will allow to work a few less hours. 

 

 

[Drowned Crow]

The sense of entitlement in this thread has reached a level that is almost grotesque. I strongly suspect that a guaranteed income will be necessary in the future as the only plausible way to deal with the trend toward automation. But if it does happen it will be because the economy has fundamentally changed to the point that there's no choice. Not because the rest of society is overwhelmed with sympathy for the fact that, on balance, you'd really just prefer to not work. 

[McCracken]

The lack of humanity in this thread has reached a level that is grotesque.  It seems people would rather people who can't find work starve or live in poverty just to make sure no one (who isn't rich) can decide not to work.  Our economies already are designed to have mass unemployment.  Yet people keep perpetuating the myth that the unemployed are so by choice.

The people who seem to have a grotesque sense of self entitlement to me are the people who are fortunate enough to be affluent who think they deserve to keep all the money that society has given them without giving anyhting back.  They have the arrogance to think that all their wealth is product of there hard work and has nothing to do with their privilaged position in society.  Despite social science showing again and again that biggist decider in how much someone has is who their perants are.

[Happy Ent]

I’ve tried to read up on this a bit now, and have at least one genuine question.

How large is the expense of basic income (money just above poverty line paid per individual) compared to the rest of the cost of “maintaining” a human? In particular, does anybody know the cost per individual in health care expenses, and how much does a small room in social housing in the suburbs cost to construct and maintain?

(I ask because my hunch is that 30-year old young bachelors videogaming in their parents’ basement isn’t much of an expense, and society could give less than a flying fuck about whether that person gets his Ramen noodles and Playstation for free. But that 30-year old young man will turn 60 very soon, and develop treatable ailments. I tacitly assume that society will cover the cost of treating these ailments, which probably dwarfs the expenses of basic income. Thus, basic income may economically be a mirage compared to universal health care, and the main interesting question becomes how society develops the moral incentive to implement universal health care in a setting where the ostracisation of individuals from the work force is ritualised. But I don’t know the numbers, so this line of inquiry may be a dead end.)

[zelticgar]

McCracken - you might want to stop clutching your pearls for a minute and consider that it is not unreasonable to take a view that we should create a system that values hard work and provides incentives to be productive. I cannot figure out how that could possible be a bad view. 

And your assertion that people are successful  due to their privileged place in society is just as arrogant as the view that all unemployed people are lazy.

 

I’ve tried to read up on this a bit now, and have at least one genuine question.

How large is the expense of basic income (money just above poverty line paid per individual) compared to the rest of the cost of “maintaining” a human? In particular, does anybody know the cost per individual in health care expenses, and how much does a small room in social housing in the suburbs cost to construct and maintain?

(I ask because my hunch is that 30-year old young bachelors videogaming in their parents’ basement isn’t much of an expense, and society could give less than a flying fuck about whether that person gets his Ramen noodles and Playstation for free. But that 30-year old young man will turn 60 very soon, and develop treatable ailments. I tacitly assume that society will cover the cost of treating these ailments, which probably dwarfs the expenses of basic income. Thus, basic income may economically be a mirage compared to universal health care, and the main interesting question becomes how society develops the moral incentive to implement universal health care in a setting where the ostracisation of individuals from the work force is ritualised. But I don’t know the numbers, so this line of inquiry may be a dead end.)

Ent,

I think you need to look at this program as a replacement for the already existing programs that are in place to assist individuals. I can only speak of the programs in the US but typically a person has a variety of programs available to them which include:

• Cash compensation through Welfare/Disability/Unemployment payments
• Cash compensation through Food Assistance programs
• Housing Assistance typically through discounts in rent or purchasing homes
• Medical Programs - the government values this at 6k to 8k per year

Most valuations I can find show a total benefit of anywhere from $15,000 to $55,000 per year depending on the specific state where you collect benefits.

I think your view of the rising cost of medical coverage for the non workers is something we should be less concerned about provided the government was able to implement a flat payment and eliminate most of the programs we currently have in place. The savings from not having to administer Welfare/Disability/Unemployment should be significant and could help fund a lot of this.

Regarding the medical component, I think you would see significant savings in medical costs as a result of a program like this. consider that in the US growth in disability participation mirrors the rate of unemployment. Long term unemployment often results in people working the medical system so they can qualify for disability. It is likely that a large percentage of the population of 9 million people that are on the disability rolls would voluntarily leave the medical programs if they were given the option to just get a check. I dont want to get into a big argument about this but the reality is that many people are forced to work the disability system as alternative to losing unemployment. There is a huge infrastructure set up around working this system that might go away resulting in savings.

I look at this proposal as very similar to the idea of a flat tax, just simplify an already existing system and make it much less complicated.

 

 

 

 

 

[McCracken]

The pearl clutching was a response to the previous pearl clutching over entitlement.  Yes i think we are all entitled to a decent standard of life.  How grotesque!

Thats the thing the current system doesnt value hard work.  People working in factories, call centres and supermarkets work very hard but there efforts are not rewarded.  In the UK there are now more people in work below the poverty line than those out of work.  This is not about valueing work.  This is about ensuring that everybody has a decent standard of life.  Most people are not unemployed by choice and will be unemployed only temporarily.  Do think after a reccession everybody just gets more lazy?  Do you think everyone got more lazy after the 50s and 60s?  Or did politicians decide to no longer aim for full employment.  Create jobs and long term unemployment will close to disappear.  Unemployment is caused by bad economic management not by lazy individuals.

Of course wealth has some relation to hard work but to act like that it is the biggest factor is demonstatably false.  Look at any study on social mobility in the US or UK and you will see there is very little.

[Wise Fool]

People don't value hard work, though. Not really. This is a society that values consumption far more than it does production. Laborers are made to feel like a servant class, customers are made to feel like God, and their every need is catered to. Culturally this leads to the sense of entitlement everyone - right or left - has, in general: an expectation that the world is there to serve you and give you what you want, for a fee, is inculcated by capitalism and market forces. (I am not referring to "entitlement" as right-wingers do, as some whiny desire for food and shelter and other luxuries, but as an attitude toward the environment and public). If this wasn't so, the Donald Trumps of the world would be held in low esteem, and the hardest workers would be idolized - but the opposite is true. The Donald Trumps get to shit over hard working immigrants ("some of whom, I assume, are good people") while he himself has never worked a day in his life, and his opinion is heard and repeated by millions and he'll be the next President. You and I? No one outside of a tiny group of people care for our opinions and we are not in the running (nor could have a chance whatsoever) for being the most powerful person in the world. Work as hard as you want, maybe if you're lucky or clever you'll be able to retire before dying. Most of us though, will be working long into our golden years, just to survive.

 

 

[The Anti-Targ]

Does it come down to a basic matter of human rights? If a right to life is a basic human right, arguments about capital punishment for certain crimes aside, then is denial if the basic means for preserving that right (which is the means to obtain sufficient food, clothing and shelter, which means a certain base level of monetary income) the same a denying someone that right?

If life can be sustained long term only if you engage in work that is regarded as being valuable enough to pay for, then life is no longer a right, it is a privilege to be earned. This is really the essence of a social welfare system isn't it? A recognition that everyone has a right to life and that it is in society's best interests to subsidise a person's life when they do not earn sufficient to maintain their life by themselves. Because once we start deciding that certain people don't deserve to live then that creates all sorts of unpleasant scenarios. We can create social expectations that everyone who is physically and mentally capable *should* endeavour to provide for themselves. But sorting out the can'ts from the won'ts is both fraught with difficulty in where you draw a line and considerable expense in running a system of continual assessing fitness to work. 

[peterbound]

The Bill and Sam story is beyond idiotic and bigoted to boot.  In the real world most Bill's (people working at the bottom of the job market) are not lazy scroungers as you make out but just ordinary people like you and me who want to make the best of their lives.

With a universal income they and their families will start to enjoy a much better quality of life.  In real life it is Bill who is more likely to be working 80 hour weeks as thats what he needs to do to survive.  So with this benefit maybe Bill might decide to work 40 hours instead of 80 and spend more time with his family.  Bill may also quite his job.  If he does its more a reflection of the standards of the job than of Bill.  As Bill will still want to work as people always want more money than the basics and finds work rewarding in of itself (if people were satisfied with just the basics why does nearly everyone keep working beyond the point where they've earned the basics).  If Bill quites his job maybe he will use his time to go to university which he couldn't do when he was younger, maybe he will use his time to create a new company.

 

In real life Sam probably had a shit load of advantages over Bill.  Sam will be white and from a middle class home.  So he won't face any of the discrimination that Bill had to.  Also he comes from a stable home and went to an excellent school.  His perants were always able feed him and help him with his homework when he was a child and with uni appliacation when he grew up.  Sam worked hard but he had a lot of help on the way.  He knew that if he did work hard he could become a hot shot lawyer just like his dad.  Bill knew not to dream big, after all nobody from his town/neighbourhood ever achieved anything beyond a minimum wage job and thats if they were lucky.

Nether the less Sam will recieve the universal income just like Bill on top of his wages but Sam might have to pay a little extra tax.  So maybe Sam is slightly worse off or maybe slightly better off.  If Sam is overworked and he probably is.  Then maybe the universal income will allow to work a few less hours. 

 

 

Just because someone has a different opinion than you, doesn't make them a bigot. Based on the way you used it, I'm not even sure you know what it means.

[peterbound]

Does it come down to a basic matter of human rights? If a right to life is a basic human right, arguments about capital punishment for certain crimes aside, then is denial if the basic means for preserving that right (which is the means to obtain sufficient food, clothing and shelter, which means a certain base level of monetary income) the same a denying someone that right?

If life can be sustained long term only if you engage in work that is regarded as being valuable enough to pay for, then life is no longer a right, it is a privilege to be earned. This is really the essence of a social welfare system isn't it? A recognition that everyone has a right to life and that it is in society's best interests to subsidise a person's life when they do not earn sufficient to maintain their life by themselves. Because once we start deciding that certain people don't deserve to live then that creates all sorts of unpleasant scenarios. We can create social expectations that everyone who is physically and mentally capable *should* endeavour to provide for themselves. But sorting out the can'ts from the won'ts is both fraught with difficulty in where you draw a line and considerable expense in running a system of continual assessing fitness to work. 

Actually, and I hate to be hard hearted here, but it's not in socialites (or humanities) best interest to subsidize ones life. An anchor on the system of betterment is not something that should be encouraged, subsidized, it otherwise maintained.

Earning your existence (as mankind has done since its inception) is not only personally beneficial, but is good for the overall betterment of society as a whole.

[Altherion]

Actually, and I hate to be hard hearted here, but it's not in socialites (or humanities) best interest to subsidize ones life. An anchor on the system of betterment is not something that should be encouraged, subsidized, it otherwise maintained.

Earning your existence (as mankind has done since its inception) is not only personally beneficial, but is good for the overall betterment of society as a whole.

Right now, this is still true. But what happens when there isn't enough work for everyone to do? There are already quite a few jobs which are make-work (a substantial fraction of all bureaucrats in government and, more recently, in academia) and quite a few others which we could replace by machines in the next year if we wanted to (fast food, long-haul trucking, 80%+ of cashiers), but even with the various regulations and startup costs, they'll be gone in a decade. Shall we create make-work for more and more people just to keep them occupied?

[SpaceChampion]

There is no reason a basic income has to be paid in dollars (or whatever your nation's fiat currency is).  Secondary, complementary currencies have thrived on and off for centuries, particularly amidst economic crises.  A basic income could be paid out as a new currency, called basic.  Money is simply an accounting system.  It can be anything you design it to be.  We can and should have several currencies in circulation to account for society's needs.  Having a single fiat currency instead of multiple is a source of huge inefficiencies.  Multiple currencies stabilize economies.  A single currency can cause crises in the money supply, halting economic activity.  Whenever that happens, alternative currencies spring up.  It did in Germany before the Nazis stomped on it amidst one German state solving the crisis of massive inflation by switching to a new currency, and got their economy working again.  The Nazis needed crisis, so they made that illegal.

If basic can be used to pay rent, buy food, pay for public transportation it does not need to be exchangeable for anything else.  It also wouldn't suffer from inflation, because inflation does not apply to currencies indexed to a basket of items as this would be.  Renters, supermarkets and public transit authorities must be required to accept basic, and you could ban anyone else from accepting it.  But if they do, so what?  Eventually it is exchanged for dollars; if the person receiving basic used it for non-essentials, then they'd likely have to paid for their essentials with actual dollars at some point to make up for the loss of basic misused. 

The exchange rate with dollars can float, but the amount of basic needed to purchase those goods and services does not need to change at all.  Exchange rates would be localized, so a supermarket in New York might make more off the exchange than a supermarket closer to the farm when the food it grown.

Boosting economic activity is a huge benefit that the jobless that use basic would provide.  The value of money is in it being used.  Basic is not needed for savings.  To make sure it is used properly, you give a currency velocity by letting it expire after a set period (like 30 days) unless exchanged.  For a demurrage fee of 5% or whatever the market decides it can be carried for another period, if you have dollars to pay the fee.  This forces people to use basic as quickly as possibly, stirring up economic activity, or otherwise get a job to pay the fees.

How do you pay for seeing a movie, eating at a restaurant or go on a vacation?  Can't use basic for that, so you have to earn dollars.  People will work to buy the things that basic can't pay for.

[Solmyr]

Got no problem with basic income. I also think society can afford it, provided it is implemented in countries with stable demographics - e.g. you can't implement it in India and expect it to work. My concern is the arbitrary decision as to where to draw the line.

 

What is considered basic means of living? Surely food and shelter. But what else? Are people allowed water and electricity? Seems like a no-brainer for people on this board, but it's not required for survival.  What about [access to] books, internet? Some people argue it's a necessity, others that it's a luxury. Transportation? Or should all basic incomers walk and hitchhike? What is the goal of basic income - to keep people alive or to allow them to develop? For if it is the latter, you need to provide all the items listed so far.

 

Then comes health care, something HE mentioned. Should all basic incomers double as hedge doctors and have to die off from natural causes (that would surely solve the problem for all the basic income opponents) or do we accept that to keep them alive we need to provide them access to health care as well. Well, health care costs dwarf all the other costs mentioned above - especially as people age. I don't think we're at the point where we can afford to provide free health care for everyone. We certainly could if we wanted, but that would require a major economic shift, namely more people working in that field. As a specie we're more than capable of achieving this, as a society though ... that's a different story.