The basic income might sound like a far-left idea to some, but it is supported by some ardent capitalists including Milton Friedman. He specifically supported its implementation in the form of a "negative income tax" which would replace the current welfare system. The reason for his support was that it was a more efficient redistributive system, as it avoided the perverse incentives of means-based welfare.
Another right-ish supporter was F.A. Hayek, who had some positive arguments in favor of it as well (whereas Friedman supported it mostly just because he thought it was better than welfare systems).
Hayek's main argument was that a society based on autonomous individuals, rather than collectivist groups, is more likely if everyone is guaranteed at least a minimum safety net, because otherwise people are forced to cling to birth-related groups (ethnic groups, clans, clannish religious groups, etc.) for their safety net. A short snippet: http://www.kmjn.org/snippets/hayek79_minimumincome.html
Elsewhere he discusses it in relation to choice as well: above a subsistence floor, he opposes much government intervention because he thinks markets made up of individuals making free choices can make decisions better. But below that floor, when people are desperate, you have things that are closer to "I'm going to make you an offer you can't refuse" than an economy driven by free choices. It's unclear from my memory if his worry there is primarily an ethical one, or relating to proper functioning of markets, though it could be both.
I've also long supported the negative income tax, because it avoids the perverse incentives of the existing system.
BTW, it's not being means-based that causes the existing system to have perverse incentives; the NIT is also means-based by definition. The difference is mathematical: whether the subsidy is a step function of income, or a linear function. Step-function subsidies always create perverse incentives. Unfortunately, they are ubiquitous. I dream of the day when our legislators have sufficient mathematical ability and understanding to select appropriate linear functions instead.
Anyway, I came across a paper explaining why the NIT is a non-starter, politically, in the US. The basic problem seems to be that there are too many people -- especially young single men -- who currently receive no subsidy yet would be entitled to one under the NIT. This group would make the program too expensive.
I've never understood why taxes, benefits etc. all seem to work with step-based functions instead of continuous ones – anyone care to explain that to me? The only theoretical benefit I could see is that it makes/made administration easier, but with everything being automated that surely can't be true nowadays.
I like the idea of a negative income tax. I'm imagining it as a system where if you make below a certain amount of money, you aren't taxed, you're actually given money. If you make above that amount, you're taxed.
As long as it's implemented in a way that there is still an incentive to make more money, I think it could be a decent solution to our problems.
I like the idea too, except for fraud. When everyone making less than X automatically gets money from the government, the temptation to work off the books and double-dip grows. (Though I don't know if it's really any more of a problem than faking disability.)
There's always incentive to earn money as as long as there are things to buy that your neighbor won't be able to buy with basic income an you, with your earned money will be able.
Right now there's a disincentive to make more money because you lose some types of benefits when you get a job, even if that job pays less than the benefits.
The EITC is somewhat like that, though it's mainly targeted at families (the amounts for households without children are extremely low, with a max benefit in 2013 of $487/yr).
The best example of this is the FairTax. The prebate is currently based on making sure those at the poverty line pay 0% federal taxes. But, if you change this to be 2x the poverty line or something, you effectively achieve a floor "basic income"
As this article shows, we're leaving behind more and more people; some people will remain Zero Marginal Product workers for the rest of their lives, and as we increase automation, their ranks will only swell. If this doesn't tell people that a guaranteed basic income is necessary, I don't know what will.
We still have 3 people for each open job in the country. That number may never get to parity again; the faster we can get those who cannot do anything out of the labor force, and onto a society-provided income, the better. There'll be less competition for the remaining jobs, and these people will not have to live lives of constant degradation.
If this is the road to guaranteed income, so be it. We need to get there one way or another.
