I done plenty of research and have conclude that it is not sustainable, and incentive people to be lazy. It has been debunked so many times. I have no clue why are we still discussing on this failed idea. ‘Universal’ implies involuntary. It simply means stealing people’s money, and putting into somebody else pockets. That’s it. It is probably better than the current system but it’s still unethical, and not morality justified.
Without statist system, people have more money and therefore can invest into more things, and basic income is no longer needed.
Why don’t we just have a guaranteed minimum income of $1M? Then we can all be millionaires.
Hazlitt explains it well in Economics in One Lesson: when wealth is suddenly saturated in one sector of the economy, including the impoverished, things become more expensive for them.
This has nothing to do with corporate greed, but rather resource management. If there is a sudden demand for $200k homes, as would presumably happen if there were a guaranteed income, those homes will go up in price since they are scarce, and people who need these items more would be willing to pay more, same as today. If everyone in the world received a million dollars, there would be a sudden demand for items that only millionaires can afford. And what would happen? The prices would go up and only billionaires could afford them.
Essentially, what would happen in this particular situation is that the guaranteed $20k/yr would very quickly end up being worth nothing, and we would be back to square one with much ado about nothing.
Money is not wealth. Production is wealth (or creates wealth). If you’re shifting money around but not actually creating more wealth, then the situation is not in fact improved. All you’re doing is increasing consumption and demand which means more dollars chasing the same amount of goods. Potentially even WORSE, you might actually lead to a decrease in production as you may cause people to produce less due to perverse incentives.