Trends that will create demand for an Unconditional Basic Income

There are many non-profit motives, from simple hunger (i.e., when you're hungry you want food, not "profit") to curiosity (e.g., can I build a robot to beat Bill's bot?), from sex-drive (e.g., oh-la-la, she's hot, let me go chat her up and see if there's a "we" in our future) to helping friends and family (e.g., mom's yard has a dead tree in it, and she can't remove it herself, let me get some buddies together to go do it).

I'd just like to avoid having the government pay people to, say, drink and party. I think there does need to be some external social pressure / structure to motivate people. Otherwise, you wind up with the same political problems what current welfare programs have.

The best solution I can think of is that the government hires and trains people to do some form of public service if they can't find anything else they would rather do. Limit it to 20 hours per week. If people are really useless, give them a disability wavier. If not, have them plant free or clean up parks.

I've seen the impact of people living on the dole in Britain. It's not good for them or the society. It just abandoning them to lead a mediocre life.

I've heard of lots of people proposing a very small guaranteed payment from the state, as in, bare minimum for subsistence-level food and shelter, on the order of $10,000/year. You would not be able to "party every night for life" on such a pension.

The idea is that it would lubricate the job market, reducing the costs of employment, by taking some of the social benefits-providing responsibility away from employers and giving it to the government, which arguably should own it. This would encourage entrepreneurship (less scary to quit your job and start your own business if you have a better safety net) and also potentially alleviate homelessness and various other social ills.

Those content to never work and do whatever "partying" they can afford on their tiny basic income would also be free to do as they wish, because who wants those people in the workplace anyway? Save the jobs for the people who actually want them, not the people who only need them in order to not starve.

Strong social safety nets seem to be pretty strong contributors to reduced family size (which is why the developed world has low natural population growth and many of the places with the strongest safety nets have negative natural population growth) because people don't need children as a form of old-age insurance.

> Why the hell should I pay even more and subsidize those who have more than two kids?

A fixed basic income per adult is self-evidently not a subsidy for having more kids. In fact, compared to existing welfare policy (where the principal basis for cash benefits is number of dependent children), its a disincentive for that.

Tax on corporate profit does not need to have this effect, because it only applies to profits, not to revenue.

Sure, if a corporation wants to keep the same amount of profit after a tax hike it has to put its prices up. But because we're only taxing what's happening after deduction of costs, there's room for others to come in and compete with a lower margin (and lower taxes as a result).

It encourages firms to reinvest, to hire more people and to find other productive ways to use the money rather than either sitting on it or passing it directly to shareholders.