The thing I genuinely don't understand regarding the basic income for all argument is that surely it just moves the goal posts rather than solves the problem at hand? In the current system, you can go stay at home and get income support, which should provide you with the basics i.e. a home, food, electricity etc. If you would like more than this, you can go and get a job and hopefully earn more (have a better lifesty…
Yes and no. It's not an incentive to get a 10hr/week part-time job, for example, because you'd lose your benefits and so get paid less overall. Even making the transition can be difficult - most jobs won't pay you until the end of the month, but your benefits will be cut off at the start. How long does it take to save up a month's expenditures while on benefits?
> There is also control, to make sure the money the unemployed person is getting is mostly spent on the basics (such as housing, rather than say drugs). > What's worse is that assuming the people who are unemployed are given the choice on how that money is spent, they may in fact not spend the money sensibly (i.e. on their housing) and end up homeless instead.
Sure. But the evidence is that just giving people money works better on average than requiring them to jump through hoops.
> The problem with suddenly giving everyone a minimum amount of money, is that due to everyone now 'at least' having that amount of money at hand, this becomes the new 'bottom' of the market. If I get a job, I earn money on top of this basic amount, which means I can afford nice things and the person unemployed still can't afford anything.
You can't have it both ways. Either employed people get more money than unemployed, which provides an incentive to go work, or they don't, which doesn't.
It's not like people with more money are going to start consuming twice as much food. The unemployed should be able to afford basic necessities; the employed will find it easier to buy luxuries, which is as it should be.