The next concern of implementation: extremely common for people whom aren't good with money tend to not budget or buy what they need, and end up in crises of failure-to-plan ahead (economists call them "high MPC"). Some people will need guidance as to what to buy. Others won't.
A related concern is when people whom aren't good with money suddenly receive a pile of it: the sad Anna Nicole Smith syndrome: excesses in all things apart from improving or acquiring basic necessities. It's common in human nature to really screw up, and it literally kills some people. There has to be some programs/assistance which can offer/help locate specific recommendations and get people out of a bind at least once.
Hopefully, it can be implemented in a way which reduces risks of negatives and offers useful, advantageous advice without treating people as children or dipping into their privacy without permission.
> The core question of basic income is: if people work, do they lose it entirely?
That's not a question in basic income. If you would lose it when you start working, that's just basically your standard welfare system. Basic income is by definition given to everyone without discrimination.
To compensate, you adjust tax levels. In my country you don't pay tax the first few thousand dollars. You can remove that. Then you can increase the tax rate a bit, especially in the higher brackets. Then you end up with most people getting the same net income after taxes and basic income. And you get a smooth and bureaucracy-less progression from unemployment to full employment.
I agree with your comment on people not being good with money or budgets. You would still need some social support system for people with issues or mental disability. Perhaps the government could be granted the power to take some of the income and putting it directly towards housing.
Increasing taxes "a bit" in the higher bracket does not have proportional effects. Beyond a certain level the higher brackets simply opt out of paying taxes - and this level is not much higher than the price of a competent accountant.
> The core question of basic income is: if people work, do they lose it entirely?
Usually basic income is intended to be irrespective of any other income source. This article about Finland states the same.
It's the key difference from other kind of welfare.
The other being that you don't have to prove and thus nobody has to check anything.
By removing the marginal disincentives it gives the ability to accept any job opportunity, no matter how temporary, non continuous or whatever; you can only gain
by doing something.
It's not clear how this would affect the whole society. Especially since now everybody has X bucks more, will the prices go up for everybody, thus excluding the poorer and thus making the system counterproductive ?
> Especially since now everybody has X bucks more, will the prices go up for everybody, thus excluding the poorer and thus making the system counterproductive ?
This is the big question for me. I have yet to read about a trial being run long enough to determine this.
> The core question of basic income is: if people work, do they lose it entirely?
No. That is the point: it is for everyone.
In the Netherlands, a few cities intend to start experimenting with a variant: only jobless people get a basic income, but they will keep it when they find work.
> The next concern of bringing into reality: extremely common for people whom aren't good with money [...]
On this, data is available. Giving money directly to poor people turns out, on average, to be the best way to help them. Most of them will spend the money wisely, the ones who fail at it are pretty few.
The core question of basic income is: if people work, do they lose it entirely?
No, that's the whole point of it, and the difference to regular systems with unemployment benefits: it's extremely simple to administer, because everybody gets the same amount. Also, even if you pursue a very low-paying job, you will always earn more than people who don't work at all.
A related concern is when people whom aren't good with money suddenly receive a pile of it: the sad Anna Nicole Smith syndrome: excesses in all things apart from improving or acquiring basic necessities. It's common in human nature to really screw up, and it literally kills some people. There has to be some programs/assistance which can offer/help locate specific recommendations and get people out of a bind at least once.
Hopefully, it can be implemented in a way which reduces risks of negatives and offers useful, advantageous advice without treating people as children or dipping into their privacy without permission.