A very well reasoned theory. I am always highly skeptical about basic income schemes, however you definitely began to persuade me, however I'm not am there yet. My concern would be inflationary pressures. If everyone makes $x per year, then everyone would want a minimum of a studio apartment instead of the residence hotel. Yet there isn't an increased supply of apartments. So prices rise, negating the benefit. So now these residence hotels can charge a higher price because the people can now afford it. However, to pay for basic income, now you must increase taxes, which results in a lower marginal profit for property owners, which creates a disincentive to keep building, which further constricts supply and raises costs. Even discounting tax revenue increases that would be necessary to fund a basic income, supply and demand still apply. In you lower the cost of something (either by lowering the price or increasing the ability of people to pay the current price,) you reduce supply. So we're back were we started, except those people who have saved money over the course of their life now find it less valuable, thus reducing their purchasing power and thus resulting in decreased demand, thus lowering prices. However in that scenario, it simply redistributes the wealth from the savers to the group you are trying to help. Great for the special interest (the poor) but at the expense of the whole. Because, a basic income isn't creating new wealth, it's rearranging existing wealth while also reducing the incentive to create new wealth through higher taxes. One could say "reduce the defense budget," which is a valid idea, however the defense budget is also responsible for a huge amount of economic activity (see the US economic recovery during WWII as an example.) Sonwith reduced defense spending, you also reduce the jobs from that industry, which puts additional stress on a basic income system. Of course, I reject the Keynesian premise that defense spending boosts the economy, but what does boost the economy is lower taxes; it incentivizes production which then provides more jobs and increases the amount of capital available for real wealth creation, which helps everyone -- even the profoundly poor. After all, compared to countries like India, Mexico, etc, the American poor are far better than the poor of those counties-- because there is far greater wealth and thus a more powerful economic engine and thus increased opportunity. Poverty rates in the U.S. have remained unchanged since the War in Poverty. Why? Redistribution doesn't solve anything.