>"the basic income as described in this and similar articles wouldn't be nearly enough to cover even half of the cheapest cost of living." Actually, the system

>"the basic income as described in this and similar articles wouldn't be nearly enough to cover even half of the cheapest cost of living." Actually, the system commonly discussed in Finland would work so that the basic money for living comes on top of housing costs. And this is what kills the system. We already have a system where the income of each person is topped up to a certain level of "livable level", on top of housing costs; this means that quite a number of people have not much incentive to optimize their housing cost as it is anyway paid by the government, and that in turn means that housing is quite expensive (comparison to NY is not entirely wrong). Property investors are happy, of course, because taxpayers foot the bill. Overall, the problem is that what is called "atypical job" is nowadays typical, and the system cannot adapt. The only way seems to do it via an insolvency of the government.