> Plenty of people already receive checks from the government every month that they live on, in exchange for no real work responsibilities. Like, a whole lot of

> Plenty of people already receive checks from the government every month that they live on, in exchange for no real work responsibilities. Like, a whole lot of people. There should already be a not-so-huge wave of accomplishment coming from all these people. That isn't the same as no responsibilities. > Modern Western societies are rich enough that smart, motivated individuals can mostly rise to the level of their own ability. Capitalism isn't a meritocracy and hasn't been for some time (if ever). Basic income (along with other ideas intended to improve the value of human capital) helps level the field so people can focus on things like a better education, etc. Frankly, I think we need to focus more on providing access to better education (e.g. Free community college, technical schools, bachelor degrees) with reasonable application restrictions (e.g. Fields with low demand such as many Art/soft skill majors should have caps on how many free degrees are available while fields with high demand should be uncapped). I think that'd get us alot further than basic income would in regards to your criticism. HOWEVER, basic income isn't primarily about improving human capital...its just one of the reasons: http://www.salon.com/2014/03/19/5_reasons_to_consider_a_no_strings_attached_basic_income_for_all_americans_partner/ http://www.salon.com/2014/03/19/5_reasons_to_consider_a_no_s... 1) Reduces poverty 2) Stabilizes aggregate demand since people who are primarily relying on it for income are going to spend it on goods/services for survival. 3) Certain social ills (e.g. Domestic abuse) are reduced as its easier to escape bad situations. Children are more likely to finish high school. 4) It is more efficient in terms of dollars spent than existing programs (except Social Security) 5) Human dignity