I am still confused. You said, >We'd still need ways to motivate people. I think basic income would be great. ... >I think not having to worry about starving w

I am still confused. You said, >We'd still need ways to motivate people. I think basic income would be great. ... >I think not having to worry about starving would be great for humanity as a whole. Motivating a person who is not starving and has no worry about starving in future is a damn difficult job. But maybe I will grant this thing for the sake of argument, because, there may be other things that may still motivate people. e.g. yearning for better lifestyle. So, I guess, the basic income should be very minimum, in fact, should be minimum possible to keep the person barely alive. Anything more will potentially have "spoiling" effect (failed communism and the British welfare system comes to mind here). No more than minimum required shelter (without any kind of "luxury", including TV, more rooms etc as are given in UK), minimum required raw food with minimum required equipment for preparing the food (no pre cooked fancier food of any kind) and minimum clothes to sustain life (no fancier clothes). Of course, I am aware that terms like "luxury", "minimum" need more precise definitions. I will make a try - Minimum required shelter/food/clothes for survival - to find the minimum amount of shelter/food/clothes required for survival one must look at the quantities the people/peasants in African/Asian/European poor countries (e.g. Liberia, India, or Russia) survive. In fact, the basic income should be just sufficient to survive, if required err on the side of less but not an iota more; if we can guarantee this, then I guess the basic income scheme will not corrupt the people, else it will be a recipe for economic/societal disaster and ruin. Luxury - anything beyond/more the minimum is luxury as far as basic income is concerned. Edit - added definition of luxury.