Some of their comments show a deplorable lack of vision: > "Bill Gates would get 13K, which is crazy. Raising taxes is costly and so redistribution should be t

Some of their comments show a deplorable lack of vision: > "Bill Gates would get 13K, which is crazy. Raising taxes is costly and so redistribution should be targeted to those who need help most." People like Bill Gates without a doubt would have to be taxed more (amounting to much more than 13k) for this to work. The current system works by redistributing and targeting those who supposedly need help most. As of now, it works somewhat ok for the most part but it's tremendously wasteful and promotes wrong incentives. A basic income can reduce that waste and puts everyone on an equal footing. > "Total health expenses and risk will remain high for individuals. It might also shift the norm whether to work. Work = being part of society" > "Lots of conflicting incentives that can discourage work in the existing rules." Because work is an end to itself? Opinions like these seem to be founded in Puritan ethics (work as penance in this life) rather than economic reasoning. If human work doesn't necessarily create value anymore what's the point in continuing to work by the current rules from an economic perspective? > "What about e.g. national defense?" Sure. Everything's up for discussion. Save for sacred national defence. > "A minimum income makes sense, but not at the cost of eliminating Social Security and Meidcare." > "This is a dumb question. We are not going to eliminate Social Security and Medicare etc." Why is that exactly? Are we that stuck in ideology that as a society we can't seem to think beyond concepts that date back to the first Industrial Revolution anymore?