It is one of those ideas that is neat, plausible and wrong. It suffers from several fallacies of composition. The money becomes worthless in the eyes of those

It is one of those ideas that is neat, plausible and wrong. It suffers from several fallacies of composition. The money becomes worthless in the eyes of those that receive it, and that's because if I have spent my time growing carrots - even if I have used machines to grow lots and lots of carrots, I still need to see you give up your time in the service of others before I am happy to let you have carrots. If you don't, then you are not seen as contributing to society and humans get upset when that happens. That's because you get paid twice in real terms. Once by the self-consumption of your own time and once with the consumption of the output of others you have purchased with your basic income. That is seen as unfair. The correct solution is to organise your time to the service of others as a job. A job that is focussed on social value, not profit. You then get the living wage for that job - a wage that is much higher than any suggested basic income, without any need to increase taxation. The problem is a lack of jobs. The problem is the fallacy that the private sector creates jobs, when in reality its task is to destroy them and replace them with automation. A task we need it to do if we're to drive productivity forward.