> Why give free money to everyone? Two major reasons. The principled reason is that it is, well, universal. If you're a citizen, you get certain rights and re

> Why give free money to everyone? Two major reasons. The principled reason is that it is, well, universal. If you're a citizen, you get certain rights and responsibilities, end of story. A more realist perspective notes that historically, if you make a program for the poor, it becomes a poor program (underfunded). A scheme it is more likely to succeed the more people who buy in to it. (Notice how the ACA is becoming more popular over time? Or look at Social Security vs. SNAP.) > I definitely would choose not to work I think people both pro- and con- are not really thinking through how this would play out in reality. Income, wealth, type of work and social status are intimately linked, especially so in the US. There will immediately be some slur for people who choose not to work that will probably replace the "your momma's on welfare"-type crap. Lots of people's shallow, status driven dating rules will expand to exclude the voluntarily-unemployed. It will become obvious that there's a very low glass-ceiling over their heads that limits them in all sorts of ways. It will also become harder to crawl out of over time, both for individuals who don't maintain useful skills, and as a social class, because that's how humans act. Some people will of course choose that life. But I think it will be a lot less appealing than you think.