The issue of "incentive to work" is one that I think people in general are too philosophically cowardly to explore seriously: people tend to resort to cultural

The issue of "incentive to work" is one that I think people in general are too philosophically cowardly to explore seriously: people tend to resort to cultural tropes rather than think about what principles are driving their analysis. As kiba implies, you're basically saying "work or death". This isn't a real choice, unless the person in question is suicidal or otherwise interested in dying. Freedom of choice necessitates at least two desirable options; without this, it's coercion. You can replace "death" with the more optimistic "poverty" or "homelessness" if you prefer: the philosophical problem is the same. The issue isn't even "a basic income will remove incentive to work". The issue is "why does there need to be an incentive to work in the first place". If society will break down if we all stop working, isn't that a problem to be solved, rather than a state to be maintained?