A reasonable number of social-democratic countries have basically an overly bureaucratic, somewhat perversely-incentivized version of a basic income already, an

A reasonable number of social-democratic countries have basically an overly bureaucratic, somewhat perversely-incentivized version of a basic income already, and it works ok. For example, the last-line social welfare system in Denmark, which you qualify for if you have no assets and don't qualify for a "better" system (like jobseeking assistance), known as kontanthjælp ("cash assistance"), is about $24k/yr. If you're a citizen there is basically no way you can be disqualified for this system, so it functions as an income floor. This isn't properly a basic income, because you don't get it if you work, and in addition you need to exhaust all your assets first. This provides some perverse incentives, along with some bureaucracy to keep it all organized. But when it comes down to it, once you exhaust your savings and unemployment benefits, there's an income floor of $24k/yr, which is like a basic income except you lose it if you save money or find a job... which if anything worsens the disincentive problem. I'm not sure just extending it to a proper basic income would be worse for finances, and suspect it could be better.