That's a change in opportunity cost, not a tax. If you view anything that causes an increase in the opportunity cost of not working as a tax, you must believe t

That's a change in opportunity cost, not a tax. If you view anything that causes an increase in the opportunity cost of not working as a tax, you must believe that charities are actively taxing working people. If a charity moves in and starts offering $1000 dollars worth of free food to anyone who makes below $20k a year, is that charity then taxing everyone who makes above that by $1000 per month? Also if you do want to view an increase in opportunity cost as a tax increase, you have to look at the actual net increase. There are already benefits that low income people can get, food stamps, housing assistance, earned income tax credit etc... that would go away under a basic income. To properly asses the net opportunity cost increase you have to look at the value difference between these benefits and $12k. As to your talk about disincentivizing work, the tax curve is just that a curve--instead of the current cliff that many low income workers face. Right now there are situations where are a low income worker can actually make less money by working (or less money by working slightly more) due to current means tested assistance programs. Replacing means tested assistance with a tax curve and a basic income would ensure that every dollar earned would increase your net income. Again this isn't always the case under our current system.