Your argument fails at the reality. For example in Germany there is social security since a very long time. Some people there get money without doing any work! Still, the country works, pretty good actually.
And that is because states don't work always in ways that are intuitive. If you always follow your intuition, you might end up writing what you did.
Hi, Belgian here. Social security is something completely different than basic income.
Social security means that if you lose your job, get sick, or any other unforeseen setback happens, you don't starve. The goal is to get you back to work. And if that is not possible, society is so nice to support you. You know, the people who are able to work. I'm more than pleased to help out people who really are unable to work.
Basic income says that your basic income needs to be covered, for everyone, even if you are fully capable of working. So actually anyone can live a 'basic' life without doing work at all.
If it seems too good to be true, it probably is. In a society where there is no incentive to work, people will work less, less value is created, and due to scarcity, prices will rise. And so your basic income won't cover your basic needs anymore.
It's actually pretty easy to reason about economy like this. Just forget about money, and think of people producing and consuming value. If you don't produce, you can't consume, simple as that.
Some people argue that in a basic-income world, people work as much as normal. But I would like to see that in practice first.
> So actually anyone can live a 'basic' life without doing work at all.
So what? That sounds like a problem, but doesn't need to be one. People could already go robbing and killing those around them, but they don't. Anecdotes won't suffice here.
> In a society where there is no incentive to work, people will work less, less value is created, and due to scarcity, prices will rise.
People do a lot of charitable work without any receiving any money in return. That shows that there is are strong incentives to work other than receiving an income.
Besides that, yes I think prices would rise. Not uniformely though. Surely, asparagus would become more expensive, but cars not to the same degree. Picking asparagus is a shitty and hard shop that is outsourced to poor people because it is low paid. No, if the poor didn't need to do that work, they wouldn't. So the wages would need to rise. Finally, for it is long due. The economy and the prices would shift and balance. For the better.
> If you don't produce, you can't consume, simple as that.
Unless you are simply given part of what is produced. Which is done in reality. As simple as that.
Stuff is produced, and will be produced. Because a basic income is just that, a basic income. Want a car or own a house? You have to work. Seems very reasonable to me. Also, machines will happily continue to work.
> Some people argue that in a basic-income world, people work as much as normal. But I would like to see that in practice first.
Work is not a universal good. I wish poor people wouldn't need to do the horrible job of picking vegetables only the richer eat. I think that work should stop. It's degrading to the workers. Still want your asparragus? Invent better machines or pay a lot more so the people who pick it get a fair wage.
And that is because states don't work always in ways that are intuitive. If you always follow your intuition, you might end up writing what you did.