The incentives for wealth redistribution are vary simple. You hand over a fixed percentage of money to the poor and they don't steal from you or end up in prison. The idea being while many poor people will not steal the overhead from those that do is high enough that it's worth a lot.
As to basic income vs. other forms of welfare it's more money directly but far lower overhead. Which means people that are capable of finding productive jobs are adding to the economy vs. varying unemployment information etc. On top of that some people will simply take more risks which has a huge upside vs. unemployment where you can't get the money if your starting up your working for your self so people watch TV vs building an App.
Socially, money is a huge motivator. Most collage educated people could get by working 1/2 what they do but the 20 hour work week or taking 6 months off a year did not take off instead people buy 5$ coffee at Starbucks etc.
PS: And yes the poor can be a lot more disruptive than you might think just look at say the french revolution or any of the communist revolutions.
That's basically all nonsense. If I have money and really feel like the poor are going to take it then I can buy security or just move far out into the country. Rich people were far less secretive in the past than they are now (for a variety of reasons).
If a basic income means that I can support myself without work and have a decent living then I'm probably not working-it's pretty simple. I suspect you'd have fewer apps being built, manual labor getting done, tough problems getting solved, etc. And if I can't then why are we bothering again?
The communist revolutions of the past tended to be largely nationalist in their roots. The poor ended up being terribly harmed by those revolutions (as did many other people I suppose).
Money is still a motivator when it comes to getting unrewarding work done, but basic income incentivizes work in a way that a welfare that only gets paid when you're unemployed does not.
"The incentives for wealth redistribution are vary simple. You hand over a fixed percentage of money to the poor and they don't steal from you or end up in prison."
You're saying the incentive is: your wallet or your life. That's an extraordinarily evil system for a society to live by. Gee, I wonder what kind of feelings it engenders between classes. All it does is turn rich people into slaves. It breeds a society of nothing but victims and parasites. As though the only option on this earth is to bribe poor people to keep them from attempting to kill the rich (because America didn't build the world's largest middle class and manage a free market system for 200 years without needing this crap).
If one were to take this theory seriously: well, rich people can afford a lot more guns, armed security, militias, bullet proof everything, and they can fund a lot of prisons.
It's a ridiculous position. The hyper violence in a lot of South American cities have more than demonstrated rich people are willing to deal with poor violence: they isolate themselves from the poverty and crime. This is also true of the US in many cities, eg Detroit, DC, Chicago, etc.
There's another way to frame this. You're in a lifeboat with 10 other people. None of you chose to be here, but fate made it happen.
You're the only one who got on the boat with a backpack, and it's full of food. Your food.
Do you share it? It's in everyone's best interest (including yours) if you do. Not only will this keep them from throwing you overboard, but by establishing a basic level of survival, you can cooperate trustingly and row to safety.
I think the "give poor people money or they'll take it" is a bit too simplistic. The basic reason we should give welfare is because that's what the majority has decided it wants to do. And in a democracy we do what the majority wants.
Now, the question is: why should the rich do what the majority wants? Not because the majority will otherwise kill the rich. The majority doesn't protect the rich minority from itself. The majority protects the rich minority from the strong minority. In other words, it's social order, underwritten by the majoritarian mass, that allows bankers and programmers to get rich instead of warlords. In a world where the majority isn't underwriting social order and the rule of law, there remains a ruling minority class, but they're different people than the ones that are rich under the existing system. Think feudal lords, rather than Silicon Valley nerds. That's why the rich go along with the majority. The majority protects them from the men of war that would otherwise dominate society.
"The incentives for wealth redistribution are vary simple. You hand over a fixed percentage of money to the poor and they don't steal from you or end up in prison"
This sounds like extortion. The majority of poor people can work. A small percentage are mentally or physically unable, and need to be taken care of.
Many (not all) made poor life decisions. We are free in the US..and freedom sometimes has consequences..like the ability to completely ruin your life. I shouldn't have to clean up everyone's mess..when I've taken the time to avoid these things.
"ome people will simply take more risks"
I've taken the most risks (with business), when I had no other choice. IE: I have no other form of income..and a month of money left in the bank. Basic income is the opposite of that. You are not taking any risks, because you know you will have money in the bank.
Since most people are not interested in starting a business, I don't see your scenario playing out.
" And yes the poor can be a lot more disruptive than you might think just look at say the french revolution or any of the communist revolutions"
Why do you think I will support basic income based on threats?
As to basic income vs. other forms of welfare it's more money directly but far lower overhead. Which means people that are capable of finding productive jobs are adding to the economy vs. varying unemployment information etc. On top of that some people will simply take more risks which has a huge upside vs. unemployment where you can't get the money if your starting up your working for your self so people watch TV vs building an App.
Socially, money is a huge motivator. Most collage educated people could get by working 1/2 what they do but the 20 hour work week or taking 6 months off a year did not take off instead people buy 5$ coffee at Starbucks etc.
PS: And yes the poor can be a lot more disruptive than you might think just look at say the french revolution or any of the communist revolutions.