An economic analysis on a proposed minimum income model for New Zealand:[0]
The [basis minimum income] scheme proposed by the Welfare
Working Group is a significant policy change with large
economic consequences. The scheme is fiscally very costly
and would not necessarily achieve its main goal of
reducing poverty. The high personal tax rates required to
fund the scheme are highly distortionary to the labour
market and to savings and investment decisions, and would
be likely to induce a significant behavioural response.
This has damaging effects on the tax system and economic
growth.
Also of importance, from the same report:
Although the Gini coefficient improves under all models,
many beneficiaries (including the disabled, carers and
sole parents) currently receive more than $300 per week
and would be made financially worse off under a GMI
scheme.
At a high level, it seems that the economic reality of providing a basic minimum income to everyone requires a significant increase in taxation revenue. That might be possible with significantly higher GDP per capita, but I'm not certain we're there yet.
That might be possible with significantly higher GDP per capita
That's actually a really interesting point. The feasibility of BI is going to be tied to GDP per capita, as well as cost of living. In a country where GDP-per-capita is several times cost of living, BI would be relatively easy, whereas a country where GDP-per-capita is barely above cost of living, BI would be very difficult (because where do you come up with the money?)
US GDP per capita is about $50k. I'm not sure what cost of living is, but that definitely isn't a whole lot higher than what is usually accepted as the threshold to living somewhat comfortably (somewhere around $40k)
Norway, on the other hand, has a USD GDP per capita of ~$100k, so unless cost of living is much higher, BI may be much more feasible there.
[0] http://igps.victoria.ac.nz/WelfareWorkingGroup/Downloads/Wor...
Edit: formatting.