There is no "this stage" -- a basic income provides a smaller disincentive to work than providing low income people with the same amount in mean-tested welfare programs, because you don't lose the basic income when you get a job. If you're in a society that can afford welfare programs at all then it can afford the equivalent basic income.

1. Basic income would need to be more than welfare, if people can't live completely off welfare easily. 2. Many people oppose welfare that doesn't require a job precisely because of the societal costs to the disincentive to work.

> 1. Basic income would need to be more than welfare, if people can't live completely off welfare easily.

Who says you need to be able to live completely off of it?

> 2. Many people oppose welfare that doesn't require a job precisely because of the societal costs to the disincentive to work.

So we're getting rid of all the programs that don't then? Requiring someone to work to receive benefits is unbelievably easy to scam anyway because two people can just hire each other to watch television and have the payments cancel.

It is possible to make the argument that there should be no social assistance at all. But that isn't the status quo, and the argument cannot be made that the status quo is better than a basic income.

>Who says you need to be able to live completely off of it?

I thought the argument for basic income is that it could support someone without the need for a job. If it can't, then that's not what I've been discussing.

>Requiring someone to work to receive benefits is unbelievably easy to scam anyway because two people can just hire each other to watch television and have the payments cancel.

"Illegal thing X cannot be enforced, therefore X should be legal" is an invalid argument.

> I thought the argument for basic income is that it could support someone without the need for a job. If it can't, then that's not what I've been discussing.

The amount is independent of the thing. You could have a basic income of $5000/year and it would still work better than $5000/year in means-tested welfare. You could have a basic income of $50,000/year but that is probably inadvisable. What probably makes the most sense is to replace existing welfare at approximately the same level and then collect data on how that works to decide the best amount in the long-term. (But $12,000/year is probably in the ballpark.)

> "Illegal thing X cannot be enforced, therefore X should be legal" is an invalid argument.

How is it an invalid argument? Passing unenforceable laws is futile and stupid. It fosters disrespect for the law and gives advantage to people willing to break the law when they know they can get away with it.

> You could have a basic income of $5000/year and it would still work better than $5000/year in means-tested welfare.

But BI of $5000 costs far more, because anyone can get it. You'd need to reduce the amount to keep costs the same, at which the argument that it's better becomes weaker.

>How is it an invalid argument? Passing unenforceable laws is futile and stupid. It fosters disrespect for the law and gives advantage to people willing to break the law when they know they can get away with it.

If it's difficult but possible to break the law and get away with it, then laws and some enforcement deters breaking the law. E.g. it's pretty easy to get alcohol under 21 and cigarettes under 18 , but the age laws make it harder than if there were no laws, which reduces the amount of underage drinking/smoking. If you agree that's a good thing, then the law is good insofar as it encourages that.

Or in the welfare example, it's not easy to scam welfare, it takes time, organization, etc. Many people who would never try to scam welfare would sign up for basic income, because it's official and there's no risk of getting caught.

Of course, it depends on the ease of scamming, the benefit, etc, but the general argument of "unenforcable->make it legal" is invalid unless accompanied by those arguments.