A basic income is much more like a change in tax rates. In fact, the existing Earned Income Tax Credit is already much like a basic income for a certain segment of the population. Requiring a constitutional amendment would create much too high a barrier. One often needs a revolution to make a constitutional amendment. I don't think we want to go there.

> In fact, the existing Earned Income Tax Credit is already much like a basic income for a certain segment of the population.

It is impossible for something to be for a certain segment (defined in large part by income) of the population and for it also to be meaningfully like Basic Income.

EITC is a fairly standard limited-eligibility social welfare program, which is what BI is offered in opposition to.

> One often needs a revolution to make a constitutional amendment. I don't think we want to go there.

I don't think the facts justify that that is often the case, unless you mean "revolution" in some very loose sense that doesn't justify the "I don't think we want to go there" comment.

I mean, there are 17 amendments to the Constitution that weren't passed fairly contemporaneously with the original document: can you point to the "revolutions" which were necessary for these?

You could say the Civil War was a revolution necessary for the passage of the thirteenth amendment (and potentially the 14th and 15th).

Maybe the rise of organized crime under prohibition could be considered a revolution prompting the 21st amendment, but that seems quite a bit of a stretch...

If by "go there" you mean revolution, I agree - we don't want to go there.

In terms of whether the US could legally establish a BI without constitutional amendment, I am inclined to agree that it's allowed.

I think there is some argument for avoiding a simple majoritarian decision for how the rate is determined; I am not certain whether it is a sufficient one, but I don't think there's reason it shouldn't be part of the discussion, and constitutional amendment is the most secure process to elevate something above majority rule in the US.

I disagree that it "often takes a revolution" to amend the US constitution - if there is enough popular support that amending by that means would be practical, amending without it should be - and indeed, only twice of the 17 times we've amended the constitution has it involved a revolution (once successful, once unsuccessful).