thanks for the detailed reply<p>I imagine any sensible, practical proposal for basic income would start it relatively low, keeping many current benefits and gradually expand it if it is successful. That seems to be the option Finland proposal will probably take. This will give time to assess the impact and allow corrections&#x2F;adaptions&#x2F;cancelling it . No doubt basic income is a blunt instrument, honestly I think that&#x27;s part of its appeal to me. It seems fair compared to a plethora of well-meaning but convoluted network of social welfare initiatives, that we call a social welfare system.<p>I will consider you points more carefully.<p>- obviously a lot depends on the level of basic income. and what is sacrificed for it. I had not considered the politics of people using basic income as an excuse to withdraw education or health subsidies.<p>- effect on wages can be mitigated in the short term by retaining a (perhaps lower?) minimum wage.<p>- I agree a lot of basic income will be swallowed in rent. but that will be because that is what is important to people with the money to spend.<p>- cost-of-living differences will encourage job-seekers to relocate to cheaper areas. this seems like a good thing. if inner city companies can not find the workers it needs, it will either relocate or provide company buses or something. that seems a much better solution than keeping job-seekers where they are.<p>- non-citizens is a very good point I hadn&#x27;t considered. But then, non-citizens are penalized by requiring visas etc. plus EU nations will be restricted on what they can do to stop EU citizens claiming.<p>thanks again.