I&#x27;m pretty left-wing (I consider myself a libertarian socialist), but I agree with Friedman. Once you have a livable basic income, you don&#x27;t really need a minimum wage and progressive taxation anymore. Those things exist primarily to guarantee livable conditions for the very poorest, but Basic Income would guarantee those livable conditions in a far more simple and effective way.<p>Two important effects of this would be:<p>a) the labour market would become a lot more open and free. At the moment, employers wield all the power because employees <i>need</i> a job. It&#x27;s not a free market if you can&#x27;t say no to a deal. With basic income, people can say no if the offer is too bad. But if your alternative is starvation, a terrible job for too little pay is still better than nothing. Minimum wage exists to limit the employers&#x27; power to exploit people who have no option to say no.<p>b) It fixes the unemployment trap. For people with unemployment or disability benefits, getting a low-pay part-time job often means they end up with less money (or the same money and more costs) despite them taking the effort to work, because they lose the benefits. This discourages people from working. With Basic Income, you keep that income if you get a job, so you always get ahead by working, even if it&#x27;s only a little. There&#x27;s nothing fraudulent anymore about doing little jobs while unemployed.<p>I&#x27;d probably prefer both the basic income and the tax to be a bit higher than Friedman would like them to be, but that&#x27;s part of the standard political-economic give and take. As long as the Basic Income is at least enough for decent food and rent, I&#x27;m happy.