Also, the money used as basic income is not lost but will (mostly) stay in the economic system and stimulate growth. In most developed countries, introducing a universal basic income would require us to raise the tax rate to about 70 %, which does not sound ridiculously high given that it already is at 50 % in many countries (e.g. Germany). Also, the net effect on income would probably be positive for most people at the low end of the income distribution. People with higher incomes would lose money though.<p>The most interesting question (to me at least) therefore is how this new tax progression would change the incentives for people at the high end of the income distribution. Theoretically it should lead people that earn a lot of money to value their free time more, which in turn would make them want to work less. Another positive effect would be the reduction of economic inequality through the higher redistribution of money from high to low incomes. In Europe there are some countries that are a good example for this. Sweden notably has a very steep tax progression for people with large incomes, such that some people reportedly even reach marginal tax rates &gt; 100 % (e.g. Astrid Lindgren <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Astrid_Lindgren" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Astrid_Lindgren</a>). As a result, Sweden has one of the smallest income inequalities among countries in the developed world (the Gini coefficient there is 25 % vs. 46 % for the USA). Higher taxation of large incomes reduces income inequality, which I think is (mostly) a good thing.<p>The question is therefore not if it&#x27;s possible (it probably is), but if people actually want it and think it&#x27;s fair.