&gt;As prices rise, so must BI, or it&#x27;s not BI.<p>Well then you need to include that in the cost. You can&#x27;t look at current costs and current tax revenue.<p>&gt;As a basic argument of production, it&#x27;s basically been proven that work disincentive is not actually a thing<p>Saying &quot;this does not lead to a work disincentive&quot; is a very different argument from saying &quot;this leads to a work disincentive, but that&#x27;s a good thing&quot;. Make up your mind. Above you argued that work disincentives were perfectly fine, and are the intended outcome, and anyone who doesn&#x27;t like them is a monster that wants to enslave people. When I point out that there&#x27;s a legitimate concern that production will go down, and possibly enough to make BI unviable, you turn around and say that there&#x27;s no disincentive.<p>Also, &quot;one guy here argues something, while quoting extensively from many people who disagree&quot; is by no means a &quot;proof&quot; for that side. It&#x27;s an argument. When there&#x27;s an economic consensus, that would be closer to proof.<p>I also have a problem with this:<p>&gt;However, if, as I have suggested elsewhere, the UBI is financed in part by eliminating middle-class tax loopholes (without changing marginal tax rates), Dave’s income would increase by less than the full $8,000 and he would reduce his annual work by less than 13 hours<p>This is saying that increasing someone&#x27;s effective tax rate will increase the number of hours they work. That seems wrong, even if marginal rates are fixed.