I&#x27;m not sure which of the two cases you&#x27;re addressing; I&#x27;ll respond with one comment assuming each.<p>If we are talking about case 1 (a fixed BI tax rate with all proceeds distributed), then when one individual stops working the basic income goes down by 1% as you say.<p>&gt; So, a rational actor would stop working.<p>I don&#x27;t see how this follows.  A rational actor weighs the 1% decrease in BI <i>plus the 100% decrease in earned income</i>, and whatever that means for quality of life, against their preference not to work.<p>&gt; Similarly, if 95 out of 100 stop working, then the other 5 have little incentive to work, because their income is basically funding everyone else.<p>This is not case 1 anymore.  In this scenario, one of the other 5 quitting reduces the BI by 20%... of the remaining 5% of the original level.  It has no effect on how much any individual is paying in.  Meanwhile, with the BI amount being 1&#x2F;20th its original level, some of the other potential workers are probably getting interested in working again.<p>This is exactly a negative feedback loop.