I linked to some objections in another article.

In principle, helping poor people out is probably the most justifiable purpose I can imagine for "public funds." And simple, unconditional cash transfers appear to be a very effective way of fighting poverty. But the objection to Argument 3 in that article is compelling: "we do not have any way of setting up mechanisms for income transfer that can only work in the way we would want them to."

Government will administrate the program. And government has an unfortunate tendency to assist the well-off at the expense of the poor. Giving everyone with a pulse an annual stipend sounds too simple to mess up. But the devil is in the details. For example, surely felons will be excluded, and a majority of incarcerated felons are in for non-violent offenses, many of them drug offenses. An annual sack of cash will be an irresistible carrot for politicians to wave around and threaten to modify every election year.

There will be, as always, unexpected consequences:

· This will be a new incentive to have children. I think having children is great, but perhaps we should think twice before giving people who don't want kids a financial reason to.

· There will be greater pressure to slow immigration. I believe that immigration is one of the greatest moral and economic wins for the country, and it should be expanded rather than reduced.

· There will be greater incentive to keep suffering, terminally-ill people alive longer, making horrific tragedy more likely.

· There is no way to avoid the fact that you are reducing the incentive for people to work. Most people work for money. Some people who now work for their basic income will simply stop. Others will work less, or put less effort into finding work, just like many people getting unemployment benefits now. Less work means less production and less wealth to go around.

There is also a moral objection I can't talk my way around. People paying lower taxes will be getting their own money back, and perhaps more. The money will come from those with greater wealth. These wealthier people already have the option of giving to poor people. Many do. With some exceptions, most people do not condone forcibly confiscating wealth from a person even if the purpose is to give it to someone with less wealth. Even if I recognize benefits of providing a basic income, I don't see it as an automatic justification for an unjust action.