Actually it works the opposite way. Current anti-poverty programs erect a hard ceiling on what you can earn. SSI for example, doesn’t allow you to have more than $2000 in the bank and if you have a job where you earn more than that - you lose the benefit. There is no incentive to work hard and save because you can’t keep your safety net AND any extra money you earn. That discourages work.
A basic income guarantee on the other hand would create a floor. If you take a job? No problem you still benefit from the floor income and earn as much as you want and you can take risks. What if you want to take more than one job and earn even more? Great! Now there is an incentive to work hard because your safety net now works as insurance no matter what happens in the economy.
Its obvious from an economic and moral point of view which is superior and cost-effective. And which incentivizes desirable conduct in people from the standpoint of society. As the article mentions, a basic income program could be run with simple software. You don’t need a special bureaucracy to take care of just the poor; you can relieve every one from falling through the cracks and they can live in a decent society.
All sounds idyllic and nice. However it is highly unlikely this ‘floor income’ would be given to everyone. Government always establishes limits on those that actually produce, whether it is in graduated taxes, taking income tax deductions, or eligibility for largess. Always. This would be like asking a tiger to go Vegan.
You put your finger on it right there. While we are at it, we can simply have the Fed print the money. In fact the Fed already prints plenty of money for the politicians to spend. All we need to do is fire up the presses and print up the floor for everyone. What could possibly go wrong?