I've heard the (not so intuitive) assertion that unemployment insurance payouts and welfare actually bring back $1.73 for each dollar the government hands out - primarily because the people who need such money are most likely to immediately spend it (and support small businesses who then buy other goods), whereas more wealthy are more likely to bank it and not circulate it back into the economy directly.
So are they going to contribute as much to the sovereign wealth that funds the basic income as the citizens?
And is the basic income extended to guest workers / temporary residents as well as citizens? I would think it would be limited to citizens.
So you would actually have immigrants contributing to funding basic income without benefiting from it until they obtain citizenship.
This is really the core assumption behind Marxism; perhaps not so much the sclerotic centrally-planned dictatorship of the proletariat 'Marxism' we saw in the 20th century as the idealized communal society that Marx envisioned, but un-monetized self-motivation is still required for either.
Does that make it wrong? I don't think so; but at least we should think carefully about how we arrange incentives for work in our shining city on the hill. Even if most people aren't working, we still need for that motivated and creative minority to be putting in some hours and to be happy about it.
On the other hand, those 5 million additional people probably aren't going to sit around doing nothing. That's not how human nature works, either - most people are happier doing something rather than nothing! Self actualization and all that.
I don't think that it's completely relevant to the BI debate, but what if everyone actually did just decide to sit around doing nothing?
And if then everyone STILL decides to do nothing, I think we have bigger problems than a matter of economic policy :)