I uhhhh. People's ability to work and live is important. That's what we get out of it. People not starving or living in poverty is, surprisingly enough, pretty important to the economy and the ability to sell luxury goods. Regarding 'useful data':
https://www.inverse.com/article/53466-basic-income-canada-s-...
And articles from the institute that performed the study:
https://www.basicincomecanada.org/nearly_half_of_basic_incom...
https://www.basicincomecanada.org/ontario_government_defends...
I would like to see an 1 euro/month basic income. Then we get a good idea what it costs to distribute. Then we should gradually increase it by an equally insignificant amount so that we can gradually observe who should but doesn't get it and how much fraud we have to deal with.
With 100 euro extra we can at least silence the folk who for the last 100 years barricaded the discussion by saying they would continue to work themselves but others... others will do this and that. Popular variations: Wimmen will stop obeying their husband. Men will use the extra money to buy alcohol. Kids wont seek jobs. etc
I think Keynes 15 hour work week provides a good hint. Wealthy people actually work more.
I think the silver bullet basic income is silly for other reasons. Our economic model is to optimize for wealth extraction. Give people 50, 500 or 1000 extra and rent will go up by exactly the same amount.
I'd still be willing to pay for the distribution experiment.
But does it actually matter what I think?