I don't think that's the real issue stopping basic income. I think the real issue is that the money has to come from somewhere --- specifically, the money would necessarily come from the high earners in society. And they would have to agree to basic income since in our current form of democracy the high-earners have a disproportionate influence on the law.
However, the world's economy has been changing, such that it might actually behoove high earners to donate a portion of their earnings to basic income. Specifically, as automation decreases the need for human labor, then profits go up and employment goes down. This has actually been the trend since the 1970's. And if employment goes down too much, then there won't be enough spending money in the population's hands to fuel further earnings and economic growth.
There is an excellent, short book by a couple of MIT economists that analyzes the economics of modern automation and makes the case for guaranteed income. "Race Against The Machine," by Erik Brynjolfsson and Andrew McAfee.
Money doesn't come only from taxes, it can also come from printing. However, relying on printing money to cover government expenses has been a bad idea pretty much everywhere (there are a lot of examples of hyperinflation, like Zimbabwe, Argentina and Germany). Among many nasty effects, it destroys any savings people have.
If the government printed money and gave it directly to the impoverished it would be equivalent to a tax on everyone else (and the wealthy would experience the largest absolute wealth loss).
Money is only useful in so much that it represents a fraction of the total money supply. It represents a kind of point system for the distribution of wealth. I might own one trillionth of the total money supply, whereas a more wealthy person might one one millionth of the money supply.
Thus, when you print money it reduces everyone's wealth (except for the new money holder). So let's say today there is $1 trillion in the money supply, and I (the government) print another trillion and give it directly to the impoverished. The value of every dollar has just been halved. So every millionaire has essentially become a half millionaire.
So yes, if you printed $1 trillion and gave it to the impoverished it would be equivalent to a tax on everyone else (and the wealthy would experience the largest absolute wealth loss).
However, in today's banking system newly created money disproportionately ends up in the hands of the wealthier. In this way, creating money (today) is a tax on the impoverished and the lower earners in society. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_creation
A lot of the money comes from not running the bureaucracy required for a complex means tested benefits system.
If you took the existing UK budget for social protection, which does not include the existing health or social housing budget, and divided it equally among the population, it comes to about £58 per week, which is more money than you get right now on job seekers allowance if you are under 25 in the UK.
Here's why: let's say you compute an amount $X of income everyone gets. This means that everyone now has enough money for food, rent and other basic necessities. That means that the demand for these goods will increase (maybe not much in the US, but significantly in other parts of the world). That means that the prices for those goods will increase (unless production increases somehow, but why would it?). To adjust for this, the government would have to increase the income; then the prices would increase again and so on. Basically you'd have rampant inflation.
Now the counterargument is going to be that this wouldn't happen, because production would increase up to a point where everyone's needs are met, and prices stabilize. However, production still depends on labor. What incentives would people have to put in more work to produce more?
Personally, I think that one of the best things you could do to increase production is to ensure that people are not living hand to mouth. The personal strategies of the desperate are not conducive to a working economy.
"What incentives would people have to put in more work to produce more?"
Boredom and curiousity. That's all you ever need. Hunger only inspires people to get fed. Satiation inspires them to design new houses.
To have more than other people. You don't need to threaten people with hunger and kicking them out on the streets. Just allow them to show off and they'll compete for bigger telly and nicer car/scooter/bicycle.
Whenever I hear of basic income, it always takes me back to communism. The main difference is that communism wouldn't let you have more than others (people found ways around that anyway).
It is mostly a number game - you have to keep the basic income:
1. Fair - everybody gets the same sum no matter of employment status. 2. Really basic - it should be enough for food and utility bills but not rent.
Employment is complex topic. I go crazy if I stay without work for more than a few weeks. People like to work - case in point - almost every person has hobby that he is very passionate about. They don't like being forced into it.
Those who become rich because of their work arguably have habits of working and investing in their ability to produce. Those not able to produce will have less reason to learn how if their income is somehow guaranteed.
Because in the latter case, "them's fightin' words."
A few other examples: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income#Examples_of_implem...
http://cyprus-mail.com/2013/07/26/president-announces-guaran...