It would start to make financial sense for McDonalds to invest in automating several tasks which are currently cheaper for McDonalds to hire someone for. Imagine if you order and pay through a machine (I saw one of these at Jack in the Box already).
The person behind the counter could instead be working on their dreams of being a musician, artist, studying for college, etc.
Well, someone needs a job for the system to work, since it's presumably funded by taxation. At least one person (more realistically, a large portion of the population) still needs to be creating wealth.
I don't know that we necessarily need to have jobs.
We could fund it by taxation of revenue and wages, rather than just wages.
A company who fires all it's employees, and uses only robots, would see a huge surge in profit from reduced overhead. That profit could be taxed at something like 60%.
The owner(s) of the business still see windfall from the cost savings of laying everyone off, and the basic income now rises for everyone and can now cover the lost wages of the newly unemployed, using the companies new profits as a funding source
Where is their revenue coming from?
When the music and movie industry wanted more protection for their IP, many people here made comments about the horse and buggy/automobile and they just needed to "change with the times".
Why should employment be any different? If your job is being taken by a robot..maybe you should think about learning another skill.
You may find that this is because not all of us value technology solely for what increased productivity it can provide over our current, but that we create and use technology to work /for/ us so that we can spend more time doing what we would rather.
Everybody can contribute or not, in their terms, I guess that's the magic.
Someone needs income that is taxed. That doesn't require a job, though in the short term (e.g., until we've reached a very advanced level of automation where most market income goes to capitalists who own completely automated firms), yes, it relies on lots of people still working -- its a replacement for poverty support programs which removes the disincentive for work that many of those contain in the eligibility criteria, and the administrative overhead that enforcing eligibility rules creates, not a replacement for work.
Most people, even if they aren't starving in the street, are willing to work more to get more. That certainly tails off at some level of combined work and income (as work has an increasing marginal cost and income a decreasing marginal value), but for the vast majority of the population, that's far above the level BI could conceivably be set at without vast technological progress.
Presumably, Child Support would no longer exist for anyone.
Children are people, with no income, they would essentially get a child-version of basic income, paid to their parents, to raise them, regardless of all other circumstances.
(Similar to US taxes today, where the government effectively pays you some a small amount of money simply for having a child)
If a couple conceives a child, and one parent abandons the other, the single parent keeps the whole state-provided income for that child, and uses it to raise the child.
It eliminates the whole "penalty" system for distant parents, and if those people eventually get jobs, they pay into the basic income system just as anyone else does (so they aren't dis-incentivized to work).
A recurring cash payment meeting or exceeding the costs of raising the kid on the other hand...
How does that make it less of an incentive, though? It's better than no paternal leave.
In the end, though, people usually don't get children on a purely economically rational basis. Sweden also has daycare prices that scale with income, free and relatively high quality public and private schools, child benefits and free dental and healthcare for children.
Other than "you can use it to pay debt", not at all.
> Can I get a lump sum payment in return for my future wage?
If you mean "will someone loan me money in return for me pledging an amount equal to my future basic income for some period", maybe, but it would be a really bad idea to let it be redirected.
> Can it be taken away to pay creditors, child support, back taxes, etc. ?
Probably not -- there is already, AIUI, a "first $X" (which may vary under specific local rules depending on context) of income which is protected against garnishments, etc., and BI probably ought to fall within that (at least until the economy advances enough to support a more than pedestrian lifestyle on BI alone, at which point it might only be part of the BI that is within that protection.)
e.g. Immigrants. I'm not sure if we should start calling them deltas or epsilons...
I think you missed the "worth it" part, which substitutes for the "fulfilling" part. Unattractive but low-skill jobs would see higher wages (and, thus, greater incentives to find labor-saving alternatives) until the utility people doing those jobs provided to others was reflected in the reward people doing those jobs received.
The jobs' salaries match what they are actually worth, and can't be offered as minimum-wage jobs that people take because they don't have any money and can't get a job elsewhere.
Which means burgers will cost much more than they currently do.
The same will be true for all domestic products/services where a significant part of the work force currently has low wages.
Which means that you and I will pay more for goods/services than previously. The effect will be similar to a significant sales tax, might as well try funding BI that way (at least imported goods will carry some of the tax burden) and look at published studies on the effects of sales taxes...
Don't worry, the hedonistic urge is stronger than laziness in most people. Especially since lazy usually implies watching TV which continuously bombards you with advertisements to buy things...