When I see that discussion about basic income I am
always wandering, who is going to pay for that?
The typical justification is that it pays for itself in simplified management, improved education, lower crime, etc. I haven't seen the sums, but given that the US incarcerates 1% of it's population at exhobitant (direct and indirect) cost, it doesn't seem that unrealistic.
Let's forget about the question if this is moral or
not to take away money from people who are working
hard just to give away these money to those, who are
not working at all.
We might have forgotten it, but you brought it up and left it hanging like a yeasty fart in a confined space.
Your interpretation of 'moral' here is a narrow one. Socialism is a moral economic solution; it's just not as efficient as well-regulated free markets. In a post-labour-scarcity society this will broadly be moot anyway as much fewer of us will have marketable skills.
Update: I say socialism isn't as efficient as well-regulated free markets. It actually depends on the market. The UK's NHS for example covers the entire population and costs less per capita than the US spends on Medicare (which only manages to cover the elderly). Funding healthcare through insurance creates moral hazard, conflicting incentives, information asymmetry, etc. which adds up to a deeply inefficient market.
While for profit prison is a pretty dangerous conflict of interest, 94% of prisoners are in public prisons. And even private prisons only profit a few people, and cost the rest of us money.
The US doesn't have so many in prison because it's for profit.
Poverty and the pathetically ineffective "War on Drugs" put them there, and the prison system's focus on punishment rather than rehabilitation keeps them imprisoned and/or reoffending.
Imagine the economic effect of having 1% of the population turned from being a cost-drain to being young healthy tax-payers. The reduced load on policing. The fact that people would be less afraid of crime. Imagine the economic boost if people could interact with their neighbours and build communities without fear.
Sure, in reality it wouldn't be as rosy as that, but chances are it'd be a darn sight better than where we are now.
Your interpretation of 'moral' here is a narrow one. Socialism is a moral economic solution; it's just not as efficient as well-regulated free markets. In a post-labour-scarcity society this will broadly be moot anyway as much fewer of us will have marketable skills.
Update: I say socialism isn't as efficient as well-regulated free markets. It actually depends on the market. The UK's NHS for example covers the entire population and costs less per capita than the US spends on Medicare (which only manages to cover the elderly). Funding healthcare through insurance creates moral hazard, conflicting incentives, information asymmetry, etc. which adds up to a deeply inefficient market.