RE: Should the Amount of Basic Income Vary With Cost of Living Differences?
What I have is not a salary, because it carries no work condition. No hours of my time are required.
As for the absurd notion that basic income is socialism, you may as well call Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek both socialists for supporting the idea, which if you know who they were, is one of the dumber things you could say.
So then you need to ask yourself, why did two of the greatest free market economists of the 20th century support basic income? And as soon as you ask that question, that's when you can start actually studying the idea and its merits instead of thinking it's something it isn't and just shutting off your brain to the discussion.
The closest thing in the world to universal basic income is in Alaska. It's a red state but Republican red not communist red. Everyone there gets a check every year for being a resident of Alaska. It's not paying them to not create value. Innovation has not died in Alaska. In fact the opposite is true. The dividend checks are good for business, for both business owners and consumers. Why? Because money is capital and also fuel for markets.
The above understanding is also confirmed by UBI pilots and unconditional cash transfer studies. Everywhere it's tried, people use the money to start up more businesses and self-employ themselves. It stimulates local economies. Look into the evidence for yourself.
There's a lot out there. Take some time to study it. You'll likely be surprised by what you find.
"no work condition. No hours of my time are required."
Guess what, if you work for the government, you can collect a salary with no work condition and no hours of required time as well! In some ways we already have a basic income, it's called the GS schedule, and wow, look at the boom in the Washington DC metro area!
The problem, of course is that boom is funded on the backs of the American taxpayers all throughout this nation. And someday, that bill will come due.
You are being disingenuous to Milton Friedman. He did propose a Basic Income, but to replace welfare spending because it was more efficient.
It was a concession, not something he fully endorsed.
Alaska is hardly a hotbed for technological development, and the oil dividend mostly goes to offset the higher cost of living.
Your comparison to government work shows you still don't get it. Government work requires people show up to government offices. Yes, much of it is bullshit, but it requires hours of time, even if people are pretending to do something else instead of engaging in the inspecting of inspectors inspecting inspectors. Basic income requires no time. It is an income floor. You can use it to do anything, and that includes whatever job you want or any volunteering you want.
Milton Friedman's reasoning was reality-based. In his own words:
Reality exists. There is no reality where we get rid of all taxes and eliminate government. If you choose to live in reality, you therefore need to come up with something realistic. Basic income is that something. If we are going to redistribute income, we should do it in a way that minimizes government intrusion and maximizes freedom.
The welfare system is a shitty system. By targeting assistance we incentivize what it is we don't want. We don't want people not to work, so we give them money only if they aren't working? It's ridiculous. By doing that we are paying people to do nothing, and in fact essentially forcing them to do so, by promising to remove their assistance if they accept employment. This is equivalent to applying tax rates of 80% and above to welfare recipients.
Does that make sense to you? I hope not. It's called the welfare trap. So how do we get rid of it? We either eliminate welfare entirely, and in the process massively increase poverty, and along with it what we spend on things like crime and healthcare as a result, or we provide a floor for everyone, such that all earned income adds to that floor. With basic income, all employment increases one's total income. With welfare, employment can actually decrease one's total income via welfare cliffs.
This again is why Milton Friedman supported basic income, because he knew what welfare does to people and the economy by design, and knew the only way out of it, the only realistic way, because eliminating all government assistance programs is not realistic, is basic income.