Majority of taxes are already paid by those in higher income and business.
Manual jobs will be automated to larger extent and it is inevitable,…
Yes, unless companies realize that the required increase in taxes to fund a scheme like “Guaranteed Basic Income” is close to the cost of having the employee.
Rampant drunkedness was not a result of forced (?) full employment in USSR, heavy drinking is a long standign tradition in Russia.
Yes, Russians traditionally drink, but the problem was endemic during the USSR period, considered to be worse than ever, and primarily amongst those that were not gainfully employed. Also, there are other data points to consider. In the towns in the US where a major manufacturing employer has pulled out and gone overseas, (a) median income drops dramatically, as individuals are forced to take jobs at a fraction of the former pay, (b) alcoholism rises drastically, as does © drug abuse, particularly opiates. The data is fairly conclusive that substance abuse is one of the social results of loss of jobs.
I would say that the main problem with “Guaranteed Basic Income” is that it would need to rely on people own drive to do something with their lives.
We already know how this will come out. Educational psychology has for years measured what is called “intrinsic motivation” vs “extrinsic motovation”. The student that is intrinsically motivated does so out of their own drive; they learn because the enjoy learning. The student that is extrinsically motivated does so because of an external factor. It might be to get into a particular college, to achieve a certain profession, or just to avoid punishment by their parents.
It’s the latter group, those that are EXTERNALLY motivated, that are at risk of being negatively affected by a job loss without reasonable hope of replacing the income.
The percentage of all individuals who are extrinsically motivated? Around 83%.
Hence…..my view that Guaranteed Basic Income, as a solution…….will not succeed very well.