I've become somewhat convinced it's a great idea. Provides a boost to everyone up to the point they're paying more than it in tax, doesn't disincentivize working by taking away payments when you do, but does provide a basic livelihood to those who aren't working which gives people bargaining power with employers so they aren't exploited, while also allowing small businesses to pay staff better or have them on more hours. I'm thinking it should really replace almost all welfare systems since unlike others it lacks negative incentives (like women choosing to have kids for money) and isn't gameable.

My main concern is a common point brought up in opposition, that it would decrease the value of money and push up the cost of everything, including food and rent, because more people at the low end have less money. I have to admit, economics is not my strongest area, could someone try to argue against this or explain why it's true otherwise? If it is, that thought is kind of depressing. Wouldn't that mean that if poor people got money, through any means, enough to improve their situation, that prices for those things would simply go up to nullify their gains? Surely it is not IMPOSSIBLE to get everyone to a basic standard of living, at least that nobody who didn't consistently waste money would be homeless or starving.

I know this isn't super specific to men, though it does have the potential to change gender dynamics, but I really want to get leftist MRA opinions for that insight and also the good variety of intelligent views on this sub.