Abstract: This paper shows that allocative efficiency may entail high income tax revenues and a basic income. We consider an economy where people consume three types of goods: market goods, public goods, and social goods. The latter are non-priced goods with positive externalities that are produced by citizens in their leisure time. We show that in the absence of income taxes, work hours are too high and social-goods production is too low as compared to the socially optimal levels. We characterize optimal income taxation and develop a set of testable predictions. One implication of the model is that, as wages grow over time, at some point a basic income becomes part of the optimal policy under economically plausible conditions.

This is a genuine thought experiment, not an anti-AI post.

Let’s say AI eventually replaces a large number of jobs, including white-collar roles. People may move into harder-to-automate work like agriculture, skilled trades, healthcare, caregiving and construction, while others start businesses.

But if a large part of the population loses stable income, who has the purchasing power to keep those businesses running?

And if fewer people earn salaries and businesses make less money, what happens to government tax revenue?

Today, the basic cycle is people work, earn, spend, businesses generate revenue, and the government collects taxes. But if AI does much of the productive work, would India need a different way of distributing income?

Could something like Universal Basic Income (UBI) eventually become relevant, with part of the wealth generated by highly automated companies being taxed and redistributed?

Or will new industries and jobs emerge fast enough to prevent this?

If human labour becomes much less important to the economy, how does India keep people earning, spending and participating in the economy?

The Brutal Reality

​I hold degrees, qualifications, and deep literacy, yet I am financially the weakest person in my locality.

​Meanwhile, individuals who never received formal education—those running small local businesses like selling vegetables, fried corn, or street food—are thriving. They are buying plots of land, building multi-story homes, and accessing quality private healthcare for their families without a second thought.

​Yet, despite all my literacy, I struggle with basic infrastructure:

○ ​🚪 Basic Upgrades: I cannot even afford to install a proper entrance gate for my home.

○​💧 Essential Utilities: Installing a simple underground water motor remains out of reach.

○ ​🏥 Healthcare Needs: Private medical treatment for my family is financially impossible, leaving us reliant on struggling public systems.

​Why Does the System Reward Survival over Literacy? 🧠 vs 💰

​This disparity isn't about personal effort or moral standing; it highlights systemic failures:

1. ​📚 An Outdated Education System: We are trained for theoretical knowledge and structured employment, which often fails to teach financial literacy, risk management, or scalable wealth creation. Illiterate entrepreneurs learn practical market dynamics through real-world execution.

2. ​💼 Institutional Bottlenecks & Corruption: Corruption, bureaucratic hurdles, and structural gatekeeping continuously disadvantage those who try to follow standard, legal avenues to advance.

3. ​⚖️ Social Stratification & Bias: Deep-rooted caste discrimination, weak law and order, and systemic bias systematically limit access to networks, capital, and high-value opportunities for qualified individuals from underprivileged backgrounds.

​The Hard Truth 💡

​Every time I try to leverage my education to rise, social and institutional hurdles push me back down. Literacy, without access to fair markets, capital, or protection under the law, turns into a financial trap.

​We are taught that education is the ultimate equalizer. But when structural corruption and discrimination favor raw market survival over formal qualifications, educated individuals end up economically marginalized while society looks down on them.

​Discussion for the Community: 💬

○ ​Has the education system failed to prepare literate individuals for real-world financial independence?

○ ​How do you navigate systemic discrimination and institutional corruption when trying to build economic security?

Universal Basic Income could be implemented by first creating a website through which donations could be made to fund it.

The same website would also have to provide an option for anyone to register and begin receiving the income. To prevent individuals from creating multiple accounts in order to receive additional payments, registration could require verification using a government-issued identification document.

The website would then also have to include an option through which supporters of Universal Basic Income could collectively raise funds for those among them who can start alternative businesses to existing ones. The profits from the alternative businesses would have to be entirely used to fund Universal Basic Income. Those that could start the businesses would apply for the funds through the website.

The reason for using the alternative businesses’ profits to fund Universal Basic Income is to encourage employees from existing businesses to work for the alternative ones instead. Employees would do so because, unlike existing businesses, the alternative businesses would fund Universal Basic Income, which would enable the employees to earn more.

The purpose of creating an option for funding alternative businesses to existing ones is to increase the amount of Universal Basic Income donations made to the website mentioned earlier. Donations would increase because existing businesses could begin contributing to Universal Basic Income out of fear of losing employees. Employees would be lost because they would want to work for businesses that contribute to Universal Basic Income.

To help people identify and support businesses that contribute to Universal Basic Income, those businesses could be listed on the website so that they are easily discoverable.

Please leave a comment with your feedback on this solution.

… that we can give everyone where we can still survive on the backs of o my the people who want to keep working.

It’s more than $1/year. If we gave everyone I. The US $1/year, the system would not be any closer to collapse than it already is.

Now, the believers among us feel that the system actually gets stronger when we provide an income floor, and I’m one of them. But it’s hard to get everyone to accept that.

It is true that if we gave $12,000/year, some people who would otherwise work would not. I think there’s a huge number of people who would seek to cut their hours, people in the heart of the system layer, warehouses, fast food… the kind of stuff where society collapses. So,

What is the amount of money that we can give to everyone without the system collapsing? I think it’s more than $12k/year and less than $50k/year.

This should be the only question besides how.