I spent about an hour and a half researching (sigh another unpublished draft), and my line of thinking proceeded not terribly unlike your response and the resulting thread with rinx. When I realized that we would probably have to start taxing other forms of wealth to make a basic income happen, that's when I threw up my hands and decided to forego the convo.

I will say that the issue of exactly how much wealth is hidden at the top of the distribution was a recurring theme. Phrases like "according to best estimates" or "some indicators suggest" kept cropping up, and without solid statistics to base a mathematical argument off of, I'm sunk. That the numbers are obfuscated to such a high degree is quite convenient for the wealthy. It's not like I consider it some widespread conspiracy, it's more akin to the collective effects of "yes, I have a bit of money, and I'd rather not tell you exactly how much."

Also, any reports issued by the gov't on the subject of wealth are almost guaranteed to be low-balling, due to unreported/offshore/loopholes. So let's say that there's actually twice as much, $84 trillion, in wealth held by American citizens. That's still only twelve years of sustained basic income. You could argue that much of this wealth will be replenished if the economy continues to hum along at a healthy pace, but will business proceed as usual? No one has the faintest clue.

I have yet to see a convincing mathematical argument from the pro-basic income crowd as to how it could work.

That all of these numbers are framed in the context of only $1,000 per month per person seems pretty damning.