You can either lowball the minimum income to the point where you can't realistically live on it for long or a lot of services get more expensive + tax hike to support it = lower standard of living for normal people (unaffected by minimum income but not rich enouh to ignore the costs)
You also miss a basic premise of basic income - everyone gets it with no means testing. It is a different concept to current benefit systems. Normal people would receive it as much as unemployed people.
And when we get to "basic shelter" well coupled with free health care I guarantee you there are people out there who have very little ambition beyond that, I know more than a few from highschool that literally said things like "all i need is enough money to play WoW" or just work enough to earn money for weed and go out with their friends and live with their parents (and these are people in late 20s early 30s).
People with ambition aren't the ones that benefit from minimum income (unless they get really unlucky, which I guess is a valid concern, but then again those same people are not the ones doing the bottom tier jobs, at least not for long).
Also that's not how I saw basic income schemes suggested, usually it's paid out to people below min income and then progressively lowered to some point otherwise the taxes would have to be insane to finance it.
This is not basic income.
What you are talking about is called means tested in work benefits in my country. It is bad - for all the reasons you mentioned but it is not basic income.
Criticise basic income if you want (please do so if you are trained economist) but please do understand what it is before doing so otherwise you are merely burning a strawman.
>Negative income taxes can implement a basic income or supplement a guaranteed minimum income system.
IIRC it was proposed as a simplification of the means tested welfare. Basically NIT is the most realistic funding for Basic Income I've seen - but it's irrelevant - the incentives stay the same the only difference is that it screws over regular people a little less (depending on how it's funded, I'm unconvinced by any "tax the rich" scheme).
Anyway I was interested in this stuff in college when I took my intro econ classes I never looked in to it further but I'm 100% sure NIT is a basic income scheme.
Basic income (NB not minimum income!, not negative income tax!) is not means tested at all. No means test period. Everyone gets it. From the beggar to the millionaire. This is a totally different concept to means tested benefits. The proposal is a so called universal benefit.
Grew up with friends who had no food sometimes. My mom would give me food to bring to their house when I went to visit. The mother also had very serious medical problems which was a big reason for that.
There is a difference between not having food sometimes and starving. Minimum income doesn't fix that either - there will be people who will spend their kids food money on other things.