If we want to identify a forerunner to basic income in American politics, Richard Nixon's Family Assistance Plan is, I suggest, more relevant than anything mentioned by Van Parijs in that it almost became law. Both of these maxims retain their validity and could lead to a revival of interest in unconditional income support if concern for the stability of the inner cities resurfaced. Finally, the inequality of income and wealth may become so great, with so much money in the hands of such a small proportion of the population, that the logic of electoral competition will impel the Democrats to play the redistribution card. That leaves open the question of the form redistribution might take, which is precisely why the pros and cons of basic income need to be argued during an unpromising period such as the present. Asking about the pros and cons of basic income as such is rather like asking about the pros and cons of keeping a feline as a pet without distinguishing between a tiger and a tabby.
Basic income has very different characteristics at different levels.
The same goes for the possibility of engaging in full-time caring for children or for elderly or infirm relatives. Despite this, the level of basic income actually plays no part in Van Parijs's arguments for it. But there is really no way of guessing what the highest level of basic income would be in any country after all the changes in employment and taxation had settled down into an equilibrium. These are different from those of either a basic income below or one at subsistence level. In the end, I will defend a subsistence level basic income, in preference to Van Parijs's proposal.