As a huge believer in unconditional income, let me address your whole comment:

> The thing I genuinely don't understand regarding the basic income for all argument is that surely it just moves the goal posts rather than solves the problem at hand?

I agree, but I see it as a good first step towards getting rid of the plague that is (savage) capitalism.

> In the current system, you can go stay at home and get income support, which should provide you with the basics i.e. a home, food, electricity etc. If you would like more than this, you can go and get a job and hopefully earn more (have a better lifestyle) than staying at home not working.

The problem is that a lot of minimum wage employees are treated with minimum respect since they really are forced to be there. This way of thinking makes everyone miserable by not considering the quality of life of those concerned. And I'm just talking about "not being verbally abused" here basically, not even "have a nice kitchen". And there aren't enough public employees to ensure people don't get treated like shit.

> This therefore means there is an incentive to go work. There is also control, to make sure the money the unemployed person is getting is mostly spent on the basics (such as housing, rather than say drugs).

See, I disagree that the state should have such moral authority. But more to the point, this provides an incentive to the state to disregard basic needs (thereby reducing "needed" money) and pretend everyone has the same basic needs (thereby giving more people an arbitrary minimum). Also, people are still currently buying drugs/alcohol with their state money, because at the end of the day addiction will often win over food, and that's not a problem you solve by giving people less money (who will only starve more and/or commit more crimes).

> The problem with suddenly giving everyone a minimum amount of money, is that due to everyone now 'at least' having that amount of money at hand, this becomes the new 'bottom' of the market. If I get a job, I earn money on top of this basic amount, which means I can afford nice things and the person unemployed still can't afford anything.

That's on purpose. That's why it's not a communist scheme. But don't forget that food and house prices are/can be mostly controlled by the state, so it can make sure that everyone gets the real basics (as it already tries to do).

> If let's hypothetically say, you gave everyone in Vietnam this basic wage, the cost of beer would not remain at 14 pence. The first reason is because the work force would find their existing pay negligible compared to the basic pay (so wages would have to rise to be incentive to work on top of basic pay) which would in turn cause cost of manufacturing to rise, but also the market would realise with this extra money available - the price could be set higher and would rise accordingly.

That's also on purpose. One of the points is that everyone gets to be treated in a non-shitty manner, which means everything is going to cost more to produce, which means the middle class and above will be poorer on average, all things considered. I count that as a good thing (reducing income gap). However we're not talking about Vietnam (or China or Taiwan), because the powers that be would not allow the world factories to fuck up their way of life. This program only makes sense in first world countries, if we're aiming for things staying the same.

> Now back in the UK if this was to occur, you would have slight price rises due to these factors which would in affect move the poverty line up higher, which would mean the people at the bottom are still poor relatively.

Right. But more people would be able to not work under terrible conditions.

> What's worse is that assuming the people who are unemployed are given the choice on how that money is spent, they may in fact not spend the money sensibly (i.e. on their housing) and end up homeless instead.

That doesn't really make sense, since people need an address now to receive welfare, and I see no reason for this to change. If you're homeless you have a whole new set of problems, which would not be addressed by the measure afaik.

> The final problem with this model is that the cost of living and economic output is not evenly distributed throughout a country. £1750 a month in northern England may give you a fantastic lifestyle, where as in London you'd barely cover your rent. (What happens to the unemployed in London in a fixed give everyone a basic income situation? They have to leave London and move where they can afford, which then makes it potentially harder to find a job and splits the country into two halves, the elite / the poor).

This is a problem and needs to be addressed. I don't really think people on welfare can currently afford to live in London anyway (correct me if I'm wrong), so it doesn't really change anything.

All in all, remember that no one wants to have a shit life and be homeless. So if you give people money, they're likely to use that money to get a better/steady life rather than fucking up their life. There will be people who "mooch" on the system, but there already are. This is about working conditions and the right to be treated fairly (and to left-wingers like me, the right not to work).