I assume you are asking for suggestions what aspects you need to consider when designing such world.
This minimal basic income needed for basic spartan life would be very different in different parts of any country - because climate is different. In Hawaii, you can live in tent on a beach year-long (and have more resources for food and fun), in Minnesota - living in tent during winter would be less fun. So if basic income would be established, people would move to such hospitable places and life with basic income there - would be "working" people allow that? Would be some areas of Hawaii reserved as a ghetto for "basic income" people, and others, more desirable, for paid tourists?
If basic income covers cheap 1-bedroom rental, I can again save (and have more fun) by living in car/van/RV on public lands for free, and move with the climate. So would government provided me with money for housing, or free housing without me having a choice where do I live? Can I travel for summer in Colorado/Montana and winter in Arizona/Florida?
There is currently such traveling "tribe" in USA - retired snowbirds, almost a million strong, and almost invisible because they spend winter in public lands and cheap campgrounds in the West. They do live on fixed income. They do volunteer a lot - like volunteer camp manager and/or bathroom cleaner few hours per week for free camping permit.
So even in such economy with basic income provided, people would barter their skills and services for other services they need, even without money being involved.
Another problem is how to deal with people arbitraging cost of living differences between countries (and not regions inside same country). Will your basic income follow you if you live in different country? Thailand on $1000 per month is better than New York City. Should your spending of basic income be creating income for taxpayers who pay the tax to support your basic income? Or income for Thailand hotel/entertainment industry?
Another aspect: possibly service providers would differentiate if they provide services for "basic income" people, who are extremely sensitive to price, and would accept lesser quality and worse service experience ("Walmart model"), or more upscale, with substantially higher profit margin. Would there be mixed shopping malls? Or would they be separated?
Big part of econonic interactions are about signaling - I think that extravagant dresses evolve as conspicuous consumption to visually separate "haves" from "have nots". If so, criminal gangs would steal such clothing items, and/or create fake counterfeit.
Would police spent resources providing protection to "have nots" who by definition do NOT pay their salary? Would "equal protection" still apply? And if involved with any crime, how a jury of your peers will be defined? If some "have not" steals clothing item from a "have" person, would offender will by judged by:
- (1) 100% "have nots", his peers?
- (2) 100% "haves", peers of the victim?
- (3) haves and have nots mixed, as they are represented in national averages? Or as in local city, which might be substantially different in cities with warmer climate?
If someone works for a salary and pays taxes (a "have"), how long this status will last when such person retire to live off basic income? Would rules be different for disabled person, who cannot work? What about partially disabled? Naturalized immigrant?
Nice can of worms. Good question.
Basic income for no work is unlikely to happen: it clearly separates community to "makers" and "takers". I am aware that with productivity increase and automation, amount of work available will decrease. More probable are:
- work programs (build roads in National Parks) for people who cannot find profitable employment
- job sharing (two people can share one job, if they can live basic spartan life off half the salary)
- early retirement. Work 10 years and live as unemployed off of savings for 10 (and travel/play music/improv comedy on corner as you wish). later, or when bored, you can come back to work and earn more.
- earned income tax credit - which you get only if you have some income.
In each of these situation, you still "earned" your leisure time, government control of resources is much less (no forced "free housing"), and market drives allocation of resources, not a government agency.
More and more question are popping up. What about taxes and voting rights? Would "have nots" or "takers" keep voting rights? Maybe "haves" would be willing to provide basic income, if receivers they give up voting rights? On maybe "have nots" can vote only in local elections (keeping local issues under more control of "have nots"), but not national - if that is price? If receivers of basic income keep national voting rights, are they in majority? And if so, can they tax heavily "haves", cooking the goose which lays golden eggs?
Draft during military conflict: will be basic income receivers drafted preferentially? Or volunteering for military service counts as job: and if so, would be "have nots" eligible to send other people to war?
What about price and taxes on real estate? If you can inherit house in desirable destination, not have to pay taxes on it, and live without effort, what can newly rich "have" trade you for desirable house? So from POV of a "have" such situation would be highly unequal. People who inherited desirable properties can keep them forever, and who did not, will never get any, regardless of the new wealth they accumulated. That would be interesting to see.