I suspect that basic income is a stable equilibrium given a "one person, one vote"-type of democratic system.
It's in each person's best interests to vote for more wealth redistribution if they're below the average, and there will always be more people below the average than above.
Further, it's in each politician's interest to both promise and deliver such a thing, as it helps them win first and following elections.
But it's also very easy to convince virtually anyone that they're a part of the hardworking middle class that's keeping this country afloat, as opposed to those leeches that would use their basic income to hang around and do nothing.
What middle class? The fact that we're discussing an across the board baseline income is indicative of the state of the "middleclass". What a disaster, hate to be so melodramatic.
When the word "leeches" is directed toward people at the "bottom", it makes me wonder what people think of when money is created out of thin air, lended to banks at ZIRP and who then lend to people at anything but, who then use such money (or credit) to buy goods (created by their peers) that people at the helm of such institutions like banks can also buy…
not to mention industries whose profits are generated solely on the basis of tariffs and subsidies (various areas of industrial farming: corn, sugar, etc)
Getting a bank (i.e. money printing) license is probably the hardest thing to do in the developed world. The guys/families who got them must be the best adopted to the complexities of the modern society.
How about long turn demographics? There are racial and religious minorities, that have 12+ children in an average family. A basic income may help them grow even faster, leading to inevitable huge changes in the society.
That population is going to grow with or without any help, based on the general trend of population growth worldwide. If we don't educate and give them a chance in our society, then we'll be facing a disenfranchised, volatile majority.
Also, I'm under the assumption that "leeches" basically just means poor people. I supposed if we had to be more specific, in America that means Hispanics. They are not exactly religious zealots, but are definitely making relatively larger families. That's just going to be the demographic reality in America.
It's in each person's best interests to vote for more wealth redistribution if they're below the average, and there will always be more people below the average than above.
Further, it's in each politician's interest to both promise and deliver such a thing, as it helps them win first and following elections.