This is a fallacy. A woman working is not going to "choose" this any more than you are going to go from being gainfully employed to sitting on your ass all day playing video games. Setting the right thresholds on both the income and the reductions removes any incentive to become a non-working drag on society. If however, you did make that choice, a basic income allows you to realize quickly how crap life is and then correct yourself, rather than slide further down the have not scale.

What's more, even if you did choose to sit around playing video games on $10K a year or whatever, you are fed and likely housed, and therefore not stealing from me, getting arrested and now costing me $75K a year in prison expenses.

> You have different criteria than I and should have every right to donate your income to causes you see as worthy

Taxation is not fucking charity. We do have every right to choose where our taxes go. They're called elections. However, considering (as I stated and you conveniently ignored) that your wealth was entirely derived from the society at large, the sustainable maintenance of said society is in your utmost interest, whether you think so or not. I have more interests than I can possibly afford to donate to. That's why I contribute to a collective fund and then hire managers to disperse said dollars with an eye to betterment of society as a whole.

That just means that others decide what happens to my money.

> However, considering that your wealth was entirely derived from the society at large

This is just a false assertion. My wealth is derived from my work.

> That's why I contribute to a collective fund and then hire managers to disperse said dollars with an eye to betterment of society as a whole.

You also force everybody else to do the same. Those altruistic managers then spend the money on foreign wars and bailouts.