I understand what you meant, but the proposal is that if the basics are so cheap that it costs society very little, what's the big deal? Australia spends 2% of it's national budget on "I can't find a job but I need to eat" welfare...hardly back breaking for society to support this right now, and there's a pervading view here that all welfare recipients are permanent "dole bludgers" too, so at most, all the people who absolutely will not work under any circumstances costs 2% of tax revenue.
If the cost of giving everyone a basic life, factoring in all of the people who simply wouldn't work at all, managed to fit into that 2% of budget, purely because productivity was so incredible, wouldn't it be nice to have? Of course this probably isn't possible right now, but it's potentially foreseeable within 50 years.
That's a big "if". An even worse is "if not".
If your 2% taxation is NOT enough to fund basic income, what will happen? People will complain and ask for more. So it will be 3%.
So basically since your "big state" can raise this level as high as it wants, it will always make sure that the rate is high enough to finance your basic income,
even if it does not make economic sense. In other words, even if it will crash the economy. That does very much look like an elaborate, quantified version of communism.
Basic income is implemented in the current system with shares and stock market. Why don't you guys just buy shares? You would get some part of the excess of production you are talking about.
But no, you want your share of the cake,
without putting any fucking effort about it, not even spending a penny. Seriously, this is despicable.