Ummmm.... OK, there are ~250M adults over the age of 18 in the US. Of them, 120M are full time employees. So we are talking about a program to provide income to at least 130 million people, but probably way more, because why would anyone work for crumbs if they could have their needs met w/a govt check? So just off the rip your plan is off to a bad start.
The 35.4 Percent: 109,631,000 on Welfare
currently the government already provides welfare assistance to around 110M people.
from the article:
When those receiving benefits from non-means-tested federal programs — such as Social Security, Medicare, unemployment and veterans benefits — were added to those taking welfare benefits, it turned out that 153,323,000 people were getting federal benefits of some type at the end of 2012.
and when combined with all government assistance programs it turns out that 153M people are already receiving welfare benefits from the government. this is well over your estimate of 130M.
here is a pie chart for how much spending that is
Government Spending Details: Federal State Local for 2014 - Charts
this is a lot of money. the object of basic income would be to collapse all these various branches of welfare and group them into a singular entity which would also have a double effect of getting rid of a lot of general government spending by no longer requiring all the workers who oversee all of these obsolete departments.
the true cost of basic income must be compared to the cost of living. but i think that when seen from the perspective of total government spending currently, gives a good perspective on how feasible basic income actually is. the money is there to work towards it.
So why couldn't we look to reduce the cost of living to help people get more from the money they earn at jobs?
thats great but the argument of basic income is in response to an economy where jobs become scarce not an economy of full employment.
Increase taxes on who? A minimum basic income would decimate the tax base....
this is why i think the feasibility of basic income is tied more to the cost of living than to taxation. as the cost of living comes down, the cost of implementing basic income also comes down, undercutting our current welfare spending strategy. which is to say that we would actually be saving money through a basic income.
this is contingent of course on the progress of technology, both in terms of automating production, which over time eliminates the need for jobs, and in terms of how we access things that we need in day to day life. for example, homes that can be cheaply and abundantly produced through 3d printing and electricity that can be generated without an external party. as these things start to become a reality, the argument for basic income becomes more and more potent and the logic for implementing it becomes more and more clear.