Not entirely related to the article, but more what I'm reading in comments. Does anyone know of any research on "sliding" minimum income vs true universal basic income?

I'm generally a supporter of UBI, but I understand I'm coming from a unique position. I teach part time, making pretty brutal wages, but I'm good at it, I enjoy it in small doses, and it affords me time to work through my mental health issues and invest time into my startup endeavours. UBI for me would mean significantly more peace of mind, being able to have some "extraneous" expenses (I haven't purchased clothing in 3+ years, don't own a car, and live in low-income neighbourhoods).

I know the fear is that people will just... not want to work, and ignoring the arguments for incapability of work (due to automation, flooded job markets, etc.) - wouldn't a sliding scale be more likely to push people out of the workplace?

For example, let's say I'm a teacher making 25k/year. On a smaller, basic income I'd make - arbitrary numbers here - but let's say 45k total on a 20k, everybody-gets-it-no-matter-what basis. Maybe I bump up a tax bracket, but am ultimately making more.

Now if it were a higher base amount, say 30k, but sliding at -$0.5/$1 income, I'd make 25k+15k=40k while working 40-60 hour weeks vs 30k working 0 hours a week. It effectively values your 40-60 hours at $10k. You may even drop into a lower tax bracket depending on the real world numbers, saving slightly more.

I'd love to see any real research on the matter, targeting this specific issue of sliding vs universal with respect to job-motivation.