The crucial point is this. The basic income is not paying people for their otherwise unpaid work: it is providing them with the financial investment that makes it possible for them to do it. Investment in people is not "something for nothing", but sound economic practice. It is also what people deserve.
If any of these factors have more of an effect than the OBR has suggested then the Chancellor will find he has far more room for manoeuvre. I suspect that he already knows this: his largest "cuts" in response are either a re-phasing of existing commitments or subject to a review that wont publish until 2018, by which time the picture will be very different.
If you were to believe the commentariat, the recent falls in the pound are a complete disaster. According to many, we are on the edge of an economic abyss. Our country is about to be plunged into financial turmoil. And, worst of all it would seem, our summer holidays abroad have become a bit more expensive...
Wellbeing offers a route out of this systemic crisis. For so long as political, social and economic progress are measured in money terms, the forces of financial capital will continue to wield the upper hand. One way to overcome them is to follow the lead of Bhutan and start measuring something else - something that is closer to the real aspirations that humans feel.
George Osborne's budget speech was, as usual, a masterclass in combining the rhetoric of change with reality of continuity. Britain has, according to Osborne, left 'the age of irresponsibility' behind. There is very little basis for this claim. Instead, the Budget, Osborne's first without Lib Dem shackles, perpetuates his reckless stewardship of the British economy.
Ultimately, that is all it takes - changing the political perception of what is merely cost, and what has real value in people's lives. Paying to gain access to the resources of real wealth-creation is a cost in human terms; the work that people choose to do because it brings undeniable benefit to their lives has value, even if no money changes hands.
It may be a rebalance of the economic powers, but the planet is far from being the place of equality. Oxfam claims that "in 2010, it took 388 billionaires to equal the wealth of the bottom half of the world's population and by 2014, the figure had fallen to just 80 billionaires." If the trend continues, warns the humanitarian group, in two years the richest 1% will have more than the remaining 99%.
Just after the results of the Brazilian presidential elections were made public a few days ago, giving current President Dilma Rouseff of the leftist Workers Party a small margin of victory over her opponent Aécio Neves, the British weekly magazine The Economist did what it always does, and came up with one of their worst ever statements.
The spectacular GDP growth recorded by some West African countries in the past 5 years is all of a sudden undermined by the spread of the Ebola virus. The epidemic has put under the spotlight the poor conditions of health systems in the region, but also the fragility of economic models measured only by Gross Domestic Product.
In 2013, the government deficit, according to the latest available Office for National Statistics (ONS) figures, was £92.9billion, which was 5.8% of GDP. All our major political parties are fixated on getting this deficit down by cutting expenditure and raising taxes. But should they be quite so determined to do so? Is austerity really the best way to cut the deficit?