I think this assumption is a very flawed assumption: "the jurisdictions that do not implement the basic income laws will attract all the corporations and the ensuing corporate tax income..."
Based on all the evidence I've seen, I expect countries that implement UBI to find it as a competitive advantage in a global economy. It therefore makes little sense to expect corporations to flee countries with UBI. Remember, UBI is money. It's capital and also consumer income. Markets will flourish with UBI. Entrepreneurship will skyrocket.
Now, even if we do take your assumption as accurate, that UBI will make corporations flee, that assumption itself depends entirely on the level of UBI and how its funded. A 100% corporate tax would be absurd, and also entirely unrealistic, although it's certainly one way to achieve your assumption. There are countless ways of funding a UBI that are much smarter than a giant tax on corporate profits. I suggest the following combination of ways to fund it in the US.
Also, I think your assumption is built around an overinflated cost of basic income. If you think it's super expensive, it makes sense to imagine massive tax hikes. But UBI isn't super expensive, and it will actually reduce the tax burdens of about 80% of the US. It's effectively a large refundable tax credit for everyone.
@scottsantens If you look at countries that have amazing social benefits such as free universal healthcare and free education, which is another form of non-refundable tax credit, the actual income tax is quite high. In other words, nothing is really "free".
As the recent scandals in the media have shown, the wealthy individuals and corporations from those countries seem to end up using offshore bank accounts to hide their wealth and avoid high taxation.
As long as UBI tax on the top tier earners does not go over a certain psychological/mathematical level, it could work. But keep in mind that UBI will have to be increased by Cost of Living Allowance on a yearly basis due to inflation and other factors. For the wealthy, UBI may just seem like an additional tax on their wealth/income, unless you can mathematically prove that it would reduce or maintain their tax burden.
Also, many will just mention the numerous Socialist economical experiments and the effects of "socialist" policies on the economy and society. It seems like a steep uphill battle to convince the upper class to be for UBI, but nothing is impossible these days with good PR and "ethical lobbying" (I hope that is not an oxymoron).
On the other hand, most democratic governments do have an incentive to pass UBI laws as that would maintain the majority happy and satisfied with those in power, hence solidifying their staying power in politics. However, all governments/countries need capital, brain/manpower and resources, and if one of those is lacking or leaves, economies/societies may experience periods of decline.
Like I stated before, it is a complicated balancing act. I think more people should get involved in this discussion.
Based on your reply, you haven't read the articles I provided links to, at least not yet. Please do. At no point did I say UBI was free. I explained how it costs a lot less than you obviously seem to think it does. I also linked to what I consider to be the optimal way of going about funding it, which does not involve tax rates on the rich that you appear to be concerned about. And I also included how it should grow as productivity grows, and how to potentially go about that.
You may also find it informative to go through my UBI FAQ.
Will check it out.