Finally caught up in this thread. Here's the right answer.

UBI is wrong.

Welfare should be working fine. It isn't because it's being used a political tool, and not the economic safety net that it's supposed to be. Now I want to clarify here, when I say "welfare", I don't mean specifically welfare (free money). I realize that in the 1990's Clinton enacted a policy requiring people to work for welfare. As a result, actual welfare isn't really that huge of an expense, and slackers getting free money from welfare isn't really that big of a problem.

From here on, when I say "welfare" I mean the entirety of social safety nets available. So in addition to welfare, I'm also talking about social security disability benefits, medicaid, food stamps, WIC, and whatever else I'm missing. Note, that I'm NOT talking about Unemployment Benefits, as that is an insurance system funded by employers.

Any humane society would provide safety nets for the unfortunate and under-privileged. That's it, safety nets. As in the minimum required to not-die. It should be an emergency-only system with 0 incentive to participate other than desperation.

That is NOT what welfare is in America.

The requirements for participation have been loosened in order to increase enrollment. Furthermore, the restrictions on use have been similarly loosened, to ensure that these programs become so entrenched into people's lives, that they become dependent. I heard radio ads during the Obama administration that advertised the food-stamps program as a convenient weight-management plan. The ad continued to extol how convenient and easy it is to sign up.

I read recently that a large grocery chain in America (it was not named), has sold $357 million in Pepsi on food stamps. That's ONE STORE. The total has to be close to a billion. The point isn't to shit on Pepsi. Pepsi is awesome. But if the government is paying that much for soda, how much are they paying for cookies, and pizza, and chocolate bars?? The program is meant to keep people from starving, not keep them in Cheetos.

I could go on. There have been studies showing massive fractions of disability recipients could actually work. They sit at home all day playing Candy Crush....they can do data entry.

Why is it this way? Because a person dependent on government is always going to support liberal policy. That's what this is about. Votes. You guys have gone around in circles for two dozen posts here arguing about economic benefits and incentives to produce and what not. None of that is in debate. Free shit decreases incentive. period. it is known.

One side of the political spectrum actually desires to decrease incentive.