See, I guess we come from different perspectives. I'm from NJ, where we have whole cities where about 90% of the people live on assistance. I know, because I used to go to them every day to get drugs. I had friends who lived there. None of their family members worked. None of the neighbors worked. Everybody was on welfare, and a drug dealer/consumer, except the vast minority.

These people are miserable(I know, I was one). You don't see people who work sitting around doing heroin all day. If you don't have a job, many lose their purpose and get depressed.

Also, UBI paves the way for population control measures. Is a family allowed to have 20 children, who grow up to 20 adults, all getting UBI? Considering that a very SMALL percentage of people would be 100% sponsoring a LARGE percentage of people through UBI, the people paying for it all would want limits put in place.

Eventually, it would get WAY too expensive, and the people paying taxes would cut the amount, or enact population control measures. Only so many people could afforded to be on UBI. With our current economy(capitalism), the more people that are born, the better, because the higher population just produces more. But with the UBI method of economy, the production does not rise with a rise in population, so either the UBI must be lessened per person, or population limits must be put in.

With the UBI, we are living at the luxury of the people who produce things and pay taxes. What are we going to threaten them with? We can't strike. We don't work. As long as they want to keep sponsoring X amount of citizens to live without working, it will last. But when people get greedy, movements to lessen the burden of the UBI by population constraints seem likely.

Then, we won't even be able to decide how many children we have(understandably so, because it would be unfair for one family to have 20 members sucking 20 UBI's from the system, with all 20 just playing video games all day).