Universal Basic Income: Coercion or Freedom?

Comments on The Progressive Bitcoiner podcast episode with Scott Santens

I recently listened to an episode of The Progressive Bitcoiner podcast featuring guest Scott Santens discussing the topic of universal basic income, or UBI. It was an excellent show, and I’d encourage everyone to check it out here. The hosts, Trey Walsh and Margot Paez, and their guest definitely don’t share my worldview, so it’s always interesting and challenging to hear a different perspective. I’m going to share a few salient points that stood out to me from the episode, and explain how I agree and disagree.

The concept of UBI has been around for a long time, but recently had a resurgence in popular exposure by presidential candidate Andrew Yang. The buzz died down since his campaign, but the topic is once again getting some airtime in relation to the potential labor market disruptions caused by AI. So I think it’s worth taking a look at the topic, since it will probably become a political issue again at some point.

Why Consider UBI?

When discussing a complex topic like this, I think it’s important to establish a foundational baseline of goal or purpose first. That provides an opportunity to really define a vision, and make sure that vision is fundamentally solid and valid. Otherwise it’s easy to blindly head down the path toward a destination we don’t actually want. I was a little disappointed this wasn’t discussed in more depth, but here’s what host Trey Walsh had to say on the topic of why we need UBI.

You know, we wanna assist people who need it. We wanna make sure that people have their basic needs met, especially in somewhere like the United States. People shouldn't be in poverty. There shouldn't be the homeless crisis that we're dealing with, all of these things. Right?

All that sounds well and good on the surface. Of course no one wants more poverty. That’s the quintessential strawman of collectivist politics, “I’m against poverty.” Well of course, so is every non-psychopath on the planet. The implication, of course, is that if you disagree with them in any way, you must be for poverty, and therefore a murderous and uncaring psychopath.

I reject that framing. Here’s why.

The world operates by cause and effect. Outcomes are the result of actions. People shouldn’t be in poverty, not in a perfect situation. People also shouldn’t be locked in a cage and have all their freedoms restricted. Yet we incarcerate people every day. People shouldn’t be killed. Yet we execute people regularly. And rational people are aware of and support these things, with of course disagreement on the details. Why? Because people take actions that have consequences, and sometimes those consequences can be as serious as socially enforced prison or even death.

But most consequences aren’t enforced by people in that way, they’re enforced by the laws of the universe itself. You touch the hot stove, you get burned. You jump into the deep end without knowing how to swim, you drown. You waste time being unproductive while spending too much, you fall into poverty.

So while nobody wants more poverty, the reality is that sometimes poverty is a result of choices made. You can argue how often it’s a justified consequence versus how often it’s an unfortunate outcome of tragic events outside someone’s control. But the thing is, UBI doesn’t differentiate. That’s the whole point. UBI attempts to solve the poverty “problem” by making it impossible for anyone to ever be in poverty.

This is the economic equivalent of solving the pain “problem” by injecting everyone with a dose of morphine every day. It fails to acknowledge that poverty and pain are not only problems, but often a warning that suboptimal actions were taken, and changes need to be made in the future to achieve desired outcomes. Sure, you could “solve” your pain with a shot of morphine. But it’s really just telling you to take your hand off the stove before your skin burns away, or get that nagging headache checked out to make sure it’s just allergies and not a brain tumor.

Same with poverty, it’s often just a reminder and motivator to get off the couch and do something useful, or put in more than 32 hours at work, or stop buying those cigarettes and lotto tickets when you have $10k in credit card debt and rent due tomorrow. Again, I’m not insinuating that every person in poverty makes those choices. But the idea behind UBI is that if they do, they shouldn’t feel the pain of consequences. I fundamentally disagree with that premise. I believe incentives strongly determine outcomes, and distorting natural incentives in a large-scale way like UBI does, is going to lead to some very undesirable outcomes.

Incentives

It’s not that Scott doesn’t understand incentives. He goes on to say this:

So when it comes to traditional welfare benefits, what usually happens is let's say you wanna make sure that only those in need get this assistance. So then you have some kind of test. You say, okay, if the poverty line is $12,000 per year, then we wanna make sure that we only get this assistance to those who are earning less than $12,000 a year. So that sounds like on its face, like, a good idea. Like, you just wanna make sure that it goes to people in need.

But there are a couple outcomes from that. One of them is actually something that conservatives tend to understand pretty well, which is that there's a disincentive effect from welfare. So if you only get something if you have an income under $12,000 per year, then you're essentially encouraged to keep your income below $12,000 a year in order to keep getting it.

This has been a common theme among UBI advocates. They promote UBI as a solution to the disincentive to productivity caused by traditional welfare, while denying that UBI is also a disincentive to productivity.

The typical argument is anecdotal, pointing to trials or experiences showing that UBI recipients are more likely to start a business or do something unpaid like volunteer work or additional school. But to me this isn’t a convincing argument. For one, starting a business is not an automatic net good. A lot of businesses fail. The alleged benefit of UBI is that it encourages more people to start a business in spite of the risk of failure, knowing that if it does fail they’ll still be able to survive off the UBI payment. The thing is, businesses fail because they don’t provide value. If they provide value as determined by the market, they’ll make a profit and succeed. The fact that they fail is just proof that more value was being consumed than produced, so the enterprise was a net detriment to society. So starting a business should carry significant real risk to entrepreneurs, because it carries the potential of wasting a lot of resources if it doesn’t serve a real demand in the market.

As Scott goes on to say:

Whereas with UBI, if you have a $1,000 per month at UBI and a job offers you a $1,000 per month, you've just doubled your income. And that's where the incentive comes from to work, which is also why if you look at all the pilots, all the evidence shows that work does not decrease significantly at all with basic income and actually often increases, like, with the entrepreneurship impacts. You see just a lot of people starting up their businesses. That's one of the main impacts is that even if people work less in wage labor, a lot of the impact goes to self employment and even doing something like unpaid care work or school where it makes an investment in future work or actually focusing on unpaid work that isn't recognized as work.

Again, this is just assuming that the self employment or unpaid work or school are automatically a net good. If those things aren’t bringing in enough income to justify without the UBI, what’s the basis for concluding that they’re a net benefit to society and something we want to incentivize? It all comes back to the central planning, collectivist mindset, the idea that my particular assessment of what is and isn’t valuable outweighs the opinion of every market actor as determined by what is and isn’t profitable. The fact that anecdotally some of the businesses started because of UBI are successful, doesn’t make the whole enterprise a net benefit. So to me, it’s an unconvincing argument overall.

If people are currently in poverty, of course excluding those who are actually unable to work, then the reality of poverty isn’t a strong enough incentive to change their production or consumption behavior enough to afford the basics of life. If affording basic necessities isn’t enough incentive, how will affording slightly nicer non-necessities be an incentive when UBI provides the necessities without requiring any effort at all? I’m skeptical.

Inflation

Scott lists three main objections to UBI.

So the the three primary, oppositional arguments to basic income are that people will stop working, that it will cause inflation, and that we can't afford it.

On inflation, he starts by arguing that inflation won’t be an issue because it hasn’t been in Alaska, and they have an annual dividend payment to each resident of $1-2,000 per year. Of course this is significantly less than the $1,000 or more per month he uses as a UBI example throughout the conversation. But putting that aside, his explanation for why Alaska hasn’t seen increased inflation directly contradicts his explanation for why the US as a whole has seen significant inflation recently.

And every year when the dividend sales go out, businesses actually drop their prices. They have, you know, dividend sales and they're all trying to compete over people to spend at their business instead of some other business. You know, it's just like with Christmas where you think, you know, everyone wants to spend money and you can think that, well, businesses should actually raise their prices because everyone has money to spend and they're willing to spend it now. No. They actually lower prices because of competition.

So one element of this, of course, is that competitive aspect. You know, competition does matter. And, if you raise your prices because people have more money, then your competitor could lower their prices or not raise their prices and then could actually put you out of business, because you decided to do that.

But then, talking about US inflation the past few years:

And what we didn't do, and one one of the reasons why we saw this inflation too was the result of not doing something like a windfall tax or, you know, excess inflation tax or excess profits tax. And that's the kind of tax that isn't about, you know, raising revenue. It's about just discouraging companies from seeking excess profits. You know, a bunch of what we saw with sellers inflation, which is that businesses in this environment of inflation due to lower supply and therefore costlier components, they raise their prices way beyond what they actually needed to do because why not? You know, if prices are going up anyways because they need to, might as well capture a much larger percentage of your profits by raising your prices even more. We could have discouraged that. We just didn't do that.

These types of contradictory arguments are frustrating to respond to. So which is it? Extra money doesn’t cause inflation in Alaska because businesses lower their prices to stay competitive, but when we see inflation in the US after massive stimulus payments it’s because businesses just raised their prices because why wouldn’t they? You can’t have it both ways. Either businesses respond to market incentives and charge as much as possible while still remaining competitive, or businesses just do whatever they want without regard to market incentives and the whole concept of economics is a fraud.

Earlier in the conversation Scott pointed out that UBI can increase demand for goods and services, but at the time he was using that as a potential benefit. He uses the example of a woman who used her UBI payment to start a baking business.

But the basic income meant that her entire village was full of customers, full of people that had money to actually buy her goods. And if she had gotten this in a vacuum where, you know, she just got a start up loan, would she have succeeded in a village full of people that couldn't buy her stuff? Well, arguably, she likely could have failed or at least she would have done a lot worse. But because everyone in the village had basic income too, then they were all able to buy her stuff and they loved her baked goods and that ended up leading to her income from her business being, I think it was 3 or 4 times the amount of the basic income.

Lower supply and higher demand both act to move prices up. So arguing that lower supply during the past few years was the main cause of higher prices, and UBI wouldn’t have the same effect, while simultaneously touting the increased demand as a benefit of UBI, doesn’t compute. You can’t use the effects of market forces to argue in favor of UBI, and then act like that effect doesn’t exist when you’re downplaying objections to UBI.

Overall, I remain unconvinced by the arguments made as to why UBI wouldn’t cause inflation.

Freedom and Homesteading

The podcast also touches on the empowerment UBI would provide in the job market.

But, you know, a lot what I find really fascinating about a lot of people who claim to be libertarians is that they overlook the authoritarian coercive aspect of the employer employee relationship. And it's really interesting because it's not just, you know, true freedom is not just freedom from coercion from your government. It ought to be freedom from coercion from all forms of oppression. Right? And in the job, in the workplace, and in the labor market, if you're going to be on an equal footing with the employer, you ought to have a way to say no and to exercise your right to escape that type of coercion from being forced to take a job or to take hours with wages that are not suitable for you. And what you're saying, Scott, to me, is like liberty maximization on the across the board, to create an even playing field within all all markets in a market system. You can't refuse domination without an empowered status, and that's what basic income provides.

This seems like a reasonable argument. My objection on this point would be that it once again assumes that market forces don’t work. Because in the labor market, you do have a way to say no to your employer. It’s very simple, you just quit that job and take a job elsewhere. If the pay being offered is less than the value of your work, you can offer your work to the market somewhere else and get what it’s actually worth. By definition. If you don’t think that’s true, you’re arguing that the market doesn’t work. That’s a different argument.

You could say the UBI provides the security to be able to quit your job and survive while finding a better job elsewhere. But if you’re really so undercompensated, you can easily find a better offer before quitting your current job. That’s the normal practice. And when it comes to worry about being fired, we already have generous unemployment compensation for precisely that reason. I don’t see what role UBI fills in increasing freedom in the marketplace, except to provide support and remove incentive for those who aren’t contributing sufficient value to be successful in the labor market.

UBI just shifts dependency from the incentives of the market to the choices of the state. Instead of depending on the compensation the market provides for your effort, you’re depending on the goodwill of the central planners to keep sending that check every month. Of course this provides a strong incentive to support the apparatus of the state, which is a huge unspoken benefit of UBI to those who favor increased centralized control over the economy by central planners at the state level.

Then there’s this point:

This actually leads into another libertarian argument is that we kind of remove the ability for people to live just like off the land, you know, doing their own kind of work. What we did is if you go back to, like, the enclosures, you know, you look at the common land, you know, even back in the day in the US, when everyone was, like, moving west, you could actually, with homestead grants, you could actually just claim land as yours, and it was just free. And you could actually just live off the land. That was an option. Now there is no such thing. Like, you can't just claim land as yours. It belongs to someone else.

And in this kind of situation, it's the owners of the land that have that power over you. They can say, no. You're like, if you work for me, then I will give you access to what the land provides. And is that freedom? No. Like, as soon as we enclosed the land and prevented people from actually sustaining themselves off of it with the fruit of their own, you know, enjoying the fruits of their own labor and making it so that it was the choice between the the non owners being dominated by the owners.

So the argument is that we need UBI now as a replacement for the ability to just get free land and homestead the American West. It would be amazing if there were a way to interview an 1800’s homesteader today and get their opinion on this theory. My guess is they’d laugh themselves sick. I have to conclude that people have no concept of what was involved in surviving as a homesteader, and what kind of lifestyle you could expect even if you managed to do it successfully.

Suffice to say that anyone who puts in the amount of effort today that it took to survive on a parcel of “free” land in the 1800’s, will be far wealthier than any UBI check could ever make them. Realistically, most of the people living in “poverty” today in the US have a lifestyle of ease and luxury an 1800’s homesteader couldn’t even imagine, much less achieve. It certainly wasn’t something you’d just decide to do as an easy way to get by between jobs, it was backbreaking physical labor from daylight to dark, and a lifestyle of the barest subsistence at best, and complete failure and the prospect of actual death if the weather didn’t cooperate or the grasshoppers or hail destroyed the wheat crop or the Indians attacked and destroyed your homestead or you cut your hand and got an infection or a million other things the modern “poor” never have to worry about.

Votes in the Market

The way that the markets are supposed to work and that we imagined were the reason that markets do work is that essentially, money acts as like a vote. And that, you know, if one business is doing something that you like, then you go there, you vote for that business with your dollars, and that business can continue to do business. And then a business that doesn't have any people voting for it, that goes out of business, and then a new business pops up, and then people get to vote. Do you like that business or don't you?

So that's the way that that markets work. But, of course, the kind of underlying mechanism is this vote, which is the dollar. And so we don't actually have a system where everybody can vote, but we have a system where some people can vote and they can vote, like, a lot. Like, they have, like, all kinds they have billions of ballots that they can use to vote. And, it's very disproportionate.

They go on to discuss how UBI would be beneficial by giving everyone some “votes” in the market, so the market could fill their demand.

The part that’s ignored is that these votes work both ways. In a free market, having a lot of money is a result of a lot of people “voting” to support the work and business you’re doing. Not having money is the result of people “voting” that what you’re doing isn’t valuable enough. You’re the same as the business that doesn’t have any people voting for it, which like he says, goes out of business and gets replaced by a business people are willing to support. So the UBI argument, once again, contradicts itself. How is giving free “votes” to people who haven’t provided value in the economy good, while allowing a business to fail or be forced to adapt because of a lack of market support is also good? They’re both a result of the same market forces. And if a business does a good job and gets a lot of “votes”, that’s going to result in the business owner becoming wealthy, and everything staying just as disproportionate as before. See how this is illogical? How is the market supposed to function by this “voting” system if the “votes” don’t actually mean anything because we continuously take the money away from the “vote” winners and redistribute it equally back to everyone through UBI?

One could argue that those who have a lot of money haven’t earned it by fulfilling market demands, but by corruption of the money system, regulatory capture, corporate/government collusion, etc. I completely agree, but that’s a problem of a lack of market forces, not a problem caused by market forces. The solution is to eliminate things that interfere with market forces, not to add even more market-distorting effects in the form of wealth redistribution through UBI.

Redistribution

In relation to a discussion about who should benefit from AI and tech advancements, Trey had this to say:

But, really quick with what Scott said, I think that is one of the things that I'm curious your thoughts on this. For someone to come to UBI, I think there might be one stipulation. And I think that stipulation would be what you just said, that we believe that we should live in a world where everyone is kind of a part of creating this world that has been throughout the variety of ways that are typically taken for granted. And everyone deserves a fair contribution of that, whatever that looks like. Because some people coming to the table or some folks in Bitcoin that I might disagree with on this point think, well, they didn't do x y z, so they don't deserve x y z. Right? And I can quote Marx, and they'll dismiss me and and all of this stuff. Right?

So I think that might be one condition to being open to this conversation is do we want or do we believe we should live in a world where that sort of system exists, whether you call it redistribution of some kind or whatever. I almost view it as kind of a fact of life at this point as we were talking about.

And Scott responds,

Yeah. It's funny that you mentioned redistribution again. It's definitely like a bad word. You know, we've come to the point where, you just don't say redistribution. You know that people oppose that.

And Alaska's dividend, a lot of Alaskans see this as a form of predistribution. And the way that they see that as predistribution is that because money goes directly from the government to people, you know, it doesn't first go to politicians and then to people. You know, it doesn't go to politicians for them to decide where it should go. Instead, it's distributed directly to people, and then people get to spend it in ways that whatever they wish. And that's money that the government isn't deciding for them.

So I would say that the redistribution is when it's, like, gone through the process of going through a politician. You know, it's like welfare as a form of redistribution because it's going through a politician, and the politician sets up a bureaucracy, and the bureaucracy says, this person deserves it. This person doesn't. This comes with these conditions.

So they’re well aware that people oppose wealth redistribution, and no quotes from Marx will convince them to support it. So they’re trying to reframe the word and argue that UBI isn’t redistribution, because the government doesn’t decide who deserves it and how they can use it.

But earlier in the episode, Scott said,

There's again kind of a misunderstanding of basic income, in regards to, like, yes, it's true that everyone universally receives whatever the basic income is.

And let's say it's $1200 per month is the basic income. That does not mean that everyone's disposable income has increased by $1200 per month. That depends on the taxes that have been paired with it, the welfare reforms that have been paired with it, the tax expenditure reforms. It means that there's some amount of net increase or decrease after taxes that has to be taken into account. So in a case of, like, Bill Gates, Elon Musk and, you know, the other billionaires, like, yes, they'll get the $1200 per month, but their taxes would have gone up much further than $1200 per month.

They will not see a disposable income boost. Then if you look at, you know, there's, depending on design, there's some, you know, person, that is receiving just as much in UBI as they're paying in additional new taxes. And, so let's say that person is around, $120,000 or something where they are receiving $1200 per month in EBI, but their new taxes are $1200 per month. So they are 0. They don't benefit from basic income financially, and they don't pay higher taxes either on net. Instead, they're like the you know, they experience the greater security of basic income.

They don't see a boost. And so then go below that. So everyone below that net neutral point are receiving some amount of disposable income boost. And for the middle class, that won't be $1200 per month. It'll be, you know, something like, say, $600 per month or $500 or something, on net.

And with only those earning 0, getting the full amount of net benefit.

If everyone gets the same UBI check, that doesn’t mean it’s not redistribution. Not even according to their own redefining of the word. Not if it’s paired with tax increases on the wealthy, which Scott is admitting it will be. Because if you give someone a monthly check, but then tax them for more than the amount of the check, that’s not really what we’ve been sold as UBI, is it? At the end of the day, as Scott admits, it’s the net change in disposable income that matters. If you give everyone an equal monthly check, but then raise taxes on the wealthy by more than they receive, and don’t raise taxes on the poor, what have you achieved? The net change in disposable income is identical to just raising taxes on the wealthy and redistributing it to the poor through different sized monthly checks based on income. In other words, exactly the same as every other wealth redistributing welfare program we already have.

This completely obliterates the argument that UBI won’t reduce the incentive to work like income based welfare payments do. It’s the net change in disposable income that matters. So having more of your UBI taxed away because you increased your income creates identical incentives to having your welfare payments reduced because you increased your income.

I don’t know what else to say on this. If you want to discuss whether wealth redistribution is good or bad, that’s a different conversation. If you quote Marx as a credible source, I already have a good idea how that conversation will go. But it’s intellectually dishonest to claim that UBI is anything other than the standard collectivist wealth redistribution scheme, just because you try to compartmentalize away the increased progressive taxes it’s inevitably paired with. As far as I’m concerned, this is as damning an argument against UBI as anyone could make.

Earlier in the show Scott pointed out that income taxes are not the best form of taxes. I completely agree, I think the incentives of income taxes are absolutely awful. But when it comes down to the mechanics of funding UBI, Scott seems to admit that it will be funded by higher taxes on the wealthy. Well of course, because that’s the only way to gain support for it. There are a lot fewer wealthy people than poor and middle class people, so UBI sells with the same marketing campaign every other economic proposal relies on: we’ll take money away from “the rich” and give it to you for free. Of course that’s going to be popular with voters. That doesn’t make it a good idea though. In fact, it’s exactly the type of idea that makes pure democracy an unsustainable and short-lived form of government.

Control

One of the common concerns about UBI is that is could lead to a threatening level of government control and coercion, if a large percentage of the population is dependent on the monthly UBI payment. This is addressed in the episode as well.

One of the most annoying things to me most recently is, how, like, coming out of the pandemic, you've got, like, the conspiracy crowd who have decided that basic income is, like, some kind of control mechanism tool, you know, that was created by elites and pushed by, like, the World Economic Forum or something.

And that the entire point of it is to, like, control people. And they'll even say stuff like, you know, a basic income will have conditions. And that's so frustrating to me because, I mean, definitionally speaking, a basic income can't have conditions. It's like they're afraid of welfare, and welfare has all sorts of conditions, and we know that.

But, like, the entire point of a basic income is to remove the conditions. So if it has conditions, then we haven't won basic income, and we should still keep fighting for basic income. You know, it's just if you're concerned about that, it's just all the more reason to be for actual basic income, not for fake basic income.

That sounds well and good. But building on the previous point, how can you say there are no conditions if you’re funding the UBI with progressive taxation to determine who actually gets a boost in net disposable income and who doesn’t? I already made the point that this is no different than the current welfare system and the conditions it entails.

You could argue that you’re going to fund the UBI with some other form of taxes. Maybe like Margot suggested,

And I think that solves a lot of concerns around how can we afford a UBI, how do we, you know, avoid inflating the money supply in order to provide money for everyone at this basic level? And I think that's really great because then I think about climate change, and then I think, well, we should just tax 100% of profits from all fossil fuel companies and then use that for UBI because they have truly benefited in ways using those natural resources like fossil fuels in a way that has been extremely detrimental to society and to the environment, and this is one way to pay back what is owed to everyone for the damage that has been done.

So UBI has no conditions, except that if you’re producing “fossil fuels” we’re going to tax away every bit of your profits and redistribute it through UBI? This isn’t the place to get into a whole conversation about “climate change” and the claim that using coal, oil, and natural gas “has been extremely detrimental to society and to the environment,” but suffice to say that this kind of ideological market control and manipulation is exactly what people are concerned about when they look at UBI proposals and how they might be funded.

Or even more concerning, something like Scott’s proposal:

When it comes to the environment, I also think carbon taxes make a lot of sense to do, because, again, you want to discourage people from having a large carbon footprint, and it would be hugely impactful to reducing greenhouse gas emissions to tax that. The issue is that, you know, usually so many people push against carbon taxes because, yeah, it would raise prices of stuff. You know, if you make this gasoline more expensive, then that means that also it may be more expensive to get to and from work. But now transport's more expensive, which means everything transported goes up in price, which means foods go up, which means all these other goods go up and services go up.

So it causes higher prices. But if you have a basic income component that's paired with the carbon tax, then that means that usually depending on design, about the bottom two-thirds actually end up receiving more in the basic income than, you know, they pay in this carbon tax. And, again, it depends on design. But only those at the top, those ones who have the largest carbon footprints are the ones who are paying more in taxes than getting back in basic income. That, I think, makes all the sense in the world.

So now we’re not just taxing “fossil fuel” companies, we’re all the way to the globalist wet dream: a universal carbon tax paired with UBI, so that if you use too much energy, you get taxed and have your wealth redistributed to people who use less energy, through the mechanism of a UBI system. If that isn’t government control and coercion, I don’t know what is. Again, I’m not going to debate the premise here. If you think CO2 is a real, serious threat and this level of coercion is acceptable in an attempt to “solve” it, that’s up to you. I’d just like to point out that this is exactly the outcome critics of UBI object to, and claiming UBI won’t be a control mechanism rings very hollow when you propose a system like this.

Final Thoughts

There are more points I could touch on here, but this article is long enough already. I encourage everyone to go listen to the episode yourself. Agree or disagree, this is an issue that’s going to come up again and again in the political discourse, and it’s worth understanding the mindset of supporters and proponents of UBI.

For myself, I’m opposed to the idea. I tried to address some of my main criticisms, based on views and comments taken from the episode.

The main point in favor of UBI that I could support unfortunately wasn’t addressed at all, at least not that I heard. That’s the idea that UBI could reduce waste in welfare program administration by eliminating the need to have a bunch of complex overlapping programs with massive overhead costs. Welfare reform was mentioned in passing, but what I’m talking about requires welfare elimination. It’s pretty clear that’s not on the table for most UBI proponents.

And I think the reason comes out in the redistribution and control sections: UBI is essentially just a cover story for an expansion and entrenchment of the welfare system. As described, it would be redistributive, would have conditions, would require more government control and coercion, and at the end of the day isn’t fundamentally different than the existing welfare system. If you look at the actual net changes in purchasing power, it’s the same model we already have, and not the fundamentally new and different system we’re being sold. In fact, I find it ironic that once you strip away the “same size monthly check to everyone” obfuscation and focus on net purchasing power, the UBI system that’s described doesn’t even meet the definition of “real UBI” given by the proponents themselves.