That last part is huge. A disincentive to work by cancelling benefits is a feature of nearly every current system. It is extremely important that someone test a system without this in it to see how a people react.
This looks like a very important test for the viability of UBI.
One example we can look at are university students in Finland. They get 340€ per month student benefit plus €200 student rent support, a total of 540€ per month.
This student benefit is not decreased as long as a student earns less than 1000€ per month from other income. And yes, the students are quite eager to take part-time and short-term jobs.
For me I was bumping on the limits while on receiving student benefit, so it made no sense for me to work any more hours than I did. Had I worked any more, the pay would have been effectively zero, which is crazy in my opinion.
edit: i misunderstood your comment, seems like your interpretation lines up with mine.
The problem is - Government Unions are the most powerful in every state, and they will never, ever allow any significant layoff of personnel.
So you get a 'new program' without the most important stated benefit.
The reality of government, is that it is systematically inefficient because of entrenched labour practices - no just because they 'may not be good and doing some thing'.
I love public transport.
In Toronto - we still have people at every station selling tickets and making change. 17 of them were on the 'sunshine' list last year as earning over $100K in the year. You read that right: the guys in the booth making over $100K. Granted, this is with 'overtime', but probably not more than many people in the private sector work.
So the government can't help put pay many of it's entities wages that are quite above normal, with massive add-ons and incentives.
Given that small tidbit - can you fathom why it's so gosh-darn expensive to add public transit services???
There are a few other fairly fundamental problems with the program as well, first being simply the cost (Ontario government that is 'pro' program said it would cost $175 Billion a year, basically our whole budget) - and then the moral/incentive issue: where I live in Montreal everybody is an 'artist' 'photographer' 'cinematographer' 'choreographer' 'dancer' 'writer'. But they all work in coffee shops and restaurants. Montreal would go bankrupt instantly because the 'cinematographer' that makes my latte in the morning will quit instantly. In my community - there is absolutely no sense of 'industriousness' in the Anglo sense - they see no problem with fussing about making quite bad films that nobody wants to watch. Were there some latent amazing output I might think it's a good tradeoff, but no, they're seasoned amateurs.
In a rational and sensible society ... this program would be amazing. But then, in a rational and sensible society, there would be very low unemployment, and streamlined government so that the 'means testing' issue would be moot.
It might work in some specific places.
The idea of BI is that you won't be able to live off it in Montreal. It might be sufficient to live off in some small remote town, but not in megapolis. They'll have to still wait tables, or move from Montreal.