In combination with open borders, you do risk having a class system, where the citizens have money and immigrants don't, but at the same time, it solves the issue of certain jobs not being worth the time of someone who gets UBI (and therefore being for immigrants).
It's a tough balance for sure, and one of the main arguments against UBI (accidental creation of a class system).
UBI is going to be treated just the same as a tax break for the poor and likely to stay at very minimal levels.
And in that context you see various growth and cuts over time.
However, even that is misleading as richer society's have a higher percentage of discretionary income and may be willing to pay higher tax rates.
Nobody thinks it's important to add street lights in the middle of corn fields. But, cities have had various forms of lighting over time and increasing standards for lighting levels from the 1400's to now. US street lights for example could be perfectly useful for walking if they where 1/10 as bright as they currently are which would significantly reduce associated costs.
Historically, rates where vastly lower. But, people also got vastly fewer benefits from the government. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_medieval_England So, YMMV.
PS: Anyway, if inflation adjusted medium income was say 10x as much I could see people tolerating 70% tax rates as their take home pay would still be significantly higher than we have. AKA if average person make 500,000$ in inflation adjusted dollars then they might be ok with an after tax take home pay of just 150,000$ / year on average. But say government provided self driving cars and underground tunnel networks.
If USA would pay UBI I would do my best to somehow become citizen, there is no reason for me why I shouldn't try. And there are over 7 billion people on the planet, I'm not the only one who thinks that way. That is why I raised the question of borders/immigration + UBI. It's very different situation when it is now for illegals and also people who want to become citizens.