Moreover, I do not see how this is better than just giving an income. Income is more flexible and fungible. There are already economies of scale in a free market.
The idea of basic income is not equality of outcomes, its equality of opportunity.
The problem I have with most socialist policies is not that funds shouldn't be provided to help the poor/everyone, but because the plans often are designed around the belief that individuals should not be trusted to make decisions about their own lives.
I believe in a fiscally liberal libertarian policy..Federal money should be distributed to individuals and local governments without any strings attached, because only the Federal government has the power of printing currency to meet the public good.
In aggregate, I do trust people to make good decisions, and those that do will get rewarded.
So no food for them for the rest of the month? Good luck with that.
Either people are treated like adults and manage their own finances, or we are all wards of the state to some degree.
This is exactly what happens today, and it's ostensibly the problem that UBI is attempting to solve. If UBI doesn't solve that problem then it's just a very expensive waste of resources.
If they were adults with the ability to manage their finances, make smart decisions etc, only a tiny fraction of them would have to rely on the state in the first place, so that's not convincing to me.
Why? If it’s not being spent on those things anyway isn’t the person just making a financial mistake?
You can't be a free man if your wellbeing 100% depends on someone else's decisions regardless of your actions.
Sounds a lot like we'd just push the problem a few meters away and then run into it again.
Welfare (at least in America) has all the wrong incentives that make it difficult to improve your situation (e.g. lose benefits and all your time if you get a minimum wage job, and who is going to watch the kids now).