In most versions of the plan I've seen, the cost is not as simple as (population over 18) * (monthly amount). If you're looking for a breakdown of the math, check this out:
https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/bicn/pages/57/attachme...
- universal - basic
Basic costs met. Paid to EVERYONE.
Part of the "cost saving measures" are "not using complex schemes to determine eligibility to programs".
Further, if all you're wanting to do is guarantee a minimum income, that's not UBI! Not even remotely! It's simply a form of welfare, and shifting taxation under the guise of UBI.
Further, the whole concept of "I'm on EI, or I'm on welfare, but if I start working my income will drop, so what's the point" is another core concept of UBI.
When you start whittling away at these core concepts, when you bring back in the 'should this person get it' judgement and work to evaluate, prosecute if fraudulent, side of things? When you bring back in "Your income drops if you have other income" side of things?
You're just invaliding the entire point of it all.
It's not UBI.
So when people discuss UBI, please don't start talking about something entirely non-UBI.
I've offered up a modified proposal, with links showing actual experts and politicians debating merits and drawbacks, including budgetary analysis. Because there isn't enough money for a naive UBI, we have to make compromises including increasing complexity and risk of fraud, but the general principle remains the same and the benefits are still there. And we already have fraud and complexity - these would be greatly reduced under the proposal, just not completely eliminated.
Based on comments like "I'm on EI, or I'm on welfare, but if I start working my income will drop, so what's the point," I can see that you haven't fully understood the structure of the proposal. There's no way that getting a job would net you less income.
I'm not invalidating anything. Please don't get caught up in semantics.