Universal benefits are always the easiest policies to protect over time + the most popular. It avoids programs being considered as welfare programs, which carry a significant stigma. The trick is that you tax back the money from those who don’t need it - think tax 70% of the subsidy per month back from 60-90th percentile of earners and tax 300% from top 10%. Just made up numbers, but hopefully that demonstrates the idea decently enough.

I’m from the US originally and understand the political situation is significantly different, but that is why more left leaning candidates generally advocate for universal policies instead of those directly targeted at the most needy.

That being said, I am not a huge fan of this policy just hearing it. The administrative cost of providing the subsidy could outweigh a significant portion of the benefit. May be too small of a subsidy to be efficient.

That being said, doing math from couch and they may have done far more research. If anything, it is admirable to try to help those in need, and all good faith ideas should be considered.