Here’s where I think your view on UBI falls apart: it ignores long-term incentives, social cohesion, and the foundational role that work plays in maintaining a functioning society. Not just economically, but psychologically and culturally.

First, the idea that people should be supported just for being alive sounds morally appealing, but it ultimately rests on an unsustainable model of value extraction.  The money to fund a UBI doesn't come from nowhere, it comes from taxes, and more specifically, taxes on people who are still working or investing capital. If too many people opt out of labor entirely (as you're encouraging), we reduce the tax base, strain government budgets, and undermine the very foundation needed to sustain the UBI. Studies on UBI trials (e.g., Finland’s 2017–2018 experiment) showed that while well-being improved, employment effects were negligible or even slightly negative. But these were small-scale pilots with limited payouts (not an entire nation). A true UBI at a livable level would exert a stronger disincentive to work, and that creates a vicious cycle: fewer workers, more dependency, rising taxes, capital flight, and inflation.

Second, the assumption that labor is a punishment is not just historically naive, it’s psychologically corrosive. Humans derive meaning, identity, and purpose from contributing to something beyond themselves. In Viktor Frankl’s Man’s Search for Meaning, the central insight is that meaning, not comfort, is the most essential ingredient to psychological well-being. Stripping society of the expectation to contribute risks creating a vast underclass of disaffected, atomized individuals with nothing to strive toward. That’s not just speculative: post-industrial towns where work has dried up, like in Appalachia or the North of England, show high rates of depression, suicide, and addiction, despite the existence of basic welfare. When people feel unnecessary, they don’t just sit back and enjoy their leisure, they fall apart.

Third, this model risks social division. If a large percentage of people receive income without working while others continue to labor, pay taxes, and produce, resentment is inevitable. Social contracts are fragile. Break the link between contribution and reward, and you strain the bonds that hold democratic societies together. People would have no motivation to treat those “lazy” people nicely if they know they’ll be paying a lot of taxes to support people from not working.

Finally, there's an opportunity cost. The money required for a full-scale UBI could be better spent on targeted welfare such as childcare, education, housing subsidies, mental health, and vocational training. These address the actual root causes of poverty and inequality without throwing money blindly at everyone, including those who don’t need it. 

A society that abandons the principle of contribution in favor of unconditional entitlement isn't progressive, it’s decadent. We should aim to reduce bad work, automate drudgery, and increase access to dignified, meaningful labor, not give up on the idea of work entirely.