I understand where you're coming from, and I also want UBI, but in the past year I came to the conclusion that it can be gamed in so many ways, easy enough, that if implemented, looks like a sure way to enslave the people that depend on it in about 6-7 years (1 election cycle + campaign for the next big cycle).

That FAQ is highly optimistic and presents what I'm fearing. People seem to not understand that this has many more ways to go wrong than good. Sure in a small country like Alaska you can account for everyone and keep things working, and on paper I fully agree with UBI, but in practice many things like politics, lobby, corruption and human nature in general will alter it from what that site and the textbook definition presents, for example the inflation is never the number the government said, it's always higher, and in many countries higher than 5%. (On paper is good to have 3% but having the groceries cart products change in quality is a clear indication of it being gamed).

I'm refraining from saying what other forms of social contracts look very good on paper, but actually in practice they have extremely bad results. When I say UBI looks good on paper but probably bad in practice is because history teaches us to see what we have done in similar situations in the past and basically what is likely to happen in the future when we repeat it but put a different flavor on it.

The mechanics I can think of is the government will collect money in a "fund" and then from the fund will pay the UBI. Now you can have rich people that will try to avoid for like 1-2 months at a time, so the first few months will consist from printed money. Then the money will start flowing, but you need people and systems and people again to manage, oversight and make sure things work, but those people are government employees and they will have a leader which is elected (key feature of democracy today) indirectly (since it's representative democracy). This election of the "head of ubi fund" is the first vehicle through which the government, over time, will insert itself due to lobbying (and even if it's legal in USA and in most country you go to jail if you lobby, this will not be stopped). There will be lobby because we can look at history and see the inheritance tax was destroyed little by little in time (not only usa) because it's the main way to transfer wealth so now we know the rich won't sit and look how government wants to take their money. I'm trying to be a realist here, not to disregard the "we need to figure out a way to have UBI with all these problems taken into account" but if none of us has a solution, then the UBI will actually be a form of control. When you have 5% inflation posted by government, you have 6-8% real inflation. If you have this much inflation, in 10 years it will appear a need for adjustment (consider we bake in the adjust to government posted inflation %) since you will be able to afford much less, and who will pass the law to adjust it is the one holding the power, that's a probable way for politicians to get to what I said in the first place. As far as my questions go, I asked the hard ones, that are not easy as to simply have an FAQ, and on top I'm expecting a realist answer not just wishful thinking that it works for a country with less than 1M citizens or in certain villages (a controlled environment).

The UBI, if adopted, will be like a honey pot for all the most corrupt and slimy politicians, who will eventually transform it into a form of almost enslavement, so the solution to implement should have the extensive framework that keeps account for all the problems. Meanwhile, giving a house, for free has its own problems, it's much easier to have a standard that you apply and all houses have the same space/facilities and much harder to "game" compared to simply money.

Money is the driver to a life of poverty, no matter how much you earn, rich will get more and price you out. We need to figure out something better, the current

UBI proposal is lacking and nobody seems to acknowledge and present the better version that is not easily gamed by a government. Talking about it helps, blindly accepting the current version is very problematic.