Incidentally a handful of studies are several orders of magnitude different than actual UBI, and would similarly fail to showcase the problem.

Yes, perfect is indeed the enemy of adequate, and UBI seems imperfect as long as you can invalidate the studies. If you need help, there are easy talking points from your local Conservative bootstraps trickle-down rep.

Do you agree with

• a dividend while you’re injured?
• Paying into a central fund so you get a retirement like union people get?
• paying a few dollars more for a fund to help retrain people laid-off from a line or a mill or some artificially dying sector?
• paying property tax for a staffed fire station you should never need to use?

The first three examples are UBI by another name. The last example is proof that providing support doesnt lead to abuse; unless lighting your house on fire is sport in your town!

But maybe those studies are flawed, like climate change models and laws of quantum physics. But those turned out to be close or too conservative (climate) or were refined with added study (physics). A UBI plan, like any other, isn’t set in stone; who hid that from you when you first heard of UBI, and why?