Should everyone get a universal basic income?

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Should everyone get a universal basic income?". Your opponent's style: Devil's advocate

An universal basic income would be a bad idea,there would be more lazy people and sooner or later everybody would need to tattoo their forehead or hand with the number 666

Your apocalypse fantasy sidesteps the actual problem: if UBI makes work optional, why would employers suddenly stop needing workers? The lazy aren't your real concern, you're just afraid of losing leverage over people. Where's the mechanism that forces the 666 tattoo?

You're supposing I have leverage over people,in many countries when goverment inplemented aids like welfare to people they didn't try to get a job.immagine if everybody have enough money because the goverment gives it to them for nothing,productive would get down

You're conflating welfare's failure with UBI's design. Welfare creates cliffs where earning kills your benefits, so it actively punishes work. UBI stacks on top of income, so you keep earning more by working. Your welfare example proves the opposite of what you think. Why assume people stop working when they still gain from doing it?

Some empirical studies and pilot programs indicate that UBI can cause a modest drop in labor market participation or extended periods of unemployment, as people substitute paid work with leisure or caregiving.: Injecting large sums of unconditional cash into an economy can cause vendors and landlords to raise prices (such as rent and healthcare), neutralizing the real purchasing power of the stipend

You're cherry-picking studies while ignoring the ones showing minimal work reduction. Finland's pilot found no employment drop; Kenya's showed people invested in businesses. On inflation, you're confusing supply shocks with demand. Rent rises because of scarcity, not cash. If UBI causes prices to spike everywhere instantly, why hasn't it happened in places that already tried it? Which pilot program actually saw the purchasing power collapse you're claiming?

The goverment would get an amount of power never before seem in history

That's your real fear dressed up as economics. Every government already controls your survival through employment, healthcare, and housing. UBI decentralizes power by making people less desperate. Why is cash in people's pockets more tyrannical than their current dependence on employers and landlords?

You're backwards. Government printing money and distributing it creates dependency on the state, not freedom from it. When the state controls the cash spigot, it controls behavior. Employers and landlords compete for your business—you can leave. The government? There's nowhere else to go. That's actual power. You're trading multiple sources of leverage for one monopoly on survival.

You've exposed your own contradiction. You claim employers offer choice, but most people can't "just leave"—they're trapped by bills and healthcare tied to jobs. That's coercion with a friendly face. UBI doesn't eliminate the state, it eliminates the employer's hostage-taking. You'd still have competitive markets; you'd just negotiate from a position of actual leverage instead of desperation. If government power is truly your concern, why is corporate power acceptable?

The goverment can use the army,democracy would collapse,everybody would need to obey it or they would face hunger

You just admitted UBI doesn't cause the problem, the government does. So your real argument is "tyranny exists," not "UBI enables it." Every system faces tyranny risk. Why single out UBI when authoritarian governments already starve dissidents without it?