I've always assumed a UBI would involve reducing (or removing) the tax free threshold, so a person on an average or greater income would actually have no net ch

I've always assumed a UBI would involve reducing (or removing) the tax free threshold, so a person on an average or greater income would actually have no net change in their position, or may even be worse off. Perhaps I'm wrong on this? The advantage of the UBI comes from reduced administrative costs — at the moment, governments spend huge amounts of money on welfare departments to make sure welfare recipients are members of the worthy poor. By giving the UBI to everyone these costs get cut back. It also smooths the transition from jobless welfare payments to employment with a tax free threshold, so that we don't have to worry about whether or not a particular person would be worse off if they picked up another five hours. They would always be better off (because they'll pick up e.g. 87c of every extra dollar they earn, instead of having welfare payments worth e.g $500/month cut but being able to keep $1 of every extra dollar). I fear the advantages of a UBI go to the right-wing (neo-)liberal elites. They can get the government out of morality, cut costs, and pretend to be doing something for the poor. Whether it actually does something for the poor or not compared to welfare is, as you say, conditional. And in the absence of widespread community organisations (like churches in the olden days) throughout much of the west, it's not clear that taking the government out of morality is safe at this point. The article here wants me to believe that my concerns are illegitimate, but Iran is no secular western country.