The entire point of universal basic income is that it's universal, not limited. Other forms of social security (including no-strings-attached social security fo

The entire point of universal basic income is that it's universal, not limited. Other forms of social security (including no-strings-attached social security for those unable to participate in society, such as bijstand in The Netherlands or leefloon in Belgium) are not intended to replace pensions, unemployment benefits, disability benefits, benefits for children or parents, public housing, subsidized tuition, tax exemptions, a tax free personal allowance, and so forth and so on, whereas UBI is intended to function as a replacement for at least a large chunk of these various schemes, not an addition. That changes the entire dynamic. Is it a good idea? Frankly, I don't know, but you can't point to abuse of one particular form of social security and say "see, universal basic income doesn't work!" because it's not nearly the same thing.