Regarding the sustainability argument, there is actually pretty solid evidence from previous trials that it it does not dis-incentivise work. It's worthwhile re

Regarding the sustainability argument, there is actually pretty solid evidence from previous trials that it it does not dis-incentivise work. It's worthwhile reading Rutger Bregman's "Utopia for Realists", many people do not now that it was Nixon of all people who wanted to implement a UBI, in the initial voting the democrats rejected it because they thought it was too low (and likely also because they did not want to give Nixon a "win", yay for a 2 party adverserial system). It's also telling how the opposition against UBI formed (largely driven by one of his advisors). The argument were framed largely around lazyness, i.e. people become lazy. A significant motivation for the opposition is that some of the studies found that divorces increased (likely because women didn't feel tied to a relationship because of financial dependencies), which was ideologically incompatible with conservatives. Another interesting point is that similar arguments to the "UBI is paying for itself" is used by conservatives when it comes to tax breaks. They are always assumed to pay for themselves because of increased economic activity. Both of these are likely wrong (well actually the tax one has been shown to be wrong many times).