The idea that governments are going to close massive departments of staff due to 'efficiency' is extremely naive - and belies a misunderstanding of how that kind of employment works.
Governments are not efficient, generally. In some areas - more than others. 'Teaching' I think is fairly efficient, it's hard to screw up. Building roads, similarly. But other functions can get way out of whack.
Governments on some level employ as a means of redistribution. My sister in law works for Canadian government - there are 600 people to 'research' and 'strategy' for prisons etc. and yet we have no real meaningful reform, experimentation or thoughtfulness in our prison system. It's nearly as basic as it was 50 years ago. So why 600 people? Because they can.
Government unions are the most powerful entities on planet earth. Those jobs will be reallocated elsewhere and there will be no 'operational savings' from UBI.
More likely - they will increase the regulation/complexity of it so that it actually does require 'tons of overhead' to manage.
UBI is a great theoretical idea, that doesn't meet the test of pragmatism. It will be about as effective as other forms of welfare.
A cheaper experiment would be to simply allow people on welfare to have some kind of job/income. No need to re-write the book to see if that works out, which is one of the big things they are trying to find out with UBI.
Not at all. The main problem with social security/welfare is that getting and staying on it is basically a job in itself. And the fear of accidentally doing something that will get you kicked out is enough to make people avoid taking shorter term work, freelancing, getting further education etc. etc. Take away all the effort and uncertainty of getting and staying on those programs and people will be freed up to potentially make all kinds of changes to their lives that are currently not possible.
People without money will tolerate it for a few years, but since it's 99% of Population it will eventually all explode and either slide into chaos, or some war. Don't need to look further than czarist Russia/Soviet Union to see what happens. 10/20% tax hike is peanuts in comparison to getting you and your family shot.
Also, defending the exploitation of groups of people with "they are probably not going to kill us yet" isn't a great line of thought. Just saying.
Also, how do you plan to compensate for the lower buying power people will have when their taxes are increased by 10%? Are we all going to live in government subsidized housing?