You'd give UBI to those least able to work and generate an income.

Then it's not "UBI". The "U" stands for "Universal", and the lack of conditionalities is the most important factor in not creating the perverse incentives of existing benefits systems -- eg., rewarding people for not working.

They don't need an income; they have paid-off houses worth $1.2m that they picked up in 1972 for $100k.

But now who can buy that house for $1.2m, and in 30 years will it have increased in value by 10x again? I feel like this is why an increasing number of people are locked out of the housing market. But as we learned, prices don't increase forever...

>who can but the houses?

Rich people from other countries. Especially places where money isn't made cleanly?

Not sure why this was downvoted.

This is a gross generalization. Not everyone was a solidly middle class worker for their entire lifetime, and not everyone thought to save for retirement. Before you studied it, did you have any idea at all how expensive retirement would be?

Think about it: If someone didn't save their whole life because they assumed social security would provide for a good life, but then they discover that SS hasn't been increasing much at all and the quality of life SS provides is terrible, what are they supposed to do? Suffer? Just because a portion of their generation saved?

All those retirees living off investments will be paying more in capital gains to subsidize the UBI, way in excess of the amount paid out to them to maintain the universality.

In Canada there is no capital gains tax on primary residences. In the US, $500k is exempt. I imagine the laws are similar in most parts of the world, no?

If we were to get rid of the capital gains exemption, housing might become more affordable.