Once you had a basic income like this it would have the nice effect of then being able to talk about (and implement) other policies in a revenue-neutral way.

For example a government interested in reducing CO2 emissions could introduce a tax on motor fuel of say £1/litre and balance that with an increase of the basic income of £75/month.

The purpose of the UBI is to replace welfare systems by ensuring every citizen receives roughly enough money for the average person to live off. Paying everybody nowhere near enough to live off [and keeping the welfare state in place] doesn't tell us very much about how they would respond to that. Though one advantage over the small scale studies would be finding out how much citizens push back against even a comparatively small tax rise to pay for it....

One of the problems with UBI is that a lot of people who need support can't live off what the average person needs to live off. People with disabilities etc. may well need more, so UBI doesn't replace as much as its proponents sometimes suggest.

Let's vote for the candidate which will give us the most money... seems like a slippery slope

There is a difference between taking less in taxes and giving out cash payments. How that plays out is unknown, though the Covid relief programs are a likely better experiment than this German experiment.

The difference being only rich people benefit from tax cuts.

I'm middle class, I find benefit in lower taxes for my company and family. When the government takes 50% of the money we earn and then is irresponsible with it, that is a problem.

Yes it is a problem but the solution isn’t tax cuts it’s better governance.

Citations? or opinions?

I believe that a more efficient govt would requires fewer funds, so both together would be most ideal.

If we could provide for all with lower taxes, would that be ok?

The problem I see today is the inability to have nuanced, fact based conversations about the issues