Sorry, I should have taken the time to elaborate.
There’s certainly a conceivable scenario when the situation is either unsustainable or not providing a net benefit.
For the first case, consider a petrostate whose population is heavily subsidized by its oil sales. If oil price drops, whether by lack of demand or over supply, they may not have the funds to continue these benefits without debt, regardless if the populace “likes” them.
In the second scenario, it’s possible that it creates unintended consequences (like spikes in drug use, drop in life expectancy, reduced productivity) that become a larger social ill than what it was trying to prevent. Despite society being worse off, it becomes hard to scale it back because of the psychological endowment effect.
I’m not saying its likely, just as a counter point that just because people like a benefit it means it should continue. I think it’s important to do a “pre-mortem“ on these kinds of policies to make sure we have the guardrails in place before implementing them.
... other people are burdened with providing it against their will.
A Southern plantation owner in the pre Civil War southeast US had something they liked and didn't want to give up and it was most certainly very very bad.
I think this is an affront to some people's ideas of fairness even though it aligns with progressive tax schemes.
> Conversely, I think the hard part about implementing UBI is that it would be incredibly hard to roll back once people become accustomed to it
So we are left with something people like and don't want to give up, and that's bad because... :)