Can you back your claim with facts? UBI is universal, not magic.
> I expect to pay and continue paying a lot,
Just say a number, so we will put it into formula to see is your expected taxation will match minimum requirement for UBI.
Typical wealth distribution without UBI:
^
|
|
| *
| * *
| * *
| * *
| * *
|* * * *
+------------------------------------------------>
^ - number of people, > - income
^ *
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| *
| *
| *
| *
| * * *
+--U------------------------------------------->
^ - number of people, > - income, U - UBI level
As you see, UBI erases middle class. Everyone becomes poor, except some rich.
The US already has a non-zero UBI[1], it's simply inefficiently distributed via the negative income tax rate and various welfare efforts. That's a clear first area to fix things up. Then, if we need to increase the historically low tax rates on high income households or implement capital tax rates on the wealth, increases in taxes can be considered.
Further, from a theoretical perspective, the economy is not zero-sum. A rising tide lifts all boats; if less money has to be doled out to industries supporting enforced poverty, such as private jail systems among others, then there is more money in the economy for utilization for many things (including but not limited to UBI). General equilibrium effects often have counterintuitive effects, such as they are.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_basic_income_in_the_...
I answered your earlier questions already. I encourage you to read full threads.
I expect to pay and continue paying a lot, yet the benefit is more than what I pay in taxes. What's better is that our current UBI is quite a bit above zero already, but the distribution is fraught with large costs in time. Re-organizing and streamlining UBI distribution would result in significant cost improvements to the current US welfare approach, and improve its impact.