a common argument against UBI is that it would decrease amount people would work
ie. "the more money and individual has => the less value they contribute to the economy"
which, if true, is excellent support for "eat the rich"
but obviously, the rich would argue that their wealth makes them better able to make long-term investments and important risky investments
and so, the same counter-argument can be made for UBI:
the bottom 90% would use the extra money to make more long-term investments (like going back to school) and risky investments (like starting a small business)
(which is exactly what many UBI studies show happening)
the original argument implies that if everyone were to receive 24k/year gratis, most people would stop trying to earn more
then what about the millions of people who currently earn more than 24k/year? why aren't all those folks that are making 100k/year just fractionally working (24% of the time, or, for 24% of their working lives)?