Also, every time humans try to "share and share alike" like this -- socialism, communism, etc -- it winds up going bad places. Such idealistic schemes only ever work well when it is some small self-selected group of like-minded people. The minute it gets opened up to "everyone," it promptly goes to hell in a hand basket.
Articles about UBI suggest that we need UBI because automation is displacing workers and you can assume permanent high unemployment as a normal future state. The jobs that are going away due to automation typically pay $20k to $50k annually. UBI is usually posited as being about $10k annually or maybe $18k annually tops.
Such articles then go on to describe how wonderful it will be for people currently doing underpaid "good work," like social workers, to have UBI on top of their current meager paycheck. They never actually go into the dystopian scenario of 80 percent permanent unemployment, you getting a mere $10k annually with nearly zero hope of making more than that while rents, medical expenses, etc. remain just as high as they are today.
I think a much better solution is single payer healthcare and real solutions to the housing affordability crisis. Make it possible for someone to get free or cheap healthcare and a cheap, decent place to live where it is possible for a single person (for example) to support themselves working a minimum wage job or part-time at gig work that pays a bit better than minimum wage and a lot of social ills we see today will largely go away.
Here is a piece that I think does a good idea of outlining some of the issues with UBI. I especially like the phrase "California optimistic" in the piece:
It recently occurred to me that UBI treats most people as "consumers" and their "consumer" function as the only thing they can contribute to the system while trying to survive. This means UBI actively tries to turn people into parasites.
We need to integrate people into the body of the nation as productive, responsible citizens, even if they don't produce very much. There is no end to how much people can spend, as evidenced by the fact that about 2/3 of lottery winners wind up bankrupt within five years from what I gather.
This reminds me of the dystopian option in Manna http://marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm
How do you reconcile that with the quite successful Scandinavian (and to a lesser extent Canadian and other) examples of quite left/socialist leaning societies?
I hear this argument ("It just doesn't work!") quite often but it sounds to me to be just parroting far-right propaganda, and selectively looking at evidence that supports that line of thinking (eg russia/china which have a lot of issues that aren't really tied to the left/right spectrum).
 I actually like the reasonable approach you're taking in the rest of your comment :) I'm just picking at that one statement as I see it fairly often and really have a hard time understanding it.