Society is a perfectly valid response to your question. You are used to a certain society, societal rules that doesn't care about it's people. OP feels like society should be more than that. And simply that thought, that society shouldn't let people die on the street, that mom's should be able to raise their kids not forced to work two jobs, should encourage people to do XYZ, is a totally valid response to your question.
> Society is a perfectly valid response to your question. You are used to a certain society, societal rules that doesn't care about it's people.
No, it's quite the opposite actually: you clearly do not care about society if you see it as an ATM to unconditionally fund your whims and cravings all while rejecting any need to contribute back.
I'm asking s very simple question you are trying to avoid answering: why is it fair for those who actually sacrifice themselves to work to fund those who opt to not work. Explain exactly what is fair in having workers support actual freeloaders in society? I mean, you are not talking about social safety nets. You're talking about unconfitional basic incomes. You do nothing, and you get a salary in return. Explain in clear terms how is it fair to those who actual work to see their labor appropriated by those who choose not to work, which might very well be their own colleagues. Explain where is the fairness and equity in this.
The fairness comes from the effects that would have on society. Reduced crime, reduced stress, more freedom, more demand for labor, etc. These effects would have positive effects on the economy and that could increase your salary in addition to the other benefits of a safer, fairer society. The happiest countries on earth are the ones that are closest to implementing this kind of thing.
You'd still be getting a lot more than the ones that do nothing. I doubt you'd stop working just because 5% of your income gets given away if the option is to live on 10% of what you're getting by working.
10% isn't covering rent and food for most people, though. Unless we assume that universal income would send the artists into deserted villages to live on bread and salt. I'm quite stingy, and my rent is 15% of my monthly salary, which is above average for a software engineer. Probably another 5% on that for food, and I practically never eat out and usually buy what's on sale. The only way 10% will work is if I move to the sticks or live in someone's closet. And that's not even including smaller costs such as medical, clothing, tech and misc purchases, transportation, etc. At the same time I'm now earning above average and shoving all of it into shares to secure myself a small "universal income" of my own. Give me universal income guaranteed not to get removed over the next 40-50 years, and I'm becoming a NEET.
The number was just an example. My point was that even if we provide a basic income that covers all basic needs, you'd still get a much better life by working. Housing, food and healthcare is already provided for everyone in many countries, even to people that refuse to work. The only difference between that an a basic income is some bureaucracy. Some people do choose to become NEET, but it's a very small minority, as that kind of life is not very satisfying in the long term.
