[dragonwriter]

Given the history of trying to build public support for moving UBI from $0 to >$0, probably the former, even if you switch the non-UBI factors, after wealthy interests who aren't on the benefitting side of redistribution get their propaganda in.

“People will always vote for the candidate that promises to increase public benefits they receive” is an attractive myth that doesn't actually play out in practice; in the US, it doesn't even play out in practice in primary elections within the major party most favorably inclined to public benefit programs.

[mars4rp]

" wealthy interests who aren't on the benefitting side of redistribution"

I don't think anybody wants to live in a society where 99% of population are suffering from hunger and lack of basic necessities. There will be no safety in such a society.

but there is always possibility of robot bodyguards!!!

[dragonwriter]

I meant benefiting in the narrow, short-term net payment sense.

I'd agree that there are broader benefits, too.

[majewsky]

I would assume that's because most people right now picture UBI as benefitting only lazy people etc. Once there is a UBI, they'll realize that they're also getting paid, and they'll be more likely to vote against people who want to cut it.

[dragonwriter]

> Once there is a UBI, they'll realize that they're also getting paid

As with existing benefit programs, people will also realize that they are paying. And, as with benefit programs now, even people who are likely to benefit far more from the “being paid” part more than they lose to the “paying” part will often be prone to, and be encouraged by slick propaganda from moneyed interests to, identify with and vote for the interests of those who are on the other side of that equation instead of their own.

[elgenie]

In practice, "people will vote against those who take away public benefits they receive" is probably more accurate in the US.