The aim of UBI is not to make people better off, but to ensure that everyone has enough money to live on. It's intended to replace means-tested social security.
With UBI, nobody falls through the safety net and ends up with nothing to live on; you don't need an army of people assessing claimants' financial circumstances; and when someone finds a low-paid or part-time job they still keep their UBI, so there's no disincentive to work.
If you argue it's unfair that people pay for UBI, how is that different from arguing that it's unfair that people pay for means-tested social security (or poor people's medical bills)?
With UBI, nobody falls through the safety net and ends up with nothing to live on; you don't need an army of people assessing claimants' financial circumstances; and when someone finds a low-paid or part-time job they still keep their UBI, so there's no disincentive to work.
If you argue it's unfair that people pay for UBI, how is that different from arguing that it's unfair that people pay for means-tested social security (or poor people's medical bills)?