Giving everyone a little backup makes for a better society where people can take the risks they should take.
I'd be arguing from the opposite side, where you both get the ~$1200 in universal income if that is a normal pension amount, and then I'd expect the average HN reader to end up paying a little more in additional taxes than they get in income under a universal income plan. But over time, I think it will raise all ships.
There are many ways to implement that, but I think universal income has a better opportunity to remain intact and increasing once pushed through. Plans that try to achieve fairness through more complex benefits and scales tend to end up in tatters because they offer opponents a lot of surface area and ways to implement a thousand cuts where few people feel a connection to each individual part.
x-m(x-c)=x-mx+m*c
Of course, that gets more complicated when it isn't a flat tax, but I would think that for those in the lowest tax bracket, it would be equivalent, because within that bracket it would be flat?