But as someone else has to pay for their free money, the perceived happiness needs to be quantified.
I would gladly pay _more_ if it meant the following:
1) there are no riots
2) There are no slums
3) There are good provision for health and social care
4) there is low crime.
5) decent education
none of these wishes are altruistic. why? because all of these thing directly impact _my_ live and _my_ family
slums mean crime hotspots, means no go areas, means muggings. this translates to higher policing, courts and prison costs. it means higher insurance premiums, longer commutes. It pushes up house prices because certian areas are not worth living in. high rentals for everyone.
bad health and social care means less productive workforce, which means less taxes being paid, which means worse public services. (and more tax _i_ have to pay, or fork out for private services)
the choice is this:
cast the longterm unemployed out into the street and suffer the rise in crime, anger and dissent, or pay them a stipend to be happy, content and most of all _cheap_
Plus if it has to be a minimal living income - like minimum wage once was supposed to be - it would have to be higher to cover rent, food, and other mandatory expenses in most places. Or is the idea to adjust it according to where people live? That will just open it up to a lot of fraud attempts.
UBI in contrast just moves money to bank accounts.