If AI and robotics continue to be developed, then eventually most human labor becomes uneconomical by comparison. At that point, the system provides passive income on a mass scale (UBI) to prevent its own violent destruction. At least, that's the good ending.
If everyone receives a sufficient basic income, who will fix their toilets or clean their yachts?
If the answer is ’no one’, then I’m afraid we’ll need significant advances in automation and robotics—or pitchforks—before we see UBI implemented.
But my point of view may be simplistic, and wrong.
And it might be cheaper for them than UBI.
Not if we increase the amount of money compared to what's currently spent on welfare by several times. Or if we don't and just replace current targeted welfare schemes with UBI the people who can't actually work will just be reduced to extreme poverty.
e.g. US Federal revenue is ~$13k and spending $18k per capita and that includes everything. Even if it were somehow possible to double tax revenue with no negative outcomes it would hardly be sufficient.
Obviously in this scenario we have robots that fix toilets and clean yachts. That's not even farfetched.
I would also add that many activities would seem much simpler to automate, even today. Such as cobalt mining. And yet, we can’t seem to be bothered.
It’s the same argument that was made back before printing presses, the cotton Ginny, tractors, cars, etc, etc.