Universal basic income wouldn’t make people lazy–it would change the nature of work

I Agree. UBI reduces inequality and the difference between "have" and "have nots". Many countries use a welfare benefits system currently - but this creates two tiers in society. UBI is a superior solution.

I kinda agree. I feel UBI will create some sort of security, so there could be peace of mind. With more peaceful minds we could have better society.

I feel that UBI should be made optional. People who apply for it should get it with no questions asked.

@karthikeyanak I think making it optional only makes is more complicated and bureaucratic without any additional benefit.

@praveenarimbrathod Yup thats true. You can give dit away to some one as soon as you get it :)

I would strongly warn against UBI (as it is currently proposed) for several reasons.

Pros of UBI:
1. Provides means for everyone to pay for their living expenses
2. Pays for non-profit labour (caring for children, continuous education, etc.)

Cons of UBI:
1. Economics will show that to acquire the money to pay out UBI, we would need to increase taxes or increase borrowing from the banks as there is no guarantee that the GDP of the nation will increase enough to compensate what was borrowed for UBI

a. If we increase taxes, businesses and the rich will move their operations outside of India reducing jobs. There is no guarantee that UBI (as it is currently proposed) will compel the poor to start their own businesses.
b. If we increase government borrowing, our children will have to carry the tax burden in the future (this happened in the US with the bailouts)
c. To defund a ministry (eg. the military) to pay for UBI could be good, but it would not negate the following equally serious issues
2. It would create inflation. Businesses would proportionately increase product prices to scrape as much of the UBI as possible. This would apply to food, rent, water, power, etc. This would remove the benefit of UBI and increase costs to everyone (even those not in need of UBI).
3. Those who are not compelled to work will rely solely on UBI. Many on welfare are known to stay in poverty as they become dependent on welfare.
4. Another complex bureaucracy will form. UBI would require a department within the appropriate ministry that would need to handle the collection, distribution, and reception (of each recipient) of funds.
5. If it is administered federally, it will be incredibly hard to manage. Each locale is different and it would be near impossible to ensure each person receives what they are entitled to from a federal level (instead of at the local level), especially amongst the rural poor (many of whom disappear into slavery).
6. Each locale is different and is poor for different reasons. To apply UBI as a universal solution would not address the cause of poverty among those that need UBI.

I'm not sure in what way UBI could be qualified to ensure the above issues do not occur because 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 would be inevitable.

Milton Friedman mentions, in the following video at around the 4:30 mark, why a concept like UBI or any other wage gap filling program would not be a good idea (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtpgkX588nM).

Possible Solution
If our goal is to equalize the playing field and reduce poverty, I believe the solution is to allow local governments to work with local charities and local grassroots activist groups to solve the very issue creating that poverty (as each region has its own reasons). It should not be enforced through law (which introduces needless bureaucracy, regulations and work for the police), but only encouraged through talks, events and seminars by our party as we travel around the country to each locale.