A UBI may (largely) pay for itself

I was going to research this, but I ran out of time, energy, and enthusiasm to keep trying to wade through the vague, irrelevant and unhelpful information that was obfuscating the issue - and, in any case, why can't an economist do this (properly, unlike the **** I've seen done so far)?

The premise I am examining is that a Universal Basic Income (UBI) may well pay for itself.

Consider the massive amount that is spent on: 

• surveillance and investigations to determine whether claims for social security meet the current rules; 
• cost of litigation; 
• the massive costs of the illegal "Robodebt" scheme and compensation; 
• the employment and training/re-training of a massive number of people in relation to enforcement of complex, unwieldy and frequently changed "rules" - not only enforcement, but also those who are supposed to "help" people (we would only need a minimalist number of people to check residency/citizenship - there would be no police checks, etc, and there is an argument for the UBI to possibly be tax free, so the extent of the ATO could possibly be reduced); and
  
• the office space, resources and administration associated with that massive number of people.
  

There are additional, less obvious costs as well: 

• time lost in businesses that have to process rote job applications made to meet requirements (or enable agencies to claim they have met quotas on helping X no. people, I wonder?); 
• the stress caused to those needing help (participants in Finland’s trial of UBI reported better mental health), and those trapped in this abusive bureaucracy - which is a massive AVOIDABLE cost to our society;
  
• the loss of productivity caused by stressing people who are already stressed; and 
• no incentive for corrupt unethical abuses such as this, with payments of up to $8,000 for a single negative medical assessment.
  

Unlike our current unemployment benefits, the UBI would be enough for survivability. There would be a need for more - for example, for the additional needs of people with disabilities, but all other pensions would be built off that starting point.

The other benefit of a UBI is that giving money to those on lower incomes results in spending that goes straight to the economy - which would generate GST and thus boost government income.

It is also possible that at least some people on the margins of higher benefits may elect to avoid the stress and mental health problems caused by doing so, and simply stay on the survivable UBI.

The claims about lack of motivation to work are idiotic, and show a near complete lack of understanding of people:

• most people want more than the minimum (just look at the growth in size, flashiness and GHG impact of our houses, for one) and thus will want work; 
• out of simple boredom, some people will seek employment (it may take a little time, but most people will get there); and 
• many people are driven by their ego, and will want to do something for the "glory" and adulation they think will come with accomplishment.
  

But the best benefit of all, in my opinion, is that all the haters who blame people in need of assistance as being fundamentally flawed and undeserving, would have to take their "dole bludger" hate somewhere else - and SOME of them might actually wind doing something that is useful and contributes to society, instead of attacking, dividing, and harming (even killing) other people.