If a UBI is too small, that is a reason to Increase it, not to oppose it.

Criticism 3 - UBI will be inadequate A further paradoxical criticism of UBI made by Coote is that current benefit levels are too low for people to live on and therefore UBI will not be enough to live on. This is a confusing criticism because people clearly are ‘living’ (just about) on the current benefits levels. If (rightly) you think current benefits are too low then the real question should be what is the best strategy for increasing them. Advocates of UBI at least have a plan for tackling this problem: Increase the popularity of the lowest income level (the basic income) by ensuring that everyone benefits when it is increased (i.e. universality) Make it easier for people to earn extra money if they want to without losing the current income (i.e. no means-testing below the basic income) Extend benefits to non-working partners to reduce exploitation and domestic violence within the family (i.e. individual rather than household-based entitlement) Make it easier for people to do things to experiment, learn, grow, care or contribute without losing their income (i.e. no conditionality) In this way UBI is transformational on many levels. Unlike the post-War benefit reforms, UBI does not assume that current social, economic and industrial structures will remain static. UBI encourages us to see that we are each dependent, not on the boss, not on the state, but on each other. For UBI can only exist in a society that commits itself to the principle that everyone should have enough to contribute, flourish and connect, and that we all must contribute as best we can to ensure everyone has this right.