A UBI is better than a UBS because a UBS is targeted, means tested and paternalistic.
Standing 2019 - research associate at the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London [Guy, 6 June 2019, “Why ‘Universal Basic Services’ is no alternative to Basic Income” https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/oureconomy/why-universal-basic-services-is-no-alternative-to-basic-income/ Acc 3/23/23 TA]
Coote claims that UBS "aims to tackle many of the challenges that advocates of UBI are trying to address". This is not true. For a start, advocates of basic income want to limit the paternalistic state, whereas UBS advocates want to extend it by pre-selecting what people need and, as in the case of food, extend conditionality and targeting. The basic income advocate says, ‘I do not know what you need, but believe you should have the right to acquire it if you can’. The UBS advocate says, ‘I know what you need, and I will make sure you can have it.’ A primary justification for moving towards an income distribution system in which a basic income is a core element is that the distribution system of the post-1945 era has broken down irretrievably. A new one suited to a global market economy, the ecological crisis, the ongoing technological revolution and changing household forms must be constructed in its place. A basic income, paid to individuals as a right, without means-tests or behavioural conditionalities, must be an anchor in that system. It is not a panacea; it is merely a necessary part of a progressive strategy, alongside a stronger social state.