It is interesting that you are not a fan of UBI. I suspect it is because of some compelling arguments that you have heard from sources who either have a vested interest in it not being adopted but also with a narrow (frequently mistaken understanding of economics).
If you are living in North America, you currently have a Universal Basic Income. The biggest problem is that it is negative. If you have property you have to pay a land tax (or if you rent ... part of the cost is transferred from the landlord to you). If you are homeless, ironically you have a UBI of zero dollars. In Canada there is a basic income at both ends of the age scale - baby bonus and old age pension. It isn't very much but it does help young families and older people to cover the basics.

I shared this video in an earlier post to display what UBI means to people on the lower end of the scale.

One of the things that people wonder is where the money is going to come from in order to pay for it. They always talk about is an increase in taxes. This leads to a totally other discussion about how taxes are a mechanism to keep money out of the hands of people. Historically income tax in Canada was first enacted in order to pay off the debt accrued for WWI. While it wasn't described temporary it was to be reviewed and phased out after the war. One hundred years ago the population of Canada was roughly 1/4 of what it is today. At the time they were able pay for things largely from customs and excise. When they introduced income tax, they had an office with 40 employees to handle the taxes of the 8 million inhabitants. Today it employs 40,000 people. (As I said a totally other discussion to go into).

Instead of taxing people, the simple expedient is to increase the M0 money supply. In most countries, doubling or trebling the M0 money supply (print more cash) could be seen as a tax on the rich and people worry about rampant inflation. Once again people don't understand what would actually happen. I ran the numbers through on Finland and they could pay for the $660 per month by trebling their M0 money supply. This would have no effect on inflation. It is only a small fraction of the total money supply but more importantly is to understand how inflation works. Hyperinflation occurs when governments prints money to pay off their own debt. The hyperinflation in Germany for instance happened because to the debt incurred by war reparations.
Here is an example of a government

doubling its money supply in a year. Between 2008 and 2009 the US government roughly doubled its M0 money supply and is almost 5 times in ten years (not to mention the increase in the other areas of money supply). This did not spark hyperinflation. This did not spark inflation. Unless a government introduces stupid fiscal policies (Zimbabwe) inflation is actually sparked by zero unemployment. If everyone is working, companies have to compete with each other in order to get employees - so they have to raise salaries. If wages go up, companies have to increase their prices to cover the increase in expenses.

People think that giving people money will spark inflation because the classic description of inflation is when too many dollars chase after too few goods. This is particularly true if one talks about scarce goods. However I believe that we are in an age with no scarcity (in North America). There is always a new game or toy on the market that people want to buy.