I agree with you in principle. But I am extremely dubious of using the state to accomplish this. I would rather see a cultural shift where we all agree we don't need state coercion to get us to help one another. Anything the state does IMO will be inefficient and involve pay offs to a few select chosen corporations.
Do we need force to do this? Do we need cronyism? Do we need corruption?
Corruption exists in corporations as well. Who do you think pays bribes to state officials?
The state can be efficient too, regardless of it being a monopoly. It just needs the same thing an efficient company does: overseers and the right push to be efficient (a.k.a. an informed and well educated population that knows when they're being scammed and demands better services for their taxes)
The US Federal Government can't deliver a fully socialized healthcare system despite spending more money per head than many other developed nations that manage to provide full coverage. What makes you think they could possibly efficiently administer UBI?
What possible overseers can a government have? Authority begins and ends with them. It has token overseers sure, the same way a dictatorship to china might point to its token elections. But that is all.
Well, there needs to be an actor that has enough influence and power to actually make it all work. UBI isn't going to work if it's ultimately a volunteer based system. We already have lots of voluntary donations ($ and time) in our present day.
Do we need force to do this? Do we need cronyism? Do we need corruption?