I agree with you wholeheartedly that we need to make our federal government more efficient. The problem is we already have a $1 trillion budget deficit, and an enormous national debt. We need to reduce military spending and reform social security & healthcare just to get back to the baseline of a balanced budget. So this funding won't be available to go towards UBI. It would have to be funded exclusively through a VAT and other forms of taxation designed to redistribute wealth. If the primary purpose of a UBI is redistribution of wealth, why not just increase taxes on the upper quintiles and redistribute the revenue directly to the lower quintiles? It feels like politicians are trying to implement socialism without actually calling it that in hopes that people won't notice.
I saw an interesting poll once in regards to healthcare. People were asked if they supported "free" healthcare, and the vast majority said yes. But then they were asked if they would support "free" healthcare if it meant their taxes would go up to pay for it, and the vast majority said no. The takeaway from this poll is simple. The vast majority of people support the idea of redistribution of wealth as long as it isn't their own wealth that's being redistributed. As you said, redistribution of wealth already exists. It's a necessary evil in a progressive society. But we need to be careful not to go too far or we could do more harm than good.
The answer to this question depends somewhat on the country you're polling in. Americans are trained to think in a certain way from childhood which means they have certain preferences. Of course, holding others to higher standards than oneself is a universal phenomena.
It's not a socialist idea. It's a stupid idea. It's failed over and over again. Of course, we all know that history repeats itself, but do you want to repeat it on your dime? If I were in your shoes, I'd write an essay based on the economic numbers simply because human outcomes will always vary and be interpreted differently. But overall, we know from tests run around the globe, even in a small town in California, that the idea is a loser. And you know what you could use as a model? Testing trading strategies. It's all about the numbers. A winner is a winner and a loser is a loser. No one is going to change that. You approach the battle based on the numbers and you won't go wrong. But perhaps your professor, if he/she is a liberal, will take offense at the numbers. But that's okay. Just remind the professor that the United States used to be a free country. Now, not so sure. Here's an article to start your research. When in doubt, do the math. You won't go wrong. https://www.forbes.com/sites/milton...e-a-thoroughly-wrongheaded-idea/#13d8d60945e1
Cut on military spending? You surely don't want to cut on security spending for your car or house. But sure, poor nation does not need any "military spending".
You can cut your military spending all you want but you will not have the leverage when dealing with Iran, ISIS, China, Russia. Small countries might not need them because NATO/USA is protecting them and nobody really is going to attack them. But America, i can tell you a few countries that are waiting to pounce.
I have no definitive answer for that. But anything above a million a year is considered rich? Maybe a few percentages more than the lower brackets? 5% more maybe? 10 million and above 8% more maybe? and so on.