Taxing the workers and giving the money to the 'poor' is an indirect subsidy to the dragons. Dragons are rich and cunning enough to afford to 'plan' their taxes, so it's not like they need to contribute to the UBI. They just reap the benefits.
The German UBI experiment we're discussing didn't involve 'taxing workers to give to the poor' - it gave unconditional payments to people across economic backgrounds, most of whom continued working.
Your assertion about tax planning misses that proper UBI implementation would include tax reform to ensure the wealthy can't avoid contributing. If anything it demonstrates your clear understanding of whom would actually be taxed to achieve the funding for such social programs. The dragons.
More importantly, the data shows UBI recipients spent money locally on necessities and small businesses, not funneling it to large corporations. The 'indirect subsidy' theory contradicts spending patterns observed in UBI trials.
Well, all I can say that if I was a major shareholder of Volkswagen I'd be 100% in support of UBI and made sure everyone can afford a new car, not just a used one.
It's a poor analogy. Dragons take the gold from the people and kept it from them so it can't be used.
The 200 billion that Bezos is assumed to be "worth" is currently in the hands of the people, being used by us. If we wanted to fix society instead of buying amazon shares we could do it today. Bezos hasn't "hoarded" it, we have it.
"To the dismay of Thorin, Smaug the horrible turned out to sit on a pile of paper that anyone could buy if they wanted to and all the gold was already in circulation in the town of Bree."
If the taxes are landing just on "the workers" then that sounds like a poorly designed tax system, not a problem with UBI. Replace UBI with anything (roads, defense, welfare) and it is the same problem.
Not the economy as a whole, but there are some aspects of the economy that are. Indeed, negative externalities can be worse than a zero-sum game to those affected.
To be frank, this whole “the economy is not a zero-sum game” argument is kind of a meme at this point.
