There's nothing to address. All developed nations provide various welfare programs that guarantee a basic level of income. Since we're all doing it and people still work your argument is demonstrably false.
Sigh. Some degree of welfare is *not* the same as UBI as talked about in the linked source. I'm not sure how much more clearly I can say this. They are speaking about a very specific form of social system that is currently not in existence anywhere on the planet. No one does it. Not as it's being discussed here.
Welfare programs in western nations all operate on the "need" mechanic. It's not universal. Only those who do not earn enough to support themselves receive assistance, and then only to the degree to which they are unable to provide it for themselves (health care being the one exception to this). A person earning $100k/year does not get a months supply of foodstamps every month. He does not receive a housing credit sufficient to pay for basic housing. He does not receive a free transit pass, nor do his children receive free college tuition. Only people who can't afford those things are provided them.
A true UBI means that every single thing deemed "necessary" is provided to everyone. That's what the Universal part of "Universal Basic Income" means. Everyone gets a housing voucher sufficient to pay for minimal housing, and a food voucher for sufficient food to live off of, and a transportation voucher, and eduction voucher, and clothing vouchers, etc. Everything you "need" to live is paid for whether you work or not. The key point is that this is provided as some form of "income" which you get even if you work. Any income you earn is added to the UBI value. Traditional welfare systems disqualify you for aid based on your income. A UBI does not.
We're already doing it, and it works just fine, in fact we should do it more. The very society you live in has proven you wrong just by having the programs you speak out against so passionately...it's obvious.
Again. You clearly either failed to bother reading the linked information or failed utterly to understand what they were talking about. And despite me already clearly explaining this, and then telling you I'd explained it and you failed to get it, you responded a third time in a manner which clearly indicates you not only didn't bother to learn what UBI was the first time, but refused to do it again after I told you you'd gotten it wrong.
Want to try again? This time by trying to understand that UBI doesn't just mean welfare programs? Unless 100% of the citizens in your country receive the exact same benefits from the government regardless of their income levels, then you don't have a UBI. And guess what? No one does that.