This question already has an answer here:
I was reading a question about universal basic income and it seemed to me that there are basic flaws that are seldom or never mentioned.
First, some people are not capable of managing money, second, they may be subject to extortion, and third, they may try to defraud the state into giving more than they are entitled to.
Would it not be better to provide the necessary facilities directly? For example, suppose a government were to provide basic accommodation - a room just barely big enough for one person, with toilet and communication facilities. Ensuring that people in large hives of such cells are safe and secure would be difficult but probably not impossible. Basic but nutritious food would be provided on demand.
Such facilities, sufficient to meet the demand, would be provided where ever there is demand.
No one can occupy more than one room, and there is a limit to what anyone can eat, so there would be no need for a bureaucracy to prevent cheating.
People would be fed far more cheaply than they could feed themselves, so, unless people are to be allowed to starve in their homes or on the streets, it would be cheaper than giving them cash.
It would increase the mobility of labour, as people would be able to move to a new area to look for work without making a major commitment. It would also make it possible for people doing low skill labour to live in high-cost areas that need such labour but where they would otherwise be unable to afford to live.
In short, the idea seems to have at least some benefits, yet I don't think I have ever heard of anything like it being proposed, so I wondered what the arguments against it were.