You misunderstand me. My main point was that by making it a job subsidy you're limiting the benefits to jobs only where UBI would allow people to pursue non job endeavors like education or creative fields without being destitute. Not that some people could skirt the system by making a company just for themselves to get benefits.

> As much as I like the idea of programming side projects by just relying on BI, I'm not sure how realistic that is; I think cost of housing and food – both of which are increasing – needs to get much lower for that to be possible.

The point of UBI would that it would be set high enough to cover those costs. And if a particular location is expensive enough that it couldn't you'd have the freedom to move wherever it could to support you. Living in the mid-west is incredibly cheap compared to any big city or the coasts after all.

Surely we could work out education / creativity. For example, the gov could consider attending a university as a "job", and send funds that way. In any case, why worry about people "skirting the system" when the alternative (UBI) requires no work at all?

I'm _not_ worried about people getting paid to do nothing. It's a feature not a bug to me because it gives people the freedom to do non job things like the arts which are culturally enriching or do volunteer work helping other people.