A Dutch city is giving money away to test the basic income theory

Your logic is sound, but you've misunderstood something crucial.

Where does money come from? In short, money is created in one of two ways; by government spending and by bank loans. All money that exists in the rest of the monetary system was originally formed in one of these two ways.

From the viewpoint of the worker, money exists only after something of value is created, after all that's how we get paid, we do the work then the money ends up in our bank account.

But in reality, money exists before we earn it. The money in my bank account and your bank account isn't 'ours' before it's someone else's.

The way that money is spent into an economy has a large role to play in the the quality of life of a society that is based on money as a medium of exchange. Some of the ways the money is created can be destructive to the economy (for example, when mortgage values increase faster than wage values), whereas other ways can boost the activity of an economy (for example, healthcare spending).

The role that the banking industry plays in the creation of money has the potential to undermine the social good that UBI could offer, but I don't want to detract from the main point, and the main point is this; understanding how money is created is very useful in understanding how to get the best out of the systems we build on top of money.

UBI organised by a government can just be a different way to spend new money into the system. Aside from the usual effects of inflation it doesn't have to involve your savings or earnings at all.

Communism: From each according to his ability; to each according to his need.

Basic Income: From each according to his willingness to work; to each according to his need, plus a share of society's surplus production proportionate to the market value of his contributions.

In the event where people are as a whole unwilling to contribute an amount greater than necessary to meet everyone's basic needs, Basic Income is very similar to Communism. There is no additional incentive to work harder, because any excess you produce is immediately applied to the shortfall. If you really bust your ass instead of skating by, everyone gets an extra roll of toilet paper this year.

If people are generally willing to contribute more than is strictly necessary to keep everyone else alive and healthy, they are very different. Once everyone reaches that critical tipping point, additional voluntary effort is rewarded by the ability to get things you want in addition to the things you need. And that is probably incentive enough to keep the economy from tipping back into "looks like Communism" mode. If you bust your ass instead of skating by, you, personally, can get your very own expensive thingamabob. And that allows someone else to work a job making those expensive thingamabobs, which in turn allows them to get an uncheap doohickey.

As such, it seems rather important to always calculate the "needs" in such a way that people are always incentivized to work, or to work harder than they otherwise would.

If it happens I can assure you it won't be within your lifetime or your children's lifetime.

Also why would I pay you to dig a hole and bury it? Are we really so dense that we have to give people free money and not find them anything to do? No. I believe humanity is greater than that. I have a dream about a world where we all have the power to tell someone to mow the lawn or clean up the house AT THE VERY LEAST.

If manufacturers cannot afford that level of compensation, or cannot afford to automate the risky kinds of labor, then they cannot function, and that's a good thing, because if they can only do so now because they are allowed to externalize the costs to society of their health hazards, then they don't provide a net utility to society.