We need a universal basic income because the watering can works better then targeted benefits

Critics of basic income often argue that it would be better to award social benefits in a targeted manner. Of course, this is important as long as very few services are awarded overall, then it must at least be guaranteed that those who need it most get something. But even in a close-knit social network (and we are far from that) there are always people who fail because none of the targeted support applies, or because people cannot find their way through the bureaucratic thicket, or because they are too proud to apply for help.

Someone wants to take time out for education but is not supported because they are already too old? Etc, etc, ..

The watering can principle of basic income guarantees that no one slips through the cracks of the social network. Of course, there will always be special needs that cannot be covered by a basic income and no one wants to abolish these. But the fact that everyone gets something guarantees that those who need it most (because they have had the least so far) benefit the most from it. The son or daughter of the multimillionaire is also entitled to a basic income - but mom or dad also has to pay a lot more in taxes. This is clearly fairer than if the children inherited all of their parents’ assets tax-free.