Milton Friedman, a conservative economist from the 20th century, advocated for a negative income tax that worked similarly to a normal income tax. If you made $0 a year and filed a tax return, the government would give you let's say the standard deduction (currently ~13k). As you increased your income, for every two dollars (could make this 3 or 4 too), you'd lose $1 of that negative income tax, so it would never be bad to make more money.

For a 2:1 ratio you'd have to make 26k+ to get no money. Some number examples:

Normal income + negative income tax = total income

$0 + $13,000 = $13,000

$6,500 + $9,750 = $16,250

$13,000 + $6,500 = $19,500

$19,500 + $3,250 = $22,750

$26,000 + $0 = $26,000

Making more money is never bad, and it still gets money to people who need it most with essentially no bureaucratic overhead.

I'm a socialist who disagrees with the vast majority of the shit Milton Friedman spewed, but negative income tax wasn't a terrible idea, I might even go as far to say it's good (as long as the amount is high enough).

To be fair, some people argue instead of universal basic utility. Having free housing and basic utilities to mitigate concerns of increasing inflation and rent. Many experts already advocate to treat housing as basic rights like education and food.

I don't see either UBI or UBU being implemented in the near to medium term. It would only be practical in the further future when AI becomes advanced enough that many jobs have been taken over by it, displacing many human workers.