This New York Times article goes through the arguments for a universal income scheme and a basic income scheme. The former is not sustainable due to the costs of the program although the argument is made that because it includes everyone, then it would be more acceptable by taxpayers. I don't believe the rich should get richer, similar to the child allowance policy in North America, but income support should be directed to those most in need.
I agree with what Chris Hughes (part of the dorm crew that created Facebook) argues in the article, a modest basic income for every adult in a household making less than about fifty thousand dollars. He believes that "The further you get from subsistence, the easier it is to ask fundamental questions like "what do I want, and how do I get it?"
Framing basic income in terms of choice, not money, may help to gain greater acceptance by the public. My latest book, Edging Forward, argues that a basic income scheme is critical to achieving sustainable community development for without the basic necessities for life, how can we call our communities humane?