If, like UC, it will be paid to one person, the head of household or man as they're generally known, then there is the same potential for financial abuse as there is now. If it will be paid to each person separately then it's better.
Paying it to a "head of household" would obviously be nonsensical and destroy the whole purpose of it.
I don't think any of the current ideas has this in mind. Though maybe children's incomes would be paid to the parents until they are sixteen or so.
You get rid of the stigma attached to benefits, because they are universal.
That is the idea.
@Irene: Getting rid of the bullying methods that are used to "encourage" people to work would be a step in the right direction.
Most people want to work, I think, but most would not want to work in soul-sucking jobs that achieve nothing useful.
Even the most lazy would choose to work part-time in boring jobs to be able to afford some nice extras.
I have worked for a firm that phoned random people to try and sell them stuff (illegal, but they had ways to work around it), and all the co-workers I talked to were in desparate need of money. They paid badly, so I don't think anyone would work there if they had an unconditional basic income.
Apart from the fact that people wouldn't work in jobs where the whole job consists of annoying other people, it would give women financial independence.
Financial independence would not only reduce prostitution, it would also remove hurdles to leaving abusive relationships.
It would by no means be an adequate compensation for women's unpaid work, but it would enable more women to choose to not do that unpaid work for husbands anymore.