You wouldn't get UBI "on top of all that".

You'd get it instead of all that.

First of all, UBI would be simpler as it's given to everyone, and replaces a lot of other subsidies. That makes bureaucracy simpler, which means less personnel costs, and less error-prone.

Secondly, the subsidies until now have been add-ons to an otherwise healthy labor market. That's no longer the case: the labor market is getting darker year by year, and it's only a matter of time till subsidies will not be an add-on anymore, but the main source of income.

Thirdly, giving UBI is fairer than, say, unemployment money. If you give out money to unemployed people, you favor people not working, and that's not what you want. By giving UBI to everyone, people who receive subsidies still have an incentive to work as much as they can.

Because, as the research found, it improves health, housing stability, and social relationships? There shouldn't be any need for charity, IMO. The patchwork of different social programs have tons of cracks for people to fall through if they don't meet all the specific requirements. I'm sure if offered guaranteed and safe housing, no strings attached, most of the people on the streets would take it, and their lives and society would be better for it.

It boggles my mind how some people would fight against getting money each month.

Democracy is the idea that government receives its power and authority from the general public, not a king, god, or other source. The government utilizes the political authority that we provide them to perform a wide variety of essential services to its taxpayer customers.

We invest our political authority in the government. The political authority is what allows the government to provide and charge for those services. We are investors; shareholders. We are owed a return on our investment.

UBI is the dividend owed to us for our investment.

Those various charitable programs and services you described? Most of those would be replaced by UBI.