I guess you didn't actually read anything I wrote, I explained it in the comment. Why should I repeat myself if you are not paying attention?
The State will have to confiscate the means of production otherwise the producers will not trade in the country where they own the means of production. That's because trading is a *2 way street*, both sides have to *produce* something of value to the other side.
With a large portion of the population not producing anything but being subsidized from the income of the producers the producer will lose twice (2 times) in that transaction.
The first time the producer will lose when the government will confiscate his productive output in form of various taxes to pass that money to the UBI recipients. The second time the producer will lose when the UBI recipient will come to the producer to give the producer *HIS OWN MONEY* in exchange for the goods that the producer produced.
That's not a trade at all, that's not 'buying'. Thus the producer will not trade in the country where he is taxed for the benefit of the UBI recipients. The producer will trade in countries where people will produce something *IN EXCHANGE* for what the producer offers.
This means that the producer will not be taxed in USA, just like Apple cannot be taxed on the income made outside of the country. BUT for the UBI to exist somebody has to be taxed and it has to be *net producer* who must be taxed, the net UBI recipient cannot be taxed for this to work (unless you figured out a way to repeal the natural laws of conservation of energy, mass and momentum and thus invented a perpetual motion machine).
I don't know how else to explain it to you better than this, which is pretty much the same thing I said in the comment you responded to. You might be trolling with that question of-course, in which case I tip my hat.