My goal would to be paid more for the same amount of time
Which will still take some kind of effort or sacrifice or expenditure of something on your part, if nothing else then whatever it takes to learn the skills to warrant better compensation. Why would you possibly want to put in effort like that if you've already got enough to live off of? (That's sarcasm).
Everybody, but for people below the mean income (i.e. about 75% of people with how incomes are distributed today) the basic income payment more than cancels out the tax (so they see a net gain), and for most of the (25%) of people above the mean income, the basic income cancels out most of the tax, so only the very few people people at the very top end up paying much of anything of note, just like only the poorest of people actually see much benefit of note. (But most people still see some small benefit).
Where are the sales or corporate taxes on all the things these wonderful factories are making for free?
Who said anyone is making anything for free? In a full-automation scenario (which is not part and parcel with basic income, the two are separate things though one can address the other's problems), the people who own the factories get free labor from their robots, but they're still going to charge as much as they can get away with for their products. Which is exactly what creates the problem of all the money flowing into the hands of those who own the factories/robots, leaving everyone else destitute. Basic income can help with that problem, but that's not the only reason why basic income is a good idea.
That's a utopian view of the system. In reality, there will be far fewer "way above it" than "hand out" people. If there is just three to one, you need to tax every worker THREE TIMES THE UBI just to break even. That means you take the entire UBI away from them, plus twice the UBI. Why would ANYONE work when they would be subject to such ridiculous levels of taxation?
As it happens, there actually are around exactly three people below the mean income per person above the mean income, because the mean income is around the 75th percentile right now.
However, it's not a simple linear curve, and it's not like you hit that mean income threshold and then WHAM you're out of the free-money camp and into the taxed-to-death camp. If you give everyone some amount that is x% of the GDP per capita, and then fund that with a x% tax (which exactly works out because that's what averages do), the net result is that everyone's take-home after UBI and tax is x% closer to the mean income. Right now, incomes are distributed such that there is a long slow growth from zero income to the mean income at around the 75th percentile, and then slightly less slow growth upward away from it accelerating exponentially into an incredibly steep peak at the top few percent or fractions thereof.
An UBI has the effect of scaling that curve in the y axis, centered on the mean income value. So everyone below the mean income gets bumped up a little closer to it, with people at the very bottom seeing the most absolute movement, and most people along the way seeing lesser degrees of movement. Most of that 25% of people above it see a small absolute movement downward, because they're already just a little bit above the mean income anyway. Only that incredibly steep peak of the top few percent see any significant actual loss. And you know what? They can afford to absorb that.
If you're familiar with that study of how Americans on average think income should be distributed vs how they think it is distributed vs how it is distributed, an UBI could easily have no more effect than shifting the "how it is" curve to more closely resemble the "how we think it already is" curve, or maybe, if we really feel like it, to the "how we think it should be" curve, which still has plenty of difference between the people at the bottom and the people at the top and a gradual slope between them, not a sudden "you're in the top 25%, now you have to fully support three people in the bottom 75%" thing like you think it is.
Here's an exercise for you. Let's say the UBI is around $1000/mo. That's close to 25% of the mean personal income of around $50,000 -- let's call the UBI $12,500/year just to make the math a little simpler -- so it would take a 25% tax to fund it. A person's income post UBI and tax would thus be $(income*0.75+12500), and the UBI's net effect on them a loss of $(income*0.25-12500), or that over 2080 an hour less for a full time employee. Plug in some numbers for "income" and see what results you get and tell me if it's really that awful. I'll start you out with one: someone making $75,000/year, which puts them around the 11th percentile, would see an effective loss of about $3/hr. To end poverty for everyone in America.
There is nobody making below UBI.
The "it" in my sentence was mean income, not UBI.