>I think by now we all agree that... society ... should resort to a wealth distribution instrument such as universal basic income

No, while I support it, it's a fairly minority view. We already have pretty huge wealthy redistribution going on, but I would agree a little more may be needed. Many people don't, though.

>People prefer to pour millions into state resources for companies, banks, or financial institutions bailouts, rather than implementing any type of social assistance plan for the common people.

Western society runs quite the gamut of political and economic positions, but all are basically well-or-weakly regulated free market capitalist economies. They all have pretty significant social assistance plans for most people.

>That's why I envision a scenario where resources are poured into the private sector, and companies are the ones who have a large number of employees on their payroll. Paying them just for being on their payroll. A kind of private UBI.

I'd love a pill or two of whatever you've been taking.

Human beings respond to incentives - your system won't work because you have created a system with incentives counter to what you wish the outcome to be. You've suggested providing funds to the private sector, and having them distribute money to people for nothing in return You're incentivizing the private sector to NOT have many employees on their payroll (because if they have fewer employees, they make more profit), whereas what you desire is more people on their payroll.