Conservatives cut welfare—they exploit a vague UBI in the absence of detailed policy--- this is supercharged by our vagueness arg

A number of features importantly vary from one UBI proposal to the next, in particular the funding source, the level of the payment, and the policy package that comes with it.

Most UBI proposals are funded by appeal to a variety of taxes—an income tax, a wealth tax, a consumption tax, financial transaction taxes, carbon taxes, or a combination of those (Widerquist et al. 2005, Widerquist 2017). The Alaskan Dividend fund epitomizes the alternative of a sovereign wealth fund. Under such a model, every resident becomes a shareholder who receives a yearly grant in cash. Like UBI, the dividend is individual, unconditional, universal, and regular, but it differs from most proposals in that it is funded through a non-redistributive mechanism.

The level of the payment also varies from one scheme to another. The “basic” in UBI simply refers to the fact that income from work comes to supplement basic income. One does not stop receiving UBI payments when receiving other forms of income; UBI is a base and other sources of income top it off. Most proponents argue that UBI should be set high enough for recipients to be free from desperate poverty even if they do not have any other sources of income. A $1,000 grant per individual is often taken as the exemplar in the United States. Other proponents of UBI consider that any amount, even low, would make an important difference to those worst off, and that the grant could then be expanded over time once citizens get accustomed to the proposal (Van Parijs & Vanderborght 2017). A UBI set at $500 per month or less is then proposed. UBI could also be set at the level that seems most economically sustainable—for instance, a quarter of GDP (Van Parijs & Vanderborght 2017). Unless otherwise stated, for simplicity's sake, this review uses a UBI grant of about $1,000 per month as a benchmark.

Another point of contention concerns the programs UBI would replace. This is highly contextual, since packages of provision of cash and in-kind goods vary vastly from one country to the next. But in general, UBI replaces programs that would become redundant under it: Someone who had been receiving $400 in food vouchers and cash benefits would now be receiving a $1,000 unconditional monthly payment instead. Other cash programs that are contributory, like some unemployment benefits, would remain untouched. On the conservative end of the political spectrum, UBI is sometimes proposed as a replacement for the delivery of other welfare goods, including health insurance programs like Medicare (Murray 2016). The vast majority of political theorists are found in the camp of those who see UBI as a further expansion and enhancement of the safety net—a complement to the necessary provision of welfare goods by the state. They concomitantly advocate for universal healthcare, a well-funded public education system, and affordable housing (White 2015). The broad view is that among the package of benefits provided by the state, it is imperative that a significant portion be in the form of unconditional cash to enable recipients to have the effective means to exercise their freedom.