A UBI could close the racial wealth gap and ensure basic necessities for all.

None of this is to say that implementing universal programs would be simple. But despite their pleas for "unity," figures like Biden, Buttigieg, and Harris have proposed programs that emphasize class divisions. Means testing forces people to prove that they deserve a social good, like education, health care, or food. And there's nothing compassionate, humane, or even reasonable about devising new hurdles to human necessities.

Proposed Intervention

To help rectify the 300+ years of racial and socioeconomic disenfranchisement, a universal basic income program must be implemented. This intervention refers to a regular provision of cash to a specified population group within a targeted area. Some form of UBI has been promoted since the 1500s, by advocates as varied as Thomas Paine, Milton Freidman, Mark Zuckerberg, and Elon Musk. More recently, former Democratic presidential nominee contender Andrew Yang built his platform on UBI, inadvertently becoming the most famous proponent for the cause.9 Similar to Yang’s policy, my recommended proposal is a no-strings attached, monthly payment of $1000 regardless of the recipient’s income. This plan would target all residents of the United States ages 18 to 70, with state and federal governments each shouldering half the costs. The age limits are based on the assumption of full social security benefits remaining intact upon reaching age 62, with eight years of buffer in between. The federal government would provide oversight and distribution responsibility. State governments have the option to increase monthly amounts based on cost of living. The funds can be disbursed as live checks, direct deposits based on IRS information, or mailed “debit cards,” similar to those used by SNAP recipients. The latter method is to help reach the 5.4 percent of Americans who are unbanked and mainly low-income people of color.10 The no-strings attached approach would ensure there are no limitations to use and limit exclusions. UBI payments would include currently incarcerated people; if imprisoned folks still have to pay income taxes, then they should be afforded the payments indiscriminately. This would also be untaxed income for everyone, easing some of the middle-class/upper middle-class squeeze – and helping foment cross-class buy-in.

Guaranteeing a steady cash flow will help Black and brown Americans engage in wealth accumulation without the traditional barriers of property- or stock-market based methods. In a more roundabout manner, UBI could assist Americans in formally entering the financial economy, another source of wealth generation. More directly, UBI payments can prevent a descent into poverty, a sobering reality as almost 40 percent of Americans are only one paycheck away from being homeless.11 A regular source of income could prevent entrapment by predatory loans and ease debt burden; Black students in particular hold $25,000 more in student loans than white counterparts.12 Likewise, UBI implementation would have more social and psychological effects as well, including a potential reduction in crime and increased trust in U.S. social institutions. The policy may alleviate stress and anxiety, which can ease the effects of weathering in Black Americans. A guaranteed cash stream can also reduce barriers to healthcare access by promoting utilization, preventing future wealth losses in the form of medical debt.

Critics of UBI claim this policy would be disastrous, namely as an assured cash deposit would disincentivize employment and consequently wreck the economy. Accordingly, UBI would essentially create a lazy and unmotivated society dependent on state-provided handouts.13 Yet, the evidence displays the opposite effect. In a recent small-scale experiment in Stockton, California, 125 residents who made less than the median income of $46,000 a year were given $500 per month for the past two years. Less than 1 percent of the entire amount of disbursed cash was spent on tobacco and alcohol. Rather, recipients used the cash to pay off debts and obtain better-paying fulltime jobs. Enrollees reported that they had lower rates of anxiety, depression, and fatigue; having a sustained source of cash gave them enough financial security to allocate time for better job-hunting, for example.13