The basic income plays an important role in empowering queer folk.

According to numerous surveys and reports, LGBTQ individuals are significantly more likely to struggle economically than straight people, specifically with regard to issues such as poverty, child poverty, unemployment, homelessness, and food insecurity (see, for example, Center for American Progress 2014; Funders 2019a; 2019b). People of color who identify as noncisgender face additional challenges stemming from the intersection of their racial identity, gender identity, and sexual orientation. These include limited access to medical resources, shorter life expectancy, higher risks of getting infected with HIV and developing mental health issues, and increased risk of workplace discrimination (see, for example, Jefferson, Neilands, and Sevelius 2013; Longman, Bauer, and Scheim 2013; Robinson and Ross 2013; Scheim et al. 2013). For these reasons, I believe that an unconditional in-cash transfer such as basic income could have an enormous effect on the economic well-being of LGBTQ individuals and communities, including individuals and communities of color. A policy of this kind could directly address some of these issues (poverty and child poverty) and reduce the likelihood of others (food insecurity, homelessness, or limited access to medical resources). It would also address the consequences of unemployment and workplace discrimination in an indirect way.

This conjecture has to be qualified, however, by adding that in order to have such effects, basic income would have to be provided on top of, and not instead of, the existing means-tested benefits such as SNAP, Medicaid, or unemployment assistance. According to Caitlin Rooney, Charlie Whittington, and Laura E. Durso, “cuts to benefits such as nutrition assistance, Medicaid, unemployment benefits, and public housing assistance would likely disproportionately harm the LGBTQ community” (Rooney, Whittington, and Durso 2018). If UBI replaced existing benefits and if the level of UBI were lower than the sum of means-tested benefits people in poverty receive, such a policy change would actually harm LGBTQ individuals.

There are further reasons to believe that unconditional cash transfers could help LGBTQ individuals in ways that means-tested benefits might not. Means-tested benefits such as unemployment assistance can implicitly discriminate against LBGTQ people in general, and LBGTQ people of color in particular, who are often unable to find employment for a long period of time and end up leaving the category of people “actively searching for work” (James et al. 2016). This might become an even bigger problem if the period of time during which a person may receive unemployment benefits is shortened. Given the discriminatory nature of means-tested benefits, it is likely to be the case that an unconditional program such as basic income would, once again, disproportionately benefit LGBTQ individuals.

In addition to economic issues, LGBTQ people—and in particular LGBTQ people of color—struggle disproportionately with physical and emotional challenges such as violence, access to adequate healthcare (Scheim et al. 2013; Funders 2019b, 92–129), discrimination in the classroom (Infanti 2009; James et al. 2016 130–38), and—in the case of youth—psychological abuse within the household (James et al. 2016, 64–80). A cash transfer such as UBI cannot, of course, address a multitude of issues like this on its own. The emotional and physical struggles of LGBTQ communities call for a variety of solutions—some of which exceed the realm of policymaking entirely or call for further analysis through intersectionality theory. But basic income at a level of basic subsistence would economically empower them, providing them with financial independence and exit options. Consequently, UBI could provide them with a certain degree of psychological and emotional stability. The receipt of an unconditional and regular financial safety net could therefore partially ease some of the social and emotional struggles of LGBTQ individuals.