A UBI solves inequality better than means tested aid – eliminating the stigma is more important than targeting the poor.

The recent conversation on UBI and race, as well as the conversation that took place in the 1960s among those resisting racial injustices, have not been sufficiently picked up in the political theory literature. Except for Shelby's (2012, 2017) contributions, little has been written on UBI from a racial justice perspective. And yet there are central issues at the intersection of racial justice and UBI that also happen to resonate with broader issues in the UBI field. One of them is the tension between equality, on the one hand, and universality, on the other. For inequalities to be corrected, we tend to think that reducing the gap between advantaged and disadvantaged is the way forward. Basic income is universal—it is aimed at all, including those well off. Targeting, therefore, seems to be more on the side of equality than universality. This basic issue has led a lot of progressives to disregard the policy as inefficient, at best, or wasteful, at worst. There are reasons to believe universality is on the side of equality and should be preferred to targeting on egalitarian grounds. One is that it enables a delivery of benefits with less stigma for the least well off and therefore with a preserved dignity and social status for recipients. Another approach is to combine universal benefits and targeted reparations—the Universal Plus Basic Income (Warren 2016). Under the new scheme, everyone would receive a basic income, but an additional amount would be allocated to African-Americans. It is unclear whether the program would be politically feasible in a context largely reluctant to even recognize systemic racial injustices. But this leads me to my last question: What should political theorists think about political feasibility in the discussion of targeting versus universality? It could be that in some contexts, universality is easier to advertise than targeting—especially when benefits recipients are vilified and demonized by the media as scroungers and welfare queens. But if indeed universality is more politically feasible, wouldn't we then come to support a policy for the wrong reasons? If we think the disadvantaged deserve assistance and we believe the rejection of public assistance is bigoted and misguided, then shouldn't we challenge that rejection, rather than circumvent it and accept the demonization as a given? As egalitarians, wouldn't we instead advocate the alternative of reparations? Much more needs to be written on universality, and the context of racial inequalities in the United States offers a particularly salient context for such debate.