UBI as a replacement is the more common vision---it’s normal means

There are two differing visions for UBI. The first, more common, sees the UBI as a replacement for other social welfare programs. Michael Tanner, a senior fellow at Cato Institute, notes that prominent libertarians have endorsed a UBI and that it would provide an “intriguing alternative to our current dysfunctional welfare state.”Footnote49 That is, instead of receiving food stamps, housing allowance, Medicaid, and unemployment insurance payments, those unemployed would receive a monthly check, roughly of the same value. This may or may not make them feel less controlled and able to freely spend their money as they wish. They may use it wisely or for controlled substances, opioids, and liquor. However, it will do little to overcome the income losses due to lack of jobs. Robert Greenstein of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities suggests that a UBI that replaced existing social welfare programs would actually increase poverty if it was not means-tested: “If you take the dollars targeted on people in the bottom fifth or two-fifths of the population and convert them to universal payments to people all the way up the income scale, you’re redistributing income upward.”Footnote50 Moreover, the difference in cost-of-living highlights another problem with UBI as a replacement for current safety net programs: it would almost certainly have to be accompanied by some sort of public housing guarantee, as even a UBI that put recipients above the poverty level might still be insufficient to afford housing in many cities.