Short answer: It depends what problem you want to solve and what you’re willing to fund. A full, poverty‑level UBI for every adult is powerful but extremely expensive; lighter “universal cash” paired with targeted supports is more feasible and still solves many problems.
How UBI could help
•Cuts poverty fast and predictably; reduces red tape, stigma, and “benefit cliffs.”
•Gives people flexibility for caregiving, retraining, entrepreneurship, and moving.
•Evidence from cash‑transfer studies/pilots generally shows better financial stability and mental health, with small to modest labor‑supply effects at typical benefit levels.
•A truly universal design simplifies administration and reduces errors/exclusions.
Main concerns
•Cost: For the US, $1,000/month to all adults is roughly $3T/year before any taxes/clawbacks—so you need big, durable revenues or offsets.
•Opportunity cost: Dollars spent universally can’t all go to high‑need areas (disability, housing, long‑term care).
•Prices/housing: Cash doesn’t fix supply constraints; where housing is tight, some benefits get capitalized into rents unless you also expand supply.
•Politics and migration: National rules on residency, portability, and interactions with state programs matter for fairness and public support.
Design choices that make or break it
•Amount and who gets it (adults only vs including children).
•How it’s funded (tax shifts like VAT/carbon/land value/wealth taxes; resource or data dividends; trimming tax expenditures) and whether it’s budget‑neutral.
•Interaction with existing programs (replace some vs keep targeted supports to avoid harming people with high medical or housing needs).
•Indexation to cost of living, monthly payment automation, clear residency rules.
A practical path I’d support in the US
•Start with a modest, universal “dividend” (for example, a carbon or resource/data dividend) that is fully paid for.
•Pair it with a negative income tax/EITC paid monthly to guarantee a basic floor, plus a universal child allowance.
•Keep and improve targeted programs for high‑cost needs (health care, disability, housing), and tackle housing supply so cash translates into real gains.
•Evaluate and iterate; scale only as stable revenues and housing/product markets can absorb it.
So, “Should we have UBI?” If by UBI you mean a modest, paid‑for universal dividend plus a guaranteed income floor and strong targeted supports: yes, that’s a sensible, evidence‑consistent direction. If you mean an immediate, full poverty‑level UBI for everyone without new revenues or housing reform: not yet.
If you tell me your priorities (ending poverty fastest, minimizing taxes, reducing bureaucracy, helping displaced workers, etc.), I can sketch a concrete version that fits those goals.