> UBI only works when it's 1) Universal (even to rich people) and 2) When it's funded by dismantling some/all of the existing welfare state. This is key. To go

> UBI only works when it's 1) Universal (even to rich people) and 2) When it's funded by dismantling some/all of the existing welfare state. This is key. To go even further (at the risk of being a little political) The best way I heard UBI described (by economically conservative individuals in support of it) was that it was simply a readjustment of tax brackets so that lower incomes end up paying a negative tax [receiving money]. While not perfectly mathematically correct, it's an analogy. And it's important to keep that analogy in mind, because if UBI were to hypothetically be implemented in the US, it would simply be withheld accordingly by the employer as income taxes in higher paying jobs where such taxes would cancel out UBI money. I have found that my friends who are unfamiliar with UBI tend to respond better to the idea of "_negative taxes_ for lower income earners" than "Universal [welfare]/Basic Income" To be clear, I'm not trying to advocate for or against UBI, I'm simply trying to explain the idea from a different perspective.