As I stated in my own comment, we already have a form of this today, so clearly I do think it is similar to our current system. However, I think that a defining differentiator is that a basic income can assist in luxury assistance beyond pure help. That is to say, if we offer purely assistive programs that are arguably <i>necessary</i> to a subset of the population (such as healthcare), it is clearly fundamentally unfair, but arguably morally net positive. If however, you offer a check that the person can use at their discretion (and thus <i>choose</i> to for example use it for vacation or gambling or any purpose they choose), then it is unfair and morally questionable. I think this is obvious.<p>Separately, I do not think it is unfair description at all, but rather an objective measure of the service proposed, as opposed to a subjective one from thethe population that stands to gain vs the population that stands to lose. I have listed scenarios that I think are fundamentally unfair: young able-bodied members of society with no dependents receiving aid whereas older members of society that have dependents would not. It doesn&#x27;t matter to me that &quot;we already&quot; do unfair things, this point has not been at all addressed. Existing wrongs are not arguments for new wrongs.<p>Additionally, regardless of whether you agree with the fundamental morality of these situations, I think you can&#x27;t argue with proposed consequences. I think that this system will absolutely make immigration harder in the US (through increased &quot;protective&quot; insular policies to keep &quot;freeloaders&quot; out), and thus hurt the economy as a whole.