Part of the reason I got into BI is because my brother is quadriplegic (spinal cord injury), so I saw firsthand how extreme the welfare cliffs are for the disabled: if he earns over ~$20k&#x2F;year, he loses so many benefits (which he needs, such as attendant care), that it doesn&#x27;t make sense unless he&#x27;s earning ~$100k&#x2F;year. So I believe disability programs would benefit the most from some of the proposals in the article.<p>That said, they certainly wouldn&#x27;t have the same BI as everyone else, just as children wouldn&#x27;t and the elderly probably wouldn&#x27;t as well, since they have existing programs targeted to them. The idea is just to replace non-cash benefits within each group (those four are probably sufficient), and smooth out the payout curve and find the equivalent BI for that NIT.<p>CoL adjustments would result from this as well: the primary way this is currently done is via housing as you mention. Any housing assistance benefit can be valued like other programs, so that could then be disbursed as cash. In practice, this means layered basic incomes at the federal&#x2F;state&#x2F;local level, and if done gradually they could be designed to minimize evictions.<p>Those with addiction issues who would spend all their money tend to have mental illness, which hinders their ability to get benefits in the current system. I suggest retaining social workers for such circumstances:<p>&gt; Some of these programs will likely be more effective than their cash value — especially those serving the physically disabled and mentally ill — and should remain intact.