I&#x27;ve found a short piece [0] on the Negative Income Tax, an idea closely related to the UBI, that I think does a better job than this article of discussing the problems with any such scheme.  Some quotes:<p><i>The first and most basic problem is that it is currently fiscally—and perhaps administratively—impossible to construct an NIT that simultaneously<p>1. provides an income guarantee as generous as the cash and in-kind benefits already available to many welfare recipients in the United States,<p>2. provides an ostensible incentive to work (a far greater concern when benefits are to be extended beyond the traditional welfare population dominated by female-headed families), and<p>3. restricts coverage to any manageable proportion of the population—the so-called &quot;break-even&quot; problem.<p>These constraints are, in fact, irreconcilable as long as the median income remains within striking distance of the poverty line—a situation that has barely improved over the last two decades of slow average economic growth.<p>The second problem with an NIT is that the welfare system already provides a package of cash and in-kind benefits that, in many states, is worth considerably more than any likely NIT (though at the cost of excluding large groups of the poor—such as two-parent families—from eligibility). Political and humanitarian considerations prevent reducing these benefits, thus vitiating one of the NIT&#x27;s attractions—the possibility of abolishing the welfare system.</i><p>[0] <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.econlib.org&#x2F;library&#x2F;Enc1&#x2F;NegativeIncomeTax.html" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.econlib.org&#x2F;library&#x2F;Enc1&#x2F;NegativeIncomeTax.html</a>