Universal Basic Income does overlap with a number of welfare and entitlement programs already in place. If we implemented UBI, it would necessarily disrupt some of these existing programs. Let us consider here what that would mean.

For our purposes, let’s imagine a UBI program that provides $30,000 to all adult citizens. This amount is roughly what someone would make if they worked 40 hours per week at $15 per hour.

Unemployment. This program is the most obvious one that would be disrupted by UBI. Universal Basic Income would provide a living wage to everyone, whether they were fully employed, just got fired, or anything else. An unemployment benefit would be meaningless.

Social Security. Even just the thought of changing social security could be seen as political suicide, but UBI will change the entitlement landscape. The maximum social security benefit that someone can receive is around $32,000, and that’s only after working for 35 years with maximum taxable earnings. If everyone is already receiving that much through UBI, this program becomes redundant.

The other payment programs that Social Security manage are for the disabled, both the means-tested program for low-income individuals (SSI) and the tax-funded program available to all workers (SSDI). Both of these programs pay out at lower rates than a UBI program would. Replacing these with universal, unconditional payments would give people more control over their lives, especially in towns where going on disability may be their only option.

All programs run by Social Security can be combined or replaced with UBI. A single department handling these payments, instead of two or three, will decrease the size of our bureaucracy. As I explained in Part Four, a smaller bureaucracy will be more cost-efficient and more effective overall.

Food Stamps. This program is our second largest welfare program, with an annual cost of approximately $70.9 billion. As long as UBI payments are higher than the income limits for SNAP (and, at $30k per year, they certainly would be), food stamps would be unnecessary. With Basic Income, no one would qualify for food stamps any longer. The only thing we would lose when cutting this program is the overhead cost.

Medicaid. With food stamps, no longer qualifying is a good thing — it means that families now have enough money on their own such that they can put some towards food. Healthcare is different. Earning above the limits of Medicaid would push low-income families into the bottom level of the private insurance system, which — and I speak from experience here — is not where anyone wants to be.

Broke your leg? Need your appendix removed? Money would come out of the basic income payments and go straight towards medical treatment. As I explained in Part Two, this would be a downward spiral: Less money means more stress and physical pain, more stress and physical pain means more spending on healthcare, more spending on healthcare means less money otherwise, and so on. We need healthcare that is actually affordable in order for UBI to work best. At the very least, families on the lowest end of the income ladder would still need Medicaid.

EITC. The Earned Income Tax Credit is our third largest welfare program, costing the federal government around $56 billion per year. Its main function is to offset the payroll tax for low-income families. The program is both means-tested and conditional, meaning that it’s only available to low-income households and it requires that the person receiving the benefit is employed.

With a basic income program in place, EITC will not be relevant. If an individual is working along with receiving basic income payments, economic security is easier to reach. On the other hand, if there will be fewer jobs available in the future, EITC would have limited benefit anyway.

At the same time, I do think that it would be in our best interest to support low-income families with children. Nothing too extravagant, but something that helps to shoulder the costs that come with raising a child. If we want a country in which no one lives in poverty, then we need to give all children the opportunity to succeed.