If you split that evenly among 300 million people, each would get $11,000, which is half of the poverty line of $22,000.
Even if you thought that little money was acceptable, to afford it you'd have to cut:
1. all military programs
2. all existing social security programs
3. all government infrastructure projects
4. all education programs
5. ...
Since the average tax burden for those making $500k+ is around 30% already, that would effectively mean taxing them at 90%.
I don't think it's politically feasible.
If the tax rate is too high, then people won't replace jobs with robots. That's a negative feedback on the behavior we're worried about, so that's not a bad thing.
I benefit from lack of competition in my field leading to significantly higher-than-average compensation, but I have to say that I'm intrigued by the idea of giving everyone the freedom to find something to do which meets their aptitude rather than wasting what might be a lot of really smart, capable people, or artists, etc, who have to piss away precious hours of their possibly productive time flipping burgers or something else equally valueless. It may not fit well into our current "meritocracy" ideal but I wonder if we wouldn't build a much better world if we upended our existing incentives a bit. Enough money for everyone to survive (with roommates and such) but little enough that there remains an incentive to go earn more.
And the other side of this is to try to bring down costs. Hopefully a basic income will encourage more regular doctor visits and fewer expensive emergencies. We should also be able to reduce some kinds of welfare spending if food and rent are being paid from the new basic income. And there are already plans underway to increase availability of cheaper housing.