I’m saying social safety nets are already wealth redistribution. Changing the form of that safety net to UBI is an allocation of resources based on individual decisions and thus free markets where Food Stamps/Housing Subsidies/etc is allocating money based on bureaucratic decisions.
Basically nothing says UBI needs to cost more than existing social safety nets.
That said, my argument against a UBI isn't even that it's too expensive. Anyone claiming that a UBI will be too expensive is falling into the same trap those arguing for a UBI fall into. The impact when making such a massive change to our social and economic system is impossible to accurately model and predict. The OP author actually seems to agree with this by pointing out that a UBI program can't be tested. Oddly, though, the author's solution to that is to YOLO a UBI program into our entire country without being able to understand what the likely impacts will be.
At least for single people how SNAP sunsets with income is almost 1:1 with the discount for the lowest tax bracket.
Thus changing SNAP to a low UBI could have almost zero impact.
SNAP for a single person is $291/month - total income * 0.3 so they get nothing at 11,640 per year of annual income and 291$/month at 0$ annual income.
2024 income brackets for single people are: 10% $0 to $11,600, 12% $11,600 to $47,150, 22% $47,151 to $100,525, ... Maximum tax bracket is 37%.
Hand everyone 260$ per month, but change things so the highest tax bracket 37% applies $0 to $11,600 and everyone making 12,000+$/ year sees zero change in their take home pay. And people making 0$/year get 260$/month.
Those numbers aren’t quite identical, but it’s surprising how close it ends up. At 30%, $0 to $11,640 it’s off by less than 1$/year.
If so, how is that universal? Or a basic income covering some of the basic resources UBI is argued to cover, like shelter or food?
UBI means everyone has an income of at least x$/year. If you’re making more than x$/year in take home pay that’s an income > x$/year.
Behind the scenes the advantage of the government handing out money every month is redundancy. Even if that same amount is normally removed from a paycheck, people aren’t suddenly left with 0$ if their paycheck bounces etc. Thus a single deposit of $10,000 per month is slightly worse than a deposit of $10,000 - $x and an independent deposit of $x.
With limits so low I'm not totally sure how it would make a meaningful difference compared to the various welfare and entitlement programs we have today in the US. We already have multiple programs attempting to give needs-based funding to the public. How is such a limited UBI as you describe it any different, or different enough to justify the massive political battle it would entail?
Proponents suggest bring more programs into a single UBI could significantly lower operating costs. A single check each month could replace some or all of: Housing assistance, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), including Pass through Child Support, General Assistance (GA), Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI), etc.
Healthcare in the US is similarly split across Medicaid, Medicare, VA benefits, ACA health insurance subsidies, Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), plus a host of things you haven’t heard of like Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program. There’s a massive opportunity for cost savings by simply reducing administrative redundancy.
WIC and the CA are great examples. The population helped by both programs is purposefully smaller than the total population. If the funds currently spent only on mothers or veterans is spread across everyone it seems reasonable that efficiencies of moving to a single program wouldn't make up for the increased number of beneficiaries.