UBI will only work if it replaces the welfare state

UBI schemes can provide a replacement for a bloated welfare state. The US has many different welfare programs (estimates vary; Milton Freeman put the number at 126), and it would be far simpler to roll all these programs into one payment. A sensible UBI program could remove the current costly bureaucratic system.^[1] The stipend would not be enough to live off, and so it would still provide an incentive to work, which would mean people would still seek work. As a safety net, it would offer more freedom for those looking to lift themselves out of poverty.^[2] At the same time it would mean that UBI does not incentivize laziness, as demonstrated in other more generous models, which keep a range of tax benefits. Not only would it be simpler, but it would also be much less expensive to have only a single payment. In comparison to other left-wing models which propose to keep a series of welfare programs in addition to UBI, a conservative UBI model may reduce government spending. Models that factor in additional welfare programs have universally proved to be staggeringly expensive and not economically feasible. UBI will save the government money if used to replace all other tax benefits. It will not work if it is used in addition to extensive welfare measures, because there will be no way of paying for it.^[3]]

[P1] UBI should be used to replace costly welfare systems. [P2] A libertarian version of UBI will help people in poverty while still incentivizing them to work. [P3] Other forms of UBI are unaffordable [C] UBI will work if it replaces the welfare state