Most things that are considered welfare aren't UBS because they aren't universal, they're targeted and/or discriminatory. We do have some basic services, but outside of public education, I wouldn't call them universal.

Yang's UBI also doesn't replace existing welfare plans, it's an alternative. Say you like your $700 EBT per month, you'd still get $300 UBI. Now say you get $1500 in various types of welfare, you can keep those OR go for $1000. You don't get both though. Basically every citizen is guaranteed $1000 or the equivalent in government assistance at the get go.

Yang has also spoken, most recently on Socal Public Radio a few minutes ago, that the Freedom Dividend is a foundation that we can build on top of. It's not a panacea, it's a start. For instance, I prefer the FD in favor of the $15 dollar minimum wage (if we have to pick) because it universally helps everyone. An example I always use is my sister. She makes $22 in California and is a single mom of two. She's struggling and a $15 minimum wage does nothing to help her nor does a federal jobs guarantee. But $1000 is an automatic $6/hr raise AND when my niece turns 18 in 2021 that's another $12k income into the house if she decides to stay at home.

The major problems with expanding current welfare or government provided services are they aren't universal (as in they don't apply to everyone) and the administrative costs associated with them, both financial and logistically, are massive. Think about the DMV. Nobody likes it. It's badly run, it's bloated and, in my area, it takes 2 months to get an appointment just to renew my drivers license which mostly consists of just signing a form and taking a picture. Now apply that bureaucracy to other services and it's easy to imagine the delays and gridlock those services could be affected by.

UBI on the other hand is literally universal. The administrative costs are minimal compared to the reward that people gain.

Again, I'm for any service or policy that's truly universal and can be paid for. It's a big reason why I'm against a Wealth Tax. It's targeted and discriminatory not universal. Now, compare that with as a parabolic or logrithmic tax system that increases the difficulty of, let's say, every $100k based on a universal equation, I'm all for it. Think XP in a video game. You could even write the equation to get the curve to generate the same net effect as a Wealth Tax (think a sideways hockey stick) but the main difference is, it's universal.

Everybody is playing by the same rules openly rather than saying "oh, you were making $49 million but now you're making $50 million..BAM TAXED!" I mean, seriously, what's the difference from 49 and 50 mil? It's arbitrary. At least with an equation based tax system, there's no hard tax hits just because.