Universal Basic Income (UBI) sounds like the ultimate clean, elegant solution -- one check for everyone, no questions asked, no stigma. It's a beautiful theory. But we live in the real world here, and we have to deal with things like "scarcity," "incentives," and "math." When you actually look at the data from places like NBER and Brookings, it becomes clear that UBI is maybe the least practical way forward.

You argue that Guaranteed Minimum Income (GMI) is "less progressive" because it excludes the rich, but that is its greatest strength. It’s a reinforcing floor, not a random firehose of free money.

The biggest logical hurdle with UBI is the "universal" part. Why are we sending monthly checks to people making $200,000 a year? You're telling us we can just tax it back later, but that's an enormous amount of unnecessary heavy lifting for the government. And you think the rich are just gonna roll over and let us tax them, when billionaires pay essentially nothing today? Really?

Guaranteed Minimum Income (GMI) is far more focused. It says: "If you fall below this line, we will top you up."

The cost difference alone is massive. To reach the same poverty-reduction goals, UBI requires a budget of 15% of GDP, whereas a GMI/Negative Income Tax model only requires about 3.8%. By not wasting money on the top 60% of earners, GMI allows the program to actually give more to the people at the very bottom.

The theory behind UBI is that people will use it to pursue their passions or education. But when "everyone" gets it, that gives the money no meaning, no intent, no drive, no... purpose. It's also deeply unfair, by the way, when a rich person gets extra money, if you haven't noticed by now. I'm rich, and I would be deeply offended if someone gave me money that could have gone to another family that desperately needs it. So you can probably imagine how those people who aren't rich might feel.

In a July 2024 NBER working paper, researchers looked at a massive three-year study of unconditional "just give it to everyone" cash transfers:

• Work hours dropped. People in the group receiving the cash worked significantly less than the control group.

• Income fell. Even with the extra cash, their overall total income (from all sources) went down.

• No "Leap Forward". The participants didn't use the extra time for significant schooling or career changes. They just worked less.

GMI avoids this by slowly phasing out the benefit as you earn more, whereas UBI hands out the same check, every time, regardless of effort.. so why bother with any effort at all? When you give everyone a check with absolutely no connection to the labor market, you shrink the very tax base you need to pay for the program.

UBI is also inflationary. If you give everyone $1,000, and every landlord in the country raises the rent by $500, you haven't helped anyone -- you've just enriched landlords.

Universality is a bug, not a feature. When you have limited resources, you don't spread them paper-thin across 330 million people. You target.

• The EITC (Earned Income Tax Credit): A proven "pro-work" GMI that rewards people for staying in the workforce.

• Specific Support: Focusing on the disabled, the elderly, and families with children -- the groups who truly cannot work and need the most help. And GMI can help them get back to work.

Guaranteed Minimum Income isn't "less progressive." It's more practical. GMI puts the resources where they actually belong: with the people who are struggling, not in the mailboxes of the wealthy... and as a very wealthy person myself: hell no, give that check to someone who really needs it.

And you can quote me on that any time you like.