This issue gets really easy if you accept, as I do, Andrew Yang’s characterization of the UBI as a dividend. Dividends are not means tested. Rich people get dividends, and no one says “You can’t have that dividend; you don’t need it.” No one says “You can’t have that dividend; it will discourage you from working.” No, that’s not how we talk about dividends.

There are other reasons why a UBI might be a bad idea, but they mostly boil down to “we can’t afford it.” That’s a sensible argument, because dividends should be paid from profits, and if the dividend is bigger than the profits, things end badly. But this article isn’t about sustainability. It’s about philosophy. For me, thinking of the UBI as a dividend is all the philosophizing that is necessary. (And I like philosophizing.)

Would the UBI replace welfare? No need to change any of the rules. It would make people less needy. How that affects other benefits can be determined under existing rules regarding income.

For 230 years, Americans have been building the richest nation in the history of the world, and to some small extent, every law-abiding citizen, just by being a law-abiding citizen, contributes to that outcome. For that contribution, a dividend seems to me in order.