The USA spends $1.03 trillion per year on benefits at the moment, [0]. Most of that will be replaced. That's only federal benefits - more is spent by states.
I don't think this covers the administration costs of policing the benefits system (but I'm not sure).
There's also the veteran's pay and benefits which isn't technically part of this, but would be less necessary with UBI.
It's roughly equal to what the whole benefits system costs now.
> This is my biggest argument against UBI cause even 1,000 a month won't cut it in most us cities.
What cities exist where you get more than $1,000/person-month in means-tested welfare?
Any benefit beyond the current means-tested welfare maximums from UBI is gravy; the main point is to replace means-tested welfare with a system that removes administative costs produced by duplication of function and perverse incentives created by fubding cliffs.
The USA spends $1.03 trillion per year on benefits at the moment, [0]. Most of that will be replaced. That's only federal benefits - more is spent by states.
I don't think this covers the administration costs of policing the benefits system (but I'm not sure).
There's also the veteran's pay and benefits which isn't technically part of this, but would be less necessary with UBI.
It's roughly equal to what the whole benefits system costs now.
[0] https://www.budget.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/CRS%20Report%20-...