Increase every taxpayer’s gross income by $12,000 per year (to use Andrew Yang’s number, because he has apparently thought about it), and give each taxpayer a refundable $12,000 credit against their income taxes.

This is the most regressive way to approach poverty. Tax credits are only good if one pays taxes, and then only “as good” as one’s tax obligation. If one assumes an absence of any safety nets the poor are currently given without tax obligation this could devastate anyone who couldn’t work or with extremely low incomes, the exact groups the benefit is supposed to help.

Giving everyone tax-free cash payments with no corresponding productivity increase is the simplest recipe for inflation and indexing the benefit to inflation to prevent its erosion would only increase inflation and further harm the poor. With everyone assumed to have basic needs covered, there would be little incentive or pressure for employers to increase wages. This would result in price increases going to shareholders to insulate them from the inflation caused by UBI and widening inequality.

UBI also fails another important criterion for transfer payments. It is not countercyclical to the business cycle, so it does nothing to mitigate recessions or preserve supply chains. This is the primary purpose of safety nets in spite of common misconception. The middle class would quickly acclimate to the additional income, making it essential to their lifestyle, which would increase demand for labor initially, but do nothing to prevent or mitigate downturns in the long run.

Most of the middle class is currently driving their net worth after ’08 and UBI would only increase that number and accelerate climate change. The Rube Goldberg tax schemes required to combat all of the macro problems associated with UBI would be covertly negated with the first Republican majority in Congress.