Universal basic income vs. welfare: Here's what UBI could mean for America's safety net

• Universal basic income is recurring cash payments for participants, no strings attached.
• Traditional welfare restricts spending to specific categories, like healthcare or groceries.
• Basic-income policy could supplement welfare but likely wouldn't replace the existing safety net.

As America's cities look to alleviate poverty, universal basic income has been proposed by local leaders as a complement to existing welfare.

With a housing-affordability crisis and high healthcare costs, more Americans are leaning on government aid than in previous decades. Government transfers of funds from safety nets such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program and Medicaid accounted for about 18% of total personal income in the US in 2022, a 9-percentage-point increase from 1970, the equivalent of $3.8 trillion, per an Economic Innovation Group analysis of Bureau of Economic Analysis and Census data between 1969 and 2022.

Giving people no-strings-attached cash has been piloted in over 100 areas, including Los Angeles, Atlanta, and Chicago, as a supplement to existing aid programs. It offers participants cash to spend on whatever they choose, rather than being restricted to a specific category, as with SNAP and Medicaid.

Some economic-security advocates have told Business Insider that recurring cash payments give families a financial boost to pay bills and land stable work, and tech leaders like Tesla CEO Elon Musk and OpenAI CEO Sam Altman have suggested that basic income might become necessary as artificial intelligence disrupts the job market.

With Republicans set to hold a majority in Congress and President-elect Donald Trump about to return to the White House for his second term, the country's budget and policy priorities for welfare programs could change, shaping how benefits are funded and who qualifies.

BI looked at the distinctions between basic income and welfare, and what it means for future benefit programs.

How does UBI differ from welfare?

The US's welfare system — also known as the social safety net — consists of a series of federally funded programs that help lower-income people afford essentials. This includes SNAP for food, Medicaid for healthcare, housing vouchers, Social Security, and various programs for families with young children.

Largely, welfare is part of the federal budget, though most states have localized programs, too. Beneficiaries must have a household income near the federal poverty line and are restricted in where they can spend the benefit money. SNAP, for example, covers most food at the grocery store but cannot be used to buy personal-hygiene items like toothpaste or soap.

Basic income, by contrast, is a set of recurring cash payments that can be spent however participants choose. There are two main types of basic income: universal basic income and guaranteed basic income. UBI programs give payments to all members of a population, regardless of income, and don't have an end date. GBI programs give payments to a specific group of the population — such as people experiencing homelessness, single parents, or low-income artists — for a set period of time, typically one to five years. Most of the basic-income pilots in the US have been short-term GBI, not UBI. Other countries have also run GBI pilots.

Could UBI replace welfare?

Basic income is unlikely to replace the existing safety net because of funding and political challenges.

US GBI pilots are financed through a combination of government funds and philanthropy. Still, most of those programs are limited to a couple hundred people for a set period, meaning they cost funders a few million dollars.

Sustaining UBI across the country would require more significant funding through a value-added tax, a progressive tax system based on wealth, or a tax on resources, like a carbon tax. The Alaska Permanent Fund, for example, gives residents an annual stipend that's drawn from the state's oil revenue.

True UBI hasn't been implemented in the US, but some politicians have introduced basic-income policies. During his campaign for the 2020 Democratic primaries, the former presidential candidate Andrew Yang proposed a "Freedom Dividend," which would've given $1,000 monthly to every American over the age of 18. The 2020 census found there were about 258 million Americans over 18, which would've made the total gross cost of that plan more than $3 trillion each year. Yang suggested the dividend be funded through a value-added retail tax.

For comparison, the Social Security Administration reported in 2024 that the benefits cost $1.5 trillion annually. The average monthly payments were $1,788 in November and are largely funded through payroll taxes. Seventy-two million older adults and people with disabilities currently receive benefits.

Any federal change to the social safety net would also need congressional approval. Many Republican leaders have opposed implementing ongoing basic income, arguing that it's not financially sustainable and gives people "free money."

"We were never designed to have the federal government supply a salary," Rep. John Gillette of the Arizona House of Representatives previously told BI.

Is UBI a better alternative to welfare?

In most of America's basic-income pilots, cash aid is seen as a supplement to welfare programs, not a replacement. GBI pilot leaders often consult with participants to ensure their basic income will not disqualify them from means-tested programs like SNAP or Medicaid.

Basic-income participants have told BI that the cash helps them afford essentials that might not be covered by traditional safety nets: such as a new crib for their baby, school supplies for their kids, steady childcare, and car repairs.

"Anyone who's had a child knows that this is not like a luxury income," a new mom in Michigan receiving $500 a month previously told BI. "This is just assisting us in our time of need."

Some Republicans and economists have argued against basic income, calling it a "welfare trap" and an "unconstitutional" use of public money. This has led to states such as Iowa and Arizona introducing basic-income bans and lawsuits against GBI programs in Missouri and Texas.

Research from recent GBI pilots suggests that basic income can help lower rates of domestic violence, aid participants in landing higher-paying jobs, and increase housing and food security. Some financial-security advocates also say that basic income can boost local economies by making it easier for lower-income people to maintain steady work and buy consumer goods.

"We are allowing folks to stabilize and to then plan for the future," Sukhi Samra, the executive director of Mayors for a Guaranteed Income, a national advocacy network, previously told BI.

To be sure, much of basic-income research is based on short-term trials. Basic income's financial impact on participants in the long run remains unclear, and some participants struggle to afford essentials after their programs end.

Traditional safety-net programs typically do not have an end date, and participants can continue to receive benefits as long as their household income meets qualification thresholds.