I think that definitionally a UBI is the latter, at least in my opinion. The point is that it elevates everyone to the same playing field, of having all essential needs covered (shelter, food, utilities, healthcare). Anything less is basically just the welfare systems that most countries (besides the US) already have. In Australia, unemployment is not enough to live on, it's purposefully punitive to "encourage" people to find a job. Giving that same amount to everyone isn't going to cover people's basic needs.

Side note: Healthcare is a basic need that everybody has. So, if a UBI were implemented in the US, it would need to be enough to cover people's health insurance. At that point, the government's already paying for it, so why not just implement universal healthcare?

[–] Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 3 months ago

At that point, the government's already paying for it, so why not just implement universal healthcare?

Because private health insurance companies are major donors, and no politician wants to upset the donor class?