Donald Harvey Marks
Physician, scientist and 3rd generation veteran
11 November 2025
A common question arises when debating the merits of a Universal Basic Income (UBI): Haven't we already built one? In the United States, over 41 million people receive Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits. Tens of millions more are enrolled in Medicaid, and a smaller subset receives housing assistance via programs like Section 8.
If we "stack" these benefits, it's tempting to see the outline of a UBI—a system that already provides for food, health, and shelter. This perspective, however, mistakes a complex, conditional patchwork for what is, by definition, a simple, universal floor.
The current American social safety net is not a "UBI-by-default." In fact, it can be considered the philosophical and practical opposite.
Universality vs. Targeted Scarcity
The most important, and perhaps most misunderstood, word in UBI is "Universal." A UBI is a cash floor that Could be provided to every citizen, regardless of income, employment, or status. A billionaire Could receive the same check as a person experiencing homelessness, although I am strongly opposed to this, as I outlined in my extensive article on universal basic income for the homeless and drug addicted.
Our current system is the antithesis of this. It is means-tested and targeted.
To receive this "stack" of benefits, an individual must first prove their poverty, often through invasive and administratively burdensome processes. They must then navigate separate, siloed bureaucracies for each program. Of course, there are cracks in the system, people fall through and don't receive benefits and there are people who receive benefits who definitely don't need them. Also in many cities such as Seattle there are thriving markets of cash for benefit cards.
Worse, some of these "entitlements" are not entitlements at all. While Medicaid and SNAP are available to all who qualify, housing assistance is effectively a lottery. Only about one in four households eligible for Section 8 vouchers actually receives one; in many cities, the waiting lists are years long or closed entirely.
A UBI is a floor that no one can fall beneath. Our current system is a tangled web of ladders, many of which are out of reach for those who need them most. This system doesn't create a universal foundation; it creates a "welfare cliff." By earning one dollar too many, a recipient can lose thousands of dollars in benefits, creating a powerful disincentive to work. A number of my patients have told me they have experienced exactly this circumstance.
Autonomy vs. Paternalism
The second great divide is not just about economics, but about trust. A UBI is defined by its provision of unconditional cash. It operates on a principle of autonomy, trusting that an individual knows their own most pressing need—be it a car repair, a utility bill, or childcare. As I have pointed out elsewhere, individuals who definitely do not need a universal income such as the well off, those with adequate retirement systems, would be “expected” to opt out of the system either voluntarily or by exclusion.
Our current "stack" of benefits is built on the opposite principle: paternalism. It does not trust the recipient with cash. Instead, it provides in-kind benefits or vouchers restricted to a specific use:
SNAP: The EBT card can only be used for approved food items.
Medicaid: The benefit is paid directly to the physician or hospital.
Section 8 housing: The voucher is paid directly to the landlord.
As I have explored on my blog, www.dhmarks.blogspot.com, this debate becomes most acute when discussing vulnerable populations, such as those experiencing homelessness or addiction. The paternalistic argument is that providing unrestricted cash to an addict will only fuel their addiction. This concern, while understandable, is the very foundation of the current system: it is designed to direct spending, based on the assumption that the recipient cannot be trusted to make the "right" choice. As I point out, and it is easy for the reader to verify on their own, there are a number of cities such as Seattle that have thriving street Markets where cash is exchanged for EBT cards, and the cash directly going to drug purchase
Proponents of UBI, however, argue that this paternalism is precisely what traps people. They contend that the dignity, agency, and flexibility of cash are prerequisites for stability. A person cannot use a food stamp to pay the fee to get a copy of their birth certificate, which they need to apply for a job. A housing voucher cannot fix the flat tire that is keeping them from getting to that job.
The "stacked" system, by design, assumes it knows the recipient's needs better than they do. UBI assumes the opposite.
Efficiency vs. Bureaucracy
Finally, there is the practical matter of delivery. The "stacked" model is a marvel of administrative inefficiency. It requires vast, overlapping, and expensive federal, state, and local bureaucracies whose primary job is not to distribute aid, but to verify eligibility—to police the borders of poverty.
This system is costly for the taxpayer and, just as importantly, costly for the recipient, who must spend enormous amounts of time and energy navigating applications, interviews, and recertifications to maintain their "stack."
A UBI, by being universal, eliminates this entire apparatus of means-testing. The administrative mechanism would be dramatically simpler, akin to the systems already used to send tax refunds or Social Security payments, although as I point out elsewhere, those with extensive resources including property, retirement funds, pensions, hidden assets in foreign countries, would all be excluded.
Conclusion: A Different Destination, Not a Different Path
To see the 41 million Americans on SNAP as participants in a UBI is to miss the point. They are participants in a complex, conditional, and paternalistic system designed to manage poverty by subsidizing specific commodities.
It is a system built on a foundation of scarcity, means-testing, and distrust.
A Universal Basic Income is something else entirely. It is a system built on a foundation of universality, autonomy, and trust. One cannot become the other simply by adding more layers. They are not two points on a continuum; they are two different, and likely incompatible, visions for the future of the social contract.
References
The Inevitability of UBI for the Homeless & the Addicted - Bad Idea or Necessary? by Donald Harvey Marks. Added comments in the context of a post-labor economy, with references
The Twilight Before the Storm: From the Fractured 1930s to Today's Crisis Culture, book review by Donald Harvey Marks
That's an excellent question that gets to the very heart of the modern social safety net debate. Your premise is correct—your figure of 42 million people is spot on (the latest data for FY 2024 shows an average of 41.7 million Americans receive SNAP benefits monthly).
However, while both are forms of government assistance, SNAP is not a form of Universal Basic Income (UBI). They are built on fundamentally different philosophies.
Here is an article-style discussion extending that idea.
The 42 Million Member Question: Is SNAP a Form of Universal Basic Income?
You've raised a critical point: The U.S. government already provides a significant, regular benefit to over 41 million people through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). It's logical to ask if this isn't, in effect, a version of a Universal Basic Income (UBI).
The short answer is no. While both are powerful tools to fight poverty, their core designs—their "why" and "how"—are fundamentally opposed. Comparing them reveals a central debate in public policy: Do we provide targeted support for specific needs, or do we provide a universal foundation of cash?
## Defining the Terms: The Core of the Conflict
The difference isn't just semantics; it's in the names themselves.
Universal Basic Income (UBI): This concept is built on three pillars.
Universal: Everyone in a society gets it, regardless of their income, employment status, or wealth. Bill Gates would get the same check as a person experiencing homelessness.
Basic: It's a foundational income floor, enough to cover essential needs (this amount is heavily debated).
Income: It is provided as unrestricted cash. This is the most crucial part. You can use it for rent, car repairs, medicine, education, or food. It trusts the individual to know what they need most.
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP): This program's design is almost the precise opposite.
Targeted (Not Universal): It is means-tested. You must prove your income and assets are below a certain threshold to qualify. The 41.7 million recipients are the group that has met this low-income criteria, not the entire population.
Supplemental: It is not designed to cover all of a person's needs, or even all of their food. It is meant to supplement their existing food budget.
Assistance (Not Income): It is an in-kind benefit, not cash. The EBT card is a restricted tool. You can only use it to buy eligible food items. You cannot use it to pay rent, fix a flat tire, or buy soap.
## Key Differences: Why SNAP is Not a UBI
The distinction between these two models comes down to two major philosophical arguments: Universality vs. Targeting and Autonomy vs. Paternalism.
1. Universality vs. Means-Testing
Your point about "42 million people" is powerful because it highlights the scale of need in the U.S. But in a UBI system, the number of recipients would be roughly 330 million.
The UBI Argument: Proponents of universality argue it's more efficient and just.
No Stigma: Because everyone gets it, there is no social stigma or shame associated with receiving the benefit.
No "Welfare Cliff": Means-tested programs create a "cliff" where earning one dollar too much can cause you to lose hundreds of dollars in benefits, creating a powerful disincentive to work. UBI has no cliff.
Simplicity: It eliminates the massive bureaucracy required to check everyone's income and assets, a process that is costly for the government and often invasive and difficult for the recipient.
The SNAP Argument: Proponents of means-testing argue it's a more responsible use of public funds.
Efficiency of Funds: Why give money to millionaires? Targeting, they argue, directs limited resources to the people who actually need help, making it more cost-effective.
Redistribution: It is a purely redistributive program, taking tax revenue and giving it to the lowest-income citizens.
2. Unrestricted Cash vs. Restricted Benefit
This is the second major philosophical divide.
The UBI Argument (Autonomy): Giving cash empowers individuals. Proponents argue that a low-income person knows better than the government what their most pressing need is. One month, it might be an unexpectedly high utility bill. The next, it might be a new pair of steel-toed boots to get a construction job. Cash provides flexibility and dignity.
The SNAP Argument (Paternalism): Giving a restricted benefit ensures that the public's money is spent on what it's intended for—in this case, nutrition. The philosophy here is that the benefit's goal is not just income support, but achieving a specific positive outcome (reducing hunger and food insecurity). It's a "paternalistic" (in the academic sense) model that guides the recipient's spending to ensure a vital need is met.
## Conclusion: A Bridge or a Different Destination?
So, no, SNAP is not a form of UBI. It is a targeted, in-kind nutritional safety net. UBI is a universal, unconditional cash-based economic floor.
However, you are right to see a connection. SNAP functions as income support. By providing, for example, $250 for groceries, it frees up $250 of a family's cash that they can now use on other needs. This is what economists call fungibility.
The debate you’ve highlighted is the central question for the future of social welfare: Is it better to continue building specialized, targeted programs like SNAP (for food), Section 8 (for housing), and LIHEAP (for energy)? Or would it be more efficient and dignified to collapse those programs into a single, universal, unconditional cash payment and trust people to manage their own lives?
That's a very sharp observation, and it gets to the core of the debate.
No, this stacking of benefits is not a form of Universal Basic Income (UBI). In fact, it is the philosophical opposite of a UBI.
You are correctly identifying the current "patchwork" of the American social safety net. When you combine these programs, you are not describing a UBI; you are describing the existing means-tested welfare system.
The value for an individual who manages to qualify for all of them might approach the value of a basic income, but the mechanism, philosophy, and economic effects are entirely different.
Here are the key distinctions.
## 1. It Is Not Universal (The Biggest Difference)
This is the most important point. The "U" in UBI is its defining feature.
UBI: Everyone gets it. A UBI of $1,000/month would go to a homeless person, a fast-food worker, a nurse, and a billionaire. There is no application, no qualification, and no stigma.
Your Model (Stacked Benefits): This is a highly targeted, means-tested system. To get this "stack," a person must:
Prove their income and assets are below a very low threshold (for SNAP).
Prove their income is low enough for Section 8, and then likely wait on a years-long list to get a rare voucher.
Prove their income, age, or disability status qualifies them for Medicaid.
Prove they are a veteran with a specific needs-based case.
Each step involves a separate, complex, and often invasive administrative burden. UBI eliminates this entirely.
## 2. It Is Not "Income" (It's Restricted, In-Kind Support)
The "I" in UBI is also critical. UBI is unconditional cash.
UBI: You get cash to spend on your most pressing need, which you determine. This could be a car repair to get to work, childcare, or paying down debt.
Your Model (Stacked Benefits): This is a paternalistic, in-kind system. The government, not the individual, decides what the money is for:
SNAP: You can only buy food.
Section 8: The benefit goes directly to the landlord for housing.
Medicaid: The benefit goes directly to the doctor or hospital for healthcare.
A person receiving this "stack" has no discretionary cash. If their car breaks down, they cannot use their SNAP or Section 8 benefits to fix it, even if that repair is the one thing that would keep them from losing their job and the rest of their benefits.
## 3. It Creates "Benefit Cliffs" and Bureaucracy
Your "stacked" model creates the very problems that UBI is designed to solve.
The Benefit Cliff: Because each program is means-tested, a recipient lives in constant fear of a "benefit cliff." If they take on an extra shift or get a $1/hour raise, their income might rise just enough to make them ineligible for one or all of these programs. They could lose thousands of dollars in benefits (like childcare or housing) by earning just a few hundred extra dollars. This creates a powerful disincentive to work and improve one's situation.
Administrative Waste: This patchwork system is incredibly inefficient. It requires massive, separate, and costly bureaucracies to handle the eligibility verification for SNAP, Medicaid, and HUD. A UBI system, being universal, would be far simpler and cheaper to administer.
## 4. The "Good Portion" Is Smaller and More Overlapped Than You Think
While the individual program numbers are large, the overlap and the actual reach tell a different story.
Medicaid: ~88-90 million people (this is the largest, covering about 1 in 4 Americans).
SNAP: ~42 million people. (There is massive overlap here; KFF data shows about 78% of SNAP recipients are also enrolled in Medicaid.)
Section 8 Vouchers: This is the bottleneck. It is not an entitlement. Only about 2.3 million households (roughly 5 million people) receive vouchers. The waiting lists are so long that in many cities, they are closed for years.
The number of people successfully receiving the full stack (Medicaid + SNAP + Section 8) is a much, much smaller subset of the population. The current system is a lottery; UBI is a floor.
Proponents of UBI would argue that the current social safety net—being a complex, paternalistic, bureaucratic, and non-universal patchwork—is precisely the problem that a simple, universal, cash-based UBI is meant to solve. I am doubtful that truly UBI, in our rapidly developing post-labor economy, is a viable, realistic solution.
0 Comments
Comment from personal blog