He writes,
A UBI, moreover, would create more of a welfare culture than we have now. Imagine four young men meeting in college and figuring out that when they reach age 21, they can each get $10,000 a year from the federal government forever. There are a lot of places they could go in America and rent a three- or four-bedroom house for $1,500 a month ($18,000 a year), leaving $22,000 a year to spend on food, cable, and various amenities. Would they want to stay out of the labor force forever? Probably most of them would not, but the UBI could easily postpone their becoming responsible adults for five years or more.
I think that this is probably wrong. If it is wrong, it is demagogic.
Henderson writes as if our current welfare programs do not cover everyone. In fact, those four young men could be eligible for Medicaid, food stamps, housing vouchers, and so on. They could stay out of the labor force just about as easily as they could under a UBI.
I really think that my essay on the basic trade-offs of the UBI is the most objective, least demagogic piece you can read about the idea. That essay points out that a UBI has two parameters with which to try to manipulate three objectives. The parameters are the amount of the UBI and the tax rate on earned income. The objectives are offering a generous benefit, keeping the disincentive to work low, and keeping the budget cost low.
Henderson is correct in pointing out that giving every adult about $10,000 a year would strain the budget. In my essay, I propose giving an entire family of four $10,000, which is half of what they would receive under many current proposals. Most people would not want to live on the UBI that I would offer. To the extent that they were able to work, I believe that they would do so.
The problem with my proposal is that it does not provide for a family that is unable to work and/or has special needs, such as a child with an expensive medical condition. I suggest that those special needs be met by charities and local governments.