[LockeWatts]

Ideally, make this a state thing so regional differences can efficiently work.

The problem with this strategy is it creates massive disparities between states, as the burden of caring for the poor will be disproportionately shifted to the progressive states providing a basic income, while the conservative states don't need to pay for anything.

Furthermore, state governments don't have anywhere near the tax base or cash reserves to implement a basic income. This can only be done on the Federal level.

A UBI provides mobility to citizens by not trying their source of food to their location. If a UBI can't support you in San Francisco or New York, you have the ability to move to where it will.

There's no need to have this be a state thing, except to screw up the program.

[dllthomas]

One side note to the "move to where the BI will support you" is that jobs will move to those places too - not all jobs, but more jobs than are currently there, as there will be more people and they will have some financial resources. In general, along with everything else, BI moves money away from concentrations of wealth and toward concentrations of people, where there is a disparity between those densities.