We currently spend $1 trillion dollars a year on welfare (federal ~$700b, states $300b). There is evidence that it helped in the beginning (instituted in 1965 in the U.S.) for basic material costs but did not provide a long-term solution to the problem of poverty, as evidence of it's complete failure as exhibited in communities such as "the projects".

I have a question for you. Knowing that markets respond to incentives, and knowing that if everyone's income was raised by, say, $10k/year, how do you believe the market would respond? Would inflation continue to stay as it is right now? Or, seeing that everyone's income has elevated by $10k, the price of goods would increase?

There is already evidence that shows that something like the UBI would work for about 1-2 years before the market responds, corrects itself, and everything becomes more expensive.

That being said, there is a problem with the oligarchic class. I'm of the opinion that Crapitilism (corporate welfare) seems to enable this structure. I don't know how to solve that problem. Perhaps a separation between economy and state would go a long way of removing any incentive for a corporation to look for government handouts, or adding regulations which strangle smaller companies from being able to innovate.

Thank you for your response! I've never heard of Maslow's primary needs. Very cool!