Your math is the usual napkin math, which is wrong. UBI cannot be calculated like other programs because it's a program where people are paying to receive money. Thus the cost is the net cost not the gross cost. If you paid $10 to receive $20, would you say that cost you $10? That would make no sense because you have $10 more, not $10 less.
https://medium.com/p/acb8aa5eab73
Another problem with your calculation is that you don't look at tax expenditures. If we are giving someone $12,000 in tax credits, why would we also give them $12,000 in cash? Just give them the UBI and eliminate their tax credits. The cost is the same. Right now we have $1.5 trillion in tax expenditures, so add that, or at least some of it, to the UBI pot.
Next, I take issue with revenue neutrality based on existing programs. For example, we could introduce a revenue neutral carbon tax. It would be a new tax, but the revenue would be returned via the UBI. Same is true for a revenue neutral VAT. These are ways of funding a higher UBI in a way that functions as a negative income tax, where some are net payers and some are net receivers.
There is nothing about UBI that is unaffordable, and although you only mentioned your belief that UBI would be damaging to the economy in passing with no support for that argument, there is no support for that argument. All UBI studies show positive effects, included increased entrepreneurship and increased part-time employment.
People are not inherently lazy, and when basic needs are covered, people are enabled to accomplish far more in life.
Our decision to adopt UBI or not comes down to a matter of will, not can. Part of this challenge is looking past what we think we know. Will you take up this challenge?
RE: What Would Universal Basic Income Look Like in the US?