Dr. Steve Trost at Oklahoma State University gave a lecture on Universal Basic Income, where he discussed his particular vision for its implementation, including key non-negotiables and benefits. Prior to this lecture, I had not been very familiar with the concept of UBI, but I now feel that I have a solid grasp—at least of Dr. Trost’s perspective. He prefers to call it Universal Basic Dividend rather than UBI, as he believes this term better reflects the idea of a “return on investment” for citizens' contributions to the economy. He compared this concept to the Alaska Permanent Fund, a program that provides residents with an annual payment of around $1,000 per person, sourced from private control revenue rather than taxpayer dollars. This initiative has successfully increased Alaska’s population and contributed to its economic stability, suggesting that a broader implementation of UBI could have long-term benefits. However, while this concept appears promising, I have some concerns that I feel are worth addressing.
My concerns do not stem from the proposed flat tax rate of 25 percent, where 16 percent would go to the states and 9 percent to the federal government. This structure actually makes sense to me. If every individual is guaranteed $9,000 per year and earns less than $36,000 annually, they will receive more from UBI than they pay in taxes. For those earning above this threshold, the system still provides stability, though they may not rely on UBI as much. This redistribution would help balance tax burdens while ensuring a baseline standard of living.
To put this in perspective, in Oklahoma, the average cost of living is around $28,000 per year (cnbc.com) , which translates to an hourly wage of approximately $14.50. Under this system, someone earning that wage would receive a net gain of about $2,000 annually from UBI. In a higher-cost state like New York, where the basic cost of living is about $38,000, an individual would need to earn around $20 per hour to meet basic needs. Interestingly, this is the average wage for someone with only a high school diploma (uscareerinstitue.com) . These figures indicate that UBI would provide economic flexibility, making it easier for individuals to relocate or invest in their futures. At first glance, this system seems highly beneficial with few drawbacks. So where does my hesitation lie?
As someone who grew up in a community where many were not U.S. citizens but rather lawful permanent residents, I worry that these groups would be unfairly excluded from UBI’s benefits, undermining its broader goals. Dr. Trost emphasized that one of UBI’s primary advantages is increased mobility, allowing individuals to start businesses, relocate to areas with better educational opportunities, or move to states where the cost of living aligns better with their income. However, excluding lawful permanent residents from UBI could prevent them from achieving this same mobility, reinforcing existing economic disparities.
Many lawful permanent residents already face discrimination in the job market and often live in lower-income areas with underfunded schools. If the goal of UBI is to help people move out of poverty, why exclude a group that pays taxes, works, and contributes to the economy? For tax purposes, lawful permanent residents are considered U.S. persons and are required to pay taxes just like citizens. Yet, under this model, they would be denied the financial security that UBI provides. Wouldn’t this exclusion contradict the entire purpose of the program?
I am not necessarily arguing that lawful permanent residents should automatically receive the full $9,000 from UBI. However, there could be a middle-ground solution that acknowledges their contributions while maintaining an incentive for naturalization. Instead of the full amount, they could receive half, around $4,500, until they become naturalized citizens. This approach would provide financial relief while encouraging the transition to full citizenship. Another potential solution is implementing a streamlined naturalization process for long-term lawful permanent residents, making it easier for them to access the full benefits of UBI. If UBI is meant to create economic opportunity, facilitating citizenship for taxpaying residents aligns with that mission. A tiered UBI system could also be considered, where lawful permanent residents who have lived in the U.S. for a certain number of years, such as ten or more, could qualify for a larger portion of UBI than recent arrivals.
Excluding nearly four percent of the U.S. population—a group that works, pays taxes, and contributes to society—seems like a missed opportunity. Rather than completely barring them from UBI, implementing gradual inclusion strategies would allow for economic stability while maintaining an incentive for naturalization.
I personally understand the impact of these policies. Until just three years ago, I was a permanent resident, and I witnessed firsthand how economic barriers shaped the futures of students in my community. Many of my peers faced tough choices—should they continue their education, or should they enter the workforce immediately to support their families? Some of them had the potential to become businessmen, physicists, veterinarians, or psychologists but due to financial limitations, they ended up working in fast food or retail instead.
This issue is already exacerbated by systemic challenges in education and job opportunities, particularly in small rural communities. If UBI is implemented without considering lawful permanent residents, it could widen the gap between U.S. citizens and those who are lawful residents. Over time, this disparity could become intergenerational, limiting economic mobility for lawful permanent resident families and their children.
A fair UBI system should consider who is paying into it and who is benefiting from it. By ensuring that lawful permanent residents receive some level of support, we can create a more inclusive, equitable economic system that truly serves its purpose—providing financial stability and mobility to those who need it most. If UBI is truly about enhancing economic freedom, then we should consider a policy that is fair, sustainable, and inclusive—one that empowers all taxpaying residents, not just those with citizenship status.
