This entry is in response to the question, "Who would the transition to Universal Basic Income in the U.S. help and who would it hurt?" posed by @sarah.lindley.
The idea of Universal Basic Income best benefits low-income families. With that being said, I believe these low-income families would be the first to transition to practicing Universal Basic Income. While already receiving the universal income for all, these families would additionally receive more compensation for each child they have; low-income families would be given a new chance at creating a better life for themselves. Universal Basic Income would hurt high-income individuals most. Due to having more wealth, high-income earners would be taxed more money than low-income families, and therefore would leave them unsatisfied with the system of Universal Basic Income as it affects them more negatively than positively. Another argument against Universal Basic Income suggests it will hurt the growth of our economy as society's desire to work will decrease significantly, however, Steve Trost argues this is not the case as all individuals have the natural instinct to work (whether they realize it or not) and everyone would come around to seeking a job with time. I have personally felt the tug to work myself one summer when I was unemployed and although I did not see it coming, I found myself seeking a job quickly and intentionally within a few weeks of the summer. Due to my personal experience, I believe Steve Trost's argument of everyone still continuing to work and benefit the growth of our economy under the rules of Universal Basic Income is valid and not as harmful as it is perceived.