The Council of Economic Advisors reports that consumption-based poverty has declined 77% since 1980. Factors such as homeownership, car ownership, and the ability to borrow and save are better shown by consumption statistics than income statistics. In addition, child poverty has been on the decline. In fact, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities reports that the child poverty rate fell to a record low of 15.6% in 2016, less than half the level in 1967 because of the creation and expansion of welfare programs. To further reduce poverty, some have advocated universal basic income, which would periodically provide all citizens with money or resources to cover the basic cost of living. Unfortunately, shifting to a universal basic income would reverse progress on the issue of poverty because of its exorbitant cost.

A universal basic income would disproportionately affect children in single-parent households. The Children's Defense Fund reports that 8.3 million poor children in America live in single-parent households. Since the UBI system gives a monthly payment to every adult over 18 in the country, a family with no children would earn the same amount as a family with ten children. Due to this, a single parent with three children would lose up to $19,000 in annual benefits. Basically, replacing all current U.S. safety net programs with a truly universal basic income would result in huge advantages for those without children.

Creating a universal basic income would eradicate funds used to pay for child support programs as funding is unsustainable for the US economy. The National Center for Biotechnology Information explains that programs that provide services directly to children have large effects but programs like universal basic income have small effects because their benefits are diffused. In fact, CNSNews reports that 51.2% of children receive benefits from a means-tested program. Food stamps and the Head Start education program are vital for children and cannot be replaced by a universal basic income. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities writes that young children with access to food stamps have higher high school graduation rates and lower rates of heart disease and obesity because children can afford a more nutritious diet. In addition, the University of Michigan found that children who attend Head Start programs were 12% less likely to live in poverty as adults, 29% less likely to rely on public assistance, 15% percent less likely to commit a crime, and 12% more likely to graduate high school. Thus, welfare is proven to be better than universal basic income in many cases.

Child poverty is one of the greatest enemies of the United States. The Peter G. Peterson Foundation found that child poverty reduces the US GDP by 5.4% yearly due to lower economic productivity, higher healthcare costs, crime, homelessness, and maltreatment. Even worse, child poverty persists for a lifetime because as these children grow to become adults, they find themselves constrained in opportunities and resources. The Children's Defense Fund writes that people who experienced poverty in childhood are more than three times as likely to be poor by age 30 as those who were never poor as children. Since a universal basic income leads to child poverty, it should never be implemented in the United States and the current effective welfare programs should be maintained.