$12,000 per year per person (for every U.S. citizen) = 3.8 trillion.

What I actually mean is how can we ever use the language of "universality" when many, many people pay far greater than $12,000 (or whatever) in taxes? What we should be saying is there is a negative income tax up to the point at which one otherwise would have paid $12,000 in taxes, and a positive one thereafter, no? And to offset this the marginal rates would assuredly be steeper sloped than they are today. So in the end, it wouldn't cost $3.8T, but some lower amount that is probably pretty difficult to calculate. In total, it is definitely still a means tested welfare program (when the fungibility of money is considered), no matter what language we put on it. That doesn't make it right or wrong; I just think that if we want to seriously discuss the matter, it should be discussed in terms that describe it as what it is. My comment wasn't a critique of government spending or priorities, but rather a critique of the language that this discussion is always couched in.