If you are going to compare income of different people, can you please indicate the geographical region you pick, and how you decided on the size?

For instance, the income distribution of people within Beverly Hills is probably pretty OK - no need to redistribute anything there!

But if you zoom out, you can look at the entire world and realize that the poorest of the USA are richer than many people around the world and should pay their welfare

Since we are speaking about the US, the numbers I provided were us specific and anything that is done would be financed via us taxes, I'm pretty confident everyone knows I'm referring to the US as a whole.

"realize that the poorest of the USA are richer than many people around the world and should pay their welfare"

Why should us taxes subsidize world welfare (not that it already doesn't)?

Of course, when we're talking about a UBI, there are always some geographic distributions of wealth that one might quibble with: from large urban states to rural states. Taxes paying for UBI flowing out of California will exceed UBI flowing into California; taxes paying for UBI flowing out of Wyoming will be dwarfed by UBI flowing into Wyoming.

And, further, beyond the balance of transfers in absolute dollars-- $1000/mo in California impacts resident life less than $1000/mo in Wyoming.

I don't think this is a strong reason to not do UBI, but it's a confound.

would be interesting to see if a UBI actually caused more people to move to states like Wyoming and Montana. Many people too poor to actually move (lack of deposit, moving costs, etc.) would actually have the funds to move if they saved ubi for a few months. Leaving a HCOL for a LCOL state with a UBI would be a life changer for people if they were willing to do so.

As a US citizen, I feel my first duty is to my country. There are enough problems at home without trying to fix the world.