The numbers don't add up. If you change a targeted program into a universal one, you either need large benefit cuts for some people or large tax increases.
The entire safety net / welfare state might be getting close to $10,000 per capita each year, if you define it broadly, but something like half of it goes to the elderly (through Social Security, Medicare, and pieces of other programs like Medicaid). It's more like $5,000 per person (on average) for those under 65, and $30,000 per person (on average) for those over 65. So a change like yours would require either large benefit cuts for the elderly - eliminating Social Security & Medicare (and other programs they use) and replacing them with a $10,000 check - or (if you keep the spending on the elderly the same) you'd need a large enough tax increase to double per capita spending on the non-elderly from $5,000 to $10,000.
People with disabilities similarly receive a disproportionate amount of welfare spending (through Medicaid, Medicare, SSI, etc.).
The last thread didn't fare too badly, I think; let's make it a monthly tradition. (Me, I'm more interested in thinking about real-world policies or philosophies, actual and possible, rather than AI design or physics, and I suspect that many fine, non-mind-killed folks reading LW also are - but might be ashamed to admit it!)
Quoth OrphanWilde:
Let's try to stick to those rules - and maybe make some more if sorely needed.
Oh, and I think that the "Personal is Political" stuff like gender relations, etc also belongs here.