It depends

...is it implemented for social good or is it implemented in a libertarian way to dissolve the social safety net while giving people a pacifier in the short term to accept it? Is it being implimented from the economic left or right? After 20 years of such a system, really qui bono? Who benifiets?

Any good UBI should be tied to cost of living increases and not funded by a regressive tax such as VAT, which imposed undue stress on the lower income.

Yang's UBI was to the right of Libertarian CATO institue's UBI. It would have become irrelevant within the first generation of implementation. They wanted to destroy the welfare state. Always remember inflation. Look at what the lack of movement on the minimum wage has done.

If you wanted to do this in a way to lift people out of poverty, it needs to be a "Yes AND" policy, not a "Yes BUT" policy. There can be no exclusions, means testing, ect. The welfare state MUST remain in tact or you will leave all those behind in it's wake.

Now if UBI or Basic Income Guarentee BIG as the Libertarians coined it, is to be what it is then as this income suppliment is implemented - if it works as intended - then less people would need to rely on the other safety net programs. Those who still remain on them are further symptoms it either isn't enough or q greater systemic failing.

Yang's implementation forced people into a choice - take the $1,000 but if you do, you can kiss your other help goodbye. So after 20 years and you need that social security or food assistance in your retirement years you instead have $500 worth or less of purchasing power - good luck. No further assiatance.

Further Reading on the different schools of thought on UBI/BIG

CATO institute - The Libertarian "Pragmatic" Case for Basic Income Guarentee

Yang's UBI is horribly flawed

Green Party Universal Basic Income