Did Milton Friedman Support Universal Basic Income?
Much to the contrary of the free market ideals he advocated for, Milton Friedman did indeed support a form of universal basic income. It was under the plan of a negative income tax. People that made less than the taxable income would receive a fraction of the difference back in cash. You can see him spell out his plan here in a debate with prominent conservative William F. Buckley Jr.
The argument that Friedman is making to Buckley is this system is better than the welfare people got. Welfare comes in the form of food stamps and access to services and the like. Friedman advocated for people to receive cash instead of services. A free market defender will always advocate that people are paid in the form of cash rather than services,. They can spend the cash on whatever they want, thus more accurately determining the natural cost of goods. Welfare in the form of goods and services artificially affects the supply and demand of those items, thus altering their true price.
Also, if the point of welfare is to help people, they would be better helped with cash rather than giving them goods and services they don't necessarily want or need. The government would then save money by not spending it on services nobody wants to use.
Buckley argues against giving the indolent money, but he misses the point. They would actually be getting less welfare in Friedman's system, even though it is in the form of cash, and it would cost less as well.
I can only apologize for Friedman's stance on UBI insofar as he is saying it would be a better welfare system than the conventional one we use. I am personally against welfare, whether it come in the form of goods and services, or UBI.
Oh, and one more thing. Whenever a progressive argues that we should have UBI because even "the great Milton Friedman" supported it, they are being ignorant or just plain dishonest. That negative income tax system that Friedman suggested? We already have it. It's called the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). Friedman's argument was for the negative income tax to replace conventional welfare. But we have the EITC in addition to the conventional welfare that is still available. So if progressives are claiming that our government isn't liberal enough with charity, they have no leg to stand on.