Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
For the first time in my personal history, I might vote Democrat if Dems nominate him :-). I am fiscally conservative, and UBI (if done right, with discontinuation of all other welfare) is historically and practically a conservative idea which (again, if done right) could actually lead to reduction in welfare spending and government size. Yang is a trained economist, a businessman, and a thoughtful person - all of that at a youngish age, so he understands the 21st century dynamics. I would be interested in seeing what he could do in praxtice.
I to would love to see UBI replace all welfare programs it would need to be much higher than what Andrew is proposing say 3000 a month indexed to inflation but he is off to a good start for sure.
You’re correct, however according to Yang’s website and interviews I’ve watched, the remaining balance would be made up in things like incarceration services (you lose your UBI if you go to prison so people would have a big incentive to stay out of prison), homelessness services, and healthcare savings (people generally eat better and generally take better care of themselves when they make more money), etc.
This doesn't make me feel any better to be honest. The first item you mentioned makes an assumption I don't necessarily share (for reasons I won't derail the thread with), though I'd be willing to see more evidence and debate about it. The second item, as a service, is fraught with problems ranging from ineffectiveness to perpetual budgetary issues. I'm willing to concede that healthier habits adopted en masse may contribute both directly and indirectly in a measurably meaningful way, but on its own I certainly wouldn't look for this to address the math problems I previously mentioned.
Yangs rallies have been drawing crowds of thousands and the media is still ignoring him! Once Yang hits the debate stage Americans will take notice!
This rally was in Seattle. Very friendly territory. According to his own volunteers 1250 checked into the event.
Tiny by Trump standards, but much much better than Biden.
Yang is pulling from the crowd that might otherwise go to Bernie.
Unfortunately it doesn't matter. Yang is squarely in the "Never Wuzzes" category. His "universal standard income" kills him before he even gets out of the starting gate.
I to would love to see UBI replace all welfare programs it would need to be much higher than what Andrew is proposing say 3000 a month indexed to inflation but he is off to a good start for sure.
Ahem, no. The goal of UBI is not communism, but only assurance of individual survival for every member of society. Graduate students routinely live for several years on a research stipend which is around $1,000 per month (speaking from personal experience. My research stipend in grad school, in the 1980s, was $560 per month, which is a little under $1,200 per month in today's money. Out of that, I paid for my health insurance, my rent, my food, and my entertainment. I lived in a shared apartment with roommates, in an area of the country with moderate cost of living overall, I did not have a car, and of course I did not have any kids. Under such conditions, I lived quite normally (managing to even save for tiny luxuries like a Sony Walkman :-), on a monthly income that was comparable to $1,000 per month in today's money).
Anyone who wants $3,000 per month (to have his/her own apartment in a high-cost city, to raise a child, to travel, etc. - ie, to pursue additional goals which are not necessary for individual survival) should just earn $2,000 in addition to the quite reasonable UBI of $1,000 per month. There are still plenty of jobs available (particularly temporary jobs), and will be available for a considerable time.
Ahem, no. The goal of UBI is not communism, but only assurance of individual survival for every member of society. Graduate students routinely live for several years on a research stipend which is around $1,000 per month (speaking from personal experience. My research stipend in grad school, in the 1980s, was $560 per month, which is a little under $1,200 per month in today's money. Out of that, I paid for my health insurance, my rent, my food, and my entertainment. I lived in a shared apartment with roommates, in an area of the country with moderate cost of living overall, I did not have a car, and of course I did not have any kids. Under such conditions, I lived quite normally (managing to even save for tiny luxuries like a Sony Walkman :-), on a monthly income that was comparable to $1,000 per month in today's money).
Anyone who wants $3,000 per month (to have his/her own apartment in a high-cost city, to raise a child, to travel, etc. - ie, to pursue additional goals which are not necessary for individual survival) should just earn $2,000 in addition to the quite reasonable UBI of $1,000 per month. There are still plenty of jobs available (particularly temporary jobs), and will be available for a considerable time.
Unless they are getting free housing how do you come up with those numbers?
The US Census Bureau.
I'm guessing you never went there to down-load for free the X-13ARIMA-SEATS software program like I suggested.
Not only is the X-13ARIMA-SEATS software program used to manipulate hard data to produce "seasonally adjusted" employment numbers, it's also used in calculating poverty.
The so-called "federal poverty level" is the weighted average --- yes, using the X-13ARIMA-SEATS software program -- of the poverty levels of the individual 48 contiguous States.
Alaska and Hawaii are rightfully excluded, because they are both statistical outliers.
So, after manipulating the data using the X-13ARIMA-SEATS software program, the US Census Bureau comes up with the magic number of $12,430 for one person as the "poverty level."
That deceptively belies the fact that the poverty level in some States is $6,030 for one person and in some States, the poverty level is in excess of $20,000.
But, it averages out to $12,430.
So, the federal government is a liar, when it says someone earning $12,000 is below the poverty level, when in fact the poverty level for that State is $6,030.
And, the federal government is a liar, when it says someone earning $16,000 is not in poverty, when the poverty level in that person's State is $18,000.
Those lies result in massive suffering.
That's why Conservatives want to end federal government welfare programs, because the only possible way to alleviate the suffering is to allow the States to handle it, which makes everyone else morally inferior.
One cannot claim to be a moral person while condoning a system that perpetuates constant suffering.
Another lie is the fact that the US Census Bureau only counts earned income.
In spite of pressure for decades, the US Census Bureau refuses to factor in the cash and non-cash federal benefits people in "poverty" receive.
The US Census Bureau has adopted an "alternative poverty measure" but it still fails massively, although it is a step in the right direction.
When you add in the cash and non-cash benefits to their earned income, many are receiving more than $60,000/year.
Consider that the Average Wage Index for 2017 is $50,321/year, so they're doing better than the average American.
Are those people really in "poverty?" No, they're not.
If cash and non-cash benefits were included, then the poverty level isn't 12.3% or whatever it is, it's actually less than 1% and those are almost exclusively "homeless" people.
Regardless, the point remains that people will never accept less than what they're already getting.
That would be stupid, and like I said, they may be dumb, but they're not that stupid.
And a VAT is not going to happen, because it's unconstitutional.
Congress has no power to do that. The only thing Congress can do is levy an excise tax on goods and services.
Did you know that at one time, there was a federal excise tax on chewing gum?
Oh, yes, there certainly was. There was a federal excise tax on a very large number of goods. An excise tax would be tantamount to a sales tax, but technically not quite the same.
Ahem, no. The goal of UBI is not communism, but only assurance of individual survival for every member of society. Graduate students routinely live for several years on a research stipend which is around $1,000 per month (speaking from personal experience. My research stipend in grad school, in the 1980s, was $560 per month, which is a little under $1,200 per month in today's money. Out of that, I paid for my health insurance, my rent, my food, and my entertainment. I lived in a shared apartment with roommates, in an area of the country with moderate cost of living overall, I did not have a car, and of course I did not have any kids. Under such conditions, I lived quite normally (managing to even save for tiny luxuries like a Sony Walkman :-), on a monthly income that was comparable to $1,000 per month in today's money).
Anyone who wants $3,000 per month (to have his/her own apartment in a high-cost city, to raise a child, to travel, etc. - ie, to pursue additional goals which are not necessary for individual survival) should just earn $2,000 in addition to the quite reasonable UBI of $1,000 per month. There are still plenty of jobs available (particularly temporary jobs), and will be available for a considerable time.
Agreed. The 1k figure was arrived at because it was enough to give people a real boost in life, but not enough to replace working.
It lays the foundation. Perhaps in the future we’ll live in a fully automated, post-work society but not yet.
It’s not as idiotic as you might at first think! Yang has actually stated a number of times that the biggest obsticle to overcome regarding UBI is human psychology considering we’ve been ingrained with a mindset of scarcity our whole lives. Thomas Paine and Milton Freidman were both big proponents of a UBI.
Give this interview a watch if you get a minute. There are quite a few trump supporters who’ve switched to the Yang Gang! If you research the topic and still think it’s rubbish, then that’s fine too.
Working people will never agree to be taxed to give free money to non-workers. Period.
And of course anyone who made a C or better in Econ 101 knows what a silly pipe dream it is too.
Working people ARE already being taxed to the gills to give free money to non-workers. The present welfare system gives progressively more free money to welfare mothers for each additional child, and free money for every kind of "disability" people choose to fake. The present welfare system actively disincentivizes work (because welfare pays more than low-paid jobs, and welfare recipients routinely avoid getting such jobs in order not to lose welfare benefits).
With UBI, every adult citizen of the US gets the same $1,000 per month. That includes every working person as well. Non-working people get the fixed $1,000 per month, and no more, no matter how many kids or "disabilities" they have. Everybody gets $1,000 per month, and does not lose this UBI if he/she gets an additional job. UBI incentivizes work, and actually markedly decreases abuse of taxpayer money by non-workers. UBI is far more fair to working people (who also get the UBI, in addition to their earned income) than the present welfare system, and fosters responsibility among non-working people (who will think much harder about having additional children knowing that having children they can't raise will not bring any financial reward in addition to the fixed UBI, and will be much more receptive to filling low-paid jobs knowing that this will not be punished by withdrawal of UBI).
The only complicated issue with UBI is rearranging the tax revenue - ie, deciding what funding has to be cut (where welfare funding would obviously have to be cut first - in the ideal case, completely) in order to reallocate the tax funds to UBI.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
