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.
Just remember, Yang said in an interview that those who opt-in for receiving UBI would automatically agree to forego receiving other forms of public assistance in exchange for such.
People would choose according to what works better for them. I see nothing wrong with that, since both UBI and public assistance are financed from the same source (if I'm not mistaken).
People would choose according to what works better for them. I see nothing wrong with that, since both UBI and public assistance are financed from the same source (if I'm not mistaken).
I only mentioned that because, in speaking with some potential Yang supporters I know, they were surprised to hear this despite having claimed to have read about his UBI proposal on his website. They all stated that they believe folks should receive UBI [in addition] to retaining other forms of assistance or it would indicate to them that Yang might be a racist.
Yang's UBI would also require the implementation of a 10% national consumption tax on goods & services, but you're correct that the funding for either (traditional welfare or UBI) would come from the same source.
I only mentioned that because, in speaking with some potential Yang supporters I know, they were surprised to hear this despite having claimed to have read about his UBI proposal on his website. They all stated that they believe folks should receive UBI [in addition] to retaining other forms of assistance or it would indicate to them that Yang might be a racist.
Yang's UBI would also require the implementation of a 10% national consumption tax on goods & services, but you're correct that the funding for either (traditional welfare or UBI) would come from the same source.
Oh, I'm sure he's going to hear a lot of accusations, but I'm also sure he'll keep on doing good work. Those people you mention should work more on their reading comprehension. And their overall comprehension, I believe
As someone coming from a country with 25% VAT (value added tax), these 10% sound like small potatoes to me. Plus, Yang says that this tax is going to be distributed more towards the goods that are on the luxury side. So, some groceries or other essential stuff might even be VAT exempt.
Just remember, Yang said in an interview that those who opt-in for receiving UBI would automatically agree to forego receiving other forms of public assistance in exchange for such.
Um, those people may be dumb, but they're not stupid, and there's no way in Hell people will give up $3,000/month to $6,000/month in benefits to get $1,000/month in UBI.
Um, those people may be dumb, but they're not stupid, and there's no way in Hell people will give up $3,000/month to $6,000/month in benefits to get $1,000/month in UBI.
Everyone gets the $1,000 in Yang's plan. Those who don't need it to live on can save the money for things like college or for buying a home, or can spend it as they choose.
The wealthy will pay more out in taxes than they receive, and some of the poor will be cut back on their other support, but overall, his plan would do a lot to equalize the huge division between the tiny group of ultra-wealthy and the middle class.
It would also put a lot more money back into the economy. As it is right now, most of our wealth is concentrated into a few big banks and is not out on the streets where it belongs.
The banks and the super-rich aren't ever going to cut all that money loose out of the goodness of their hearts.
Um, those people may be dumb, but they're not stupid, and there's no way in Hell people will give up $3,000/month to $6,000/month in benefits to get $1,000/month in UBI.
Even if 100% of Welfare recipients were to opt in (and they won't), the savings from zeroing out the traditional welfare roles would account for only about a third of the proposed $2.7 Trillion Dollar annual UBI program (225 million citizens age 18 and above x $12,000/year). The 10% VAT could in principle make up the difference, but it won't, because it requires that 100% of UBI funds dispensed would be spent on goods & services subject to the VAT in the first place (and they won't).
Last edited by OpinionInOcala; 05-09-2019 at 07:22 PM..
Um, those people may be dumb, but they're not stupid, and there's no way in Hell people will give up $3,000/month to $6,000/month in benefits to get $1,000/month in UBI.
Unless they are getting free housing how do you come up with those numbers? I'm pretty sure they would still get medicaid, but most would only be giving up TANF and SNAP and those don't usually add up to $1,000. PS only about about 24% of the poor get any housing subsidy.
Two weeks ago, I criticized Tucker Carlson for ignoring Yang while talking to Ben Shapiro about presidential candidates of the Left, although both had already had him on their shows. In the meantime, things have changed. Whether it was Carlson listening to a torrent of youtube criticism, or just Carlson wanting to be fair and informative, I'll give full credit where credit is due and commend him for the following
Even if 100% of Welfare recipients were to opt in (and they won't), the savings from zeroing out the traditional welfare roles would account for only about a third of the proposed $2.7 Trillion Dollar annual UBI program (225 million citizens age 18 and above x $12,000/year). The 10% VAT could in principle make up the difference, but it won't, because it requires that 100% of UBI funds dispensed would be spent on goods & services subject to the VAT in the first place (and they won't).
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.
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.
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.
