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.
I'm not opposed to workers' protections, in fact I'm pro unions that have workers' interest at heart. (So when I'm not called right winger, I am usually considered a communist, lol Internet is a strange place.). Still, I don't quite understand this opposition to the idea of UBI.
Amazon exploits its workers and so does Walmart and others. When it's time to pay taxes, they are moving their gains around the globe into "investments"and who knows where else, thus effectively avoiding to pay their fair share. Millions of people get their mc salaries, not just in US.
Even bigger problem is that the workers are falling prey to gig-economy. In this economy, it's impossible for workers to join together to protect their interests, as labour force is fluctuating fast, and there's no stability of workplace. It's out of the window. It's not your grandfather's job anymore. Add automation and off-shoring and you have 21st century problems that, as Yang says, you can't deal with using 20th century solutions.
Many people have given up looking for jobs, so you won't find them in these shining employment statistics. Many more will. These people have to survive somehow, before they figure out what to do next. I think that UBI is the only solution.
That's the problem that needs to be fixed, or at least altered. Saying its going to happen ignores the power concentrated wealth has on our economic system.
And UBI was created as a concept to replace normal welfare as to promote consumer spending over public goods, boost corporate revenue, and give them less responsibilities in terms of national welfare.
There are two types of answers, removing corporate power or domesticating it. Succumbing to its wishes isn't one of them.
That's the problem that needs to be fixed, or at least altered. Saying its going to happen ignores the power concentrated wealth has on our economic system.
And UBI was created as a concept to replace normal welfare as to promote consumer spending over public goods, boost corporate revenue, and give them less responsibilities in terms of national welfare.
There are two types of answers, removing corporate power or domesticating it. Succumbing to its wishes isn't one of them.
Yup.
Andy Yang foresees the gig economy will only lead to more welfare cases to come increasingly into the future, as the aging workers will need it more and more to survive in retirement, and the young workforce will be forced to go on welfare as the gigs begin to dry up and fail them.
His plan is designed to be revenue-neutral, and will ultimately decrease the welfare rolls dramatically.
What does every working man need the most now?
Income security. The knowledge that there will be enough money to put food on the table, shoes on the kid's feet, and a roof over their head. His UBI plan won't make anyone wealthy enough to live on, but it will be enough to make a big dent in everyone's most needed daily things.
For the aged, it makes up the difference they need to live with the assistance they need. For those who care for the elderly, it makes their profession's pay more equal to the services they provide.
It takes a lot of profit motive out of the drug trade in the ghettos.
It takes a lot of worry off the farmer's backs when they are looking at another crop failure.
It helps a lot of small-town mom and pop businesses to survive another year.
It pays for a lot of child care for young parents who are both working.
It allows a single parent more time with her kids, which will open up that 3rd job for someone else.
It helps the wino get out of the tent and off the street. It helps the free clinic that keeps the wino alive.
And those who don't need the extra income to cover the basics can use it to send the kids to college, or replace their old car, or get the hole in the roof fixed, or even buy a luxury item or two.
And for the wealthy, they get some back from what they will be putting in. Not so much, but enough to buy some season tickets to something or donations that can be written off their taxes.
It's all good for our economy, it's as fair to all as can be, and it's the way to make capitalism centered around people, not the flow of money.
His plan is designed to be revenue-neutral, and will ultimately decrease the welfare rolls dramatically.
There is no way in heck that his plan could be revenue neutral. It is nothing more than a buzz word to lure in voters.
He literally has over two dozen new programs that he is pushing and the two biggest ones alone most experts agree would more double federal spending.
Revenue would have to go up to pay for the everything is free train.
Yang is pushing $1,000 a month for every American over 18...
218 million people aged 18 and up x $12,000 a year...
That is over $2.6 Trillion a year right there. And don't you think that would cause some inflation? He says it could reduce other welfare, but $12K a year will be less than $12K a year when everyone's income is bumped up by $12K a year.
Andy Yang is proposing Medicare for all...some groups peg that as a $3.26 Trillion per year every year expenditure...the best estimates are only $1.38 Trillion a year - every year.
These two plans combined would roughly equal or exceed total federal spending for 2019 of $4.4 Trillion.
So with these Andy Yang has already doubled the national expenses...oh, but he would cut back in other areas? He will also increase spending in other areas.
Andy Yang proposes:
-pay to increase and rebuild American infrastructure $$$$$$$$$
-funding local journalism
-Pay for "hundreds" of new American Journalism Fellows in each state.
-Pay for free financial counseling for all
-Pay to fight climate change
-Pay to create journalism ombudsman to sort out fake news
-pay to lower community college costs
-pay to equip every cop with a camera and equipment
-pay to revitalize vacant malls
-pay to increase teacher salaries
-pay to increase mental health funding
-pay to increase congressional earmarks
-pay to have tax day be a federal holiday where they show off government projects
-pay for every preschooler to go to preschool
Etc.....etc.....etc.....I've literally left off new spending programs that he wants...
spend spend spend
free free free
There is now way what he is pushing could be revenue neutral. Pure BS.
There is no way in heck that his plan could be revenue neutral. It is nothing more than a buzz word to lure in voters.
He literally has over two dozen new programs that he is pushing and the two biggest ones alone most experts agree would more double federal spending.
Revenue would have to go up to pay for the everything is free train.
Yang is pushing $1,000 a month for every American over 18...
218 million people aged 18 and up x $12,000 a year...
That is over $2.6 Trillion a year right there. And don't you think that would cause some inflation? He says it could reduce other welfare, but $12K a year will be less than $12K a year when everyone's income is bumped up by $12K a year.
Andy Yang is proposing Medicare for all...some groups peg that as a $3.26 Trillion per year every year expenditure...the best estimates are only $1.38 Trillion a year - every year.
These two plans combined would roughly equal or exceed total federal spending for 2019 of $4.4 Trillion.
So with these Andy Yang has already doubled the national expenses...oh, but he would cut back in other areas? He will also increase spending in other areas.
Andy Yang proposes:
-pay to increase and rebuild American infrastructure $$$$$$$$$
-funding local journalism
-Pay for "hundreds" of new American Journalism Fellows in each state.
-Pay for free financial counseling for all
-Pay to fight climate change
-Pay to create journalism ombudsman to sort out fake news
-pay to lower community college costs
-pay to equip every cop with a camera and equipment
-pay to revitalize vacant malls
-pay to increase teacher salaries
-pay to increase mental health funding
-pay to increase congressional earmarks
-pay to have tax day be a federal holiday where they show off government projects
-pay for every preschooler to go to preschool
etc.....etc.....etc.....I've literally left off new spending programs that he wants...
spend spend spend
free free free
There is now way what he is pushing could be revenue neutral. Pure BS.
Your forgetting how much local economies will benefit once everybody is getting 1000 a month. It will be a boon for business and tax revenue will increase due to increased consumer spending. Not to mention Yangs modest value added tax will bring in over 800 billion in new revenue.
Your forgetting how much local economies will benefit once everybody is getting 1000 a month. It will be a boon for business and tax revenue will increase due to increased consumer spending. Not to mention Yangs modest value added tax will bring in over 800 billion in new revenue.
What a joke.
Wow $0.8 Trillion in new taxes....when his everybody gets paid $1,000 a month adds over $2.6 Trillion a year in new spending. A reasonable estimate is $2.32 Trillion a year for his health care plan. This is nearly 5 Trillion a year for just two of his plans...this more than doubles current federal spending and we haven't gotten to the other trillions in federal spending he is promising.
Current Federal spending is $4.4 Trillion a year and btw we are running deficits that are set to grow for a number of reasons.
If you take his plan at face value and think it is actually revenue neutral you are high or susceptible to snake oil salesmen selling you the moon.
Your forgetting how much local economies will benefit once everybody is getting 1000 a month. It will be a boon for business and tax revenue will increase due to increased consumer spending. Not to mention Yangs modest value added tax will bring in over 800 billion in new revenue.
Yup.
Yang's plan is pretty much the way the Swiss have run their economy and government for many decades. At least 100 years or so.
The Swiss go a lot farther in value-added tax than Yang's proposal; if a Swiss furniture factory wants to cut timber, for example, the company applies to the govt. for a permit to cut the trees, and the govt. forest agent selects the best area of a forest to fit the needs of the factory.
Then each tree is specifically tagged, cut, and high-lined out of the forest. It's the way the Swiss manage their forests for wildfire and track all the value-add tax at the same time.
Value is added as soon as the tree is cut. Once the timber becomes finished lumber, there's a more value, so there's a little more tax. Once the lumber becomes furniture, there's even more value, so there's a bit more tax.
So the tax burden the Swiss people have goes into their products, not their labor. And the tax is collected second by second instead of one big bite once a year. As a manufacturing nation, most of the tax money comes from other nations, not from the Swiss people.
It always works the best in an industrialized nation that sells its good all over the world, especially when those goods are of premium quality. It's a part of the way the Swiss gained their reputation for making high quality products.
And because there's more money in making quality goods than shoddy goods, the value-added tax encourages high-quality manufacturing and tends to drive the shoddy goods out of the market.
No... Yang mainly has left wing support and a few right wingers so sad to see how little research you have done.
Yang also has a lot of RIGHT WING support and reddit trolls were encouraging one another to vote in online polls to up his numbers. Now perhaps that's because they think he can't win . . who knows.
Yang also has a lot of RIGHT WING support and reddit trolls were encouraging one another to vote in online polls to up his numbers. Now perhaps that's because they think he can't win . . who knows.
The Facebook basecamp group (26k members roughly) does the same thing. It’s called encouraging support for your candidate so that it might garner attention and spur more people to at least check into him. The Yang Gang just seems to be more organized about it that other candidates’ bases.
I would estimate that roughly 25% of Yang’s base leans conservative based off of what I’ve seen but I don’t see how that is a bad thing unless you thrive off of division. I’m a little sick of the Us vs. Them mentality personally and all it’s gotten us is an incredibly divided nation and a deadlocked Washington (and Trump). The conversations occurring between groups in the basecamp is for the most part, incredibly polite and courteous and because of that, real issues and solutions get talked about in a productive way instead of devolving into mud-slinging. Frankly, it’s a breath of fresh air.
Now, to be clear, I’ve read articles that the /pol section on 4chan has also been flooding online polls but I can’t attest to that. Last I checked, /pol had pretty much abandoned Yang about 4-6 months ago but I don’t go there regularly. It’s way too toxic for my taste.
I really liked listening to this guy's no non-sense and pragmatist ideas. Definitely worth a listen if you're interested in something different from the status quo.
Might like to listen or watch him, but he is dead dead dead as a candidate. He would have had to have a great showing Thurs night and he didn't.
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.
Internet is a strange place.). Still, I don't quite understand this opposition to the idea of UBI. 
