Kenkoko said:
I wondered if you watched it because you ask questions that Yang addressed in the video :
As Yang explained in the video, it isn't 3T new revenue. The largest portion of the funding for his UBI come from cost savings and welfare overlap. The new VAT is just 800 billion. Even the U.S Government of Accountability Office said " GAO found that single-rate, broad-based VAT would promote economic neutrality among goods and services, minimize compliance burdens for the taxpayer, and minimize administrative costs"
No, I understand about the welfare cost overlap, I'm not talking about where to get the $3T from, it's how they are going to manage it. You keep missing the point that it's additional money that the Fed will be handling and they are not very good at that. Government is very inefficient when it comes to money, that's not a case study, that's a fact.
For example, Yang said accounting for the welfare/jails/institutional overlap, it's probably more like $1.6T that has to be generated from the VAT. But that's just to cover the $1k/mo per person. Did he take into account the overhead from the Fed? Considering how much the Pentagon pays for toilets, we are probably back at the $3T number.
Why don't we do the VAT and get rid of our debt first? A better platform would be to reduce Fed fiscal inefficiency.
And you missed Yang's point on jobs. His freedom dividend is not meant to be a job replacement. 12k a year is below the federal poverty line. Very few people can thrive on 12K a year. It would not incentize joblessness like you suggested. It's will however raise the floor and help millions of American transition to a future economy with increasingly more automation and AI.
He talked about that in the video, but his answer to that is theoretical. If you are jobless now and are getting by on unemployment/welfare/etc, how will $1k/month make you go out and get a job? Especially if there are less available if all the robots took them?
Joe Rogan softballed that topic.
The research you asked is a study done by the Roosevelt Institute. I will link it below. The study showed a $1k/month UBI expands the US economy by 12.56%.
https://rooseveltinstitute.org/wp-c...nomic-Effects-of-a-Universal-Basic-Income.pdf
Here is a pretty good case why UBI would not cause massive inflation.
https://medium.com/basic-income/wou...ome-just-cause-massive-inflation-fe71d69f15e7
Again, theoretical. Your second article is an opinion piece by some guy. I can do the same thing, here is a link to an article about what is wrong with Yang's proposal (and that's just the first one I found):
https://fee.org/articles/andrew-yang-s-math-doesn-t-add-up-on-universal-basic-income/
It also mentions the Roosevelt study and the flaws in the results.
Remember the Great Depresssion? What did people do with that money? How about the tax stimulus handout? Did that really dent anything?
Sure, we can point to Alaska and say it's working for them, but that's only $1k-2k per year so what is it really doing? Of course that really won't affect the economy and people claim that unemployment has not risen, but it hasn't gone down either. And you can't compare the demographics of Alaska to the US. This is why I mention scale as one of the caveats to a program like this.
As for socioeconomic factor, it's unfortunate you only focus on the possible negatives. This would be a game changer for homelessness. We do have that problem here in LA and OC. It would reduce crime and recognize caretakers. It would empower women to leave exploitative jobs and abusive relationships.It would help reverse the scarcity mindset which studies have shown to decrease functional IQ. People will make better decisions if they are not living in financial distress.
You have to consider the negatives because that's the reality. Yang says that this will help the marginal people most, so that doesn't really address those who are in real need.
The things you are talking about are idealistic. How does it reduce crime? How does $1000/mo empower women? It's not just money that is their issue. I think you are making this $1k sound like a miracle cure when it reality, it will end up being a placebo. Sure, it will help, but not to the extent that Yang (and you) are claiming. That's why I say "welfare state". Unmotivated people will stay unmotivated, even with handouts, it has to be something more than that.
Do you really think $12k/year will do that much for the homeless? Won't they just spend that on food and necessities (or drugs) but still stay homeless?
It should be how (education, job training, etc) not just what (money). I've quoted Ben Franklin before but here it is again:
?I am for doing good to the poor, but...I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed...that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.?
Maybe it should be at the state or local level. Then people will move to places that have better UBI, that will solve your LA/OC homeless problem quickly (I'm kidding).
Lastly, big picture, Yang is much more than just the UBI guy. He has over a 100 other well laid out policies besides UBI. I would be net losers financially in his UBI plan, but I still support him because he is much more than that. Many conservatives support him despite hating UBI.
I like his other policies but UBI seems to be a tentpole platform for him and I don't think that will work. I could be wrong, and while I would like an extra $1k/mo and would hope it would help more than just the marginal people, I know that just money doesn't make people less lazy, make criminals give up crime, make the mentally ill healthy etc etc.
But back to whether he can take Trump... polling at 2% isn't going to get Yang the nomination. Even if he polls at 5% or 10%, it isn't going to get him in. But let's say he does get in, people like you and me, would vote for Yang, but do you see him swaying anyone who supports Trump?
So just like the Borg and AI, resistance is futile.
