FWIW, I think some kind of basic, lump-sum income for people who are unemployed is a good idea and probably inevitable over the long run. But Yang’s implementation is bananas. Giving everyone $1k is ludicrous for reasons mentioned above. Also, WTF at making the poorest people give up food stamps to get it? Should be the other way around, rich people should have to give up their yacht deductions or whatever to get the Yang bux.
3 Likes
Yang is for doing a pretty ugly number on the very wealthy income tax wise. He’s also for a VAT tax that will hit the highest profit firms super hard (they set pricing based on the demand the price point will generate not based on costs… they’d literally just eat the VAT just like they’ve eaten the tariffs).
Please stop bringing up means testing over and over again like it hasn’t been explained to you in excruciating detail by literally everyone why it sucks. We shouldn’t means test. Giving rich people 1k a month doesn’t actually matter. They’re going to be paying out vastly more than they are receiving.
1 Like
Yeah, I don’t get this. Means-testing is meant to what? Make a statement that you don’t do favors to rich people? Obviously $1k/month isn’t a huge giveaway to people who pay $10k a month in income taxes and will pay more than the $1k/month to make this program happen. What it does is add to the cost of implementation, require new enforcement mechanisms, stigmatize the receivers, and then leave the program as a political football in perpetuity.
3 Likes
100% agreed. UBI is super popular in the one place in the US where it already exists… Alaska. Once we put it into play it’s not going anywhere, and will probably be the single most popular government program in the history of the country. Entirely because of the U at the beginning of it. Universality makes it popular. That really matters. We won’t have to defend it vs constant right wing attacks like we do every welfare program.
In 2018, Republican state Sen. Mike Dunleavy saw an opportunity. Despite traditional Republican aversions to handouts, Dunleavy ran for governor on the campaign platform of increasing the PFD. He promised every resident up to $6,700, to make up for Walker’s cuts in 2016 and 2017 — though he was foggy on how the state could pay.
The result? Dunleavy won by a landslide.
The problem is that he now finds himself unable to fulfill his campaign promise without major cuts elsewhere. He’s now seeking to jettison other state commitments to health care, education, infrastructure, and other vital areas. After initially vetoing $444 million from the state budget, Dunleavy responded to the threat of a recall vote and walked back some of his more extreme line-item cuts. Still, the state will see no funding for public broadcasting, a 31 percent cut to its critical ferry system, $130 million from Medicaid, and $70 million from the University of Alaska system.
FFS, Yang’s plan has means testing! You’re going to have to show you aren’t taking any other federal aid to get the Yangbux.
Like, you can say “means testing sucks” over and over but it’s really not hard to make it fairly easy. Just make if a part of the tax return filing you already do every year.
Yeah it’s super popular. It’s a Republican state still, so some derp will happen. Obviously I’m not for cutting educational, infrastructure, or education spending to pay for UBI. If you don’t want those things cut you probably shouldn’t vote Republican.
1 Like
Like WTF at this strawman.
It’s reality. People on welfare are hugely stigmatized. If you don’t think that’s true you’ve never been in the reduced price or free lunch line in public school or used food stamps.
4 Likes
There are really two things about Yang:
-
We don’t know what the impact of UBI would be if implemented on a national scale in a massive country. We really don’t. Maybe it would be great. Maybe it would cause massive inflation, or have other flow-on effects we don’t know about. By contrast, things like Medicare For All, wealth taxes, worker representation on boards, New Deal type public spending etc etc have been implemented elsewhere or at other times, and we know what the pitfalls are (and there have certainly been pitfalls with, say, the wealth tax in particular).
-
A lot of the discussion ITT frequently seems to presume you are electing a dictator. Having a Smart Guy Candidate is not enough, you need a theory of change. For example, the theory of change with Bernie is that he’ll build a grassroots movement who will work to effect change through people power, direct action etc, and we have a lot of evidence of his ability to do that. With Warren it’s that she is a combative person with clear experience working to change systemic problems. Even with Pete, and I hesitate to juxtapose the words “Pete” and “change”, but at least he has his thing with PR/DC statehood and the electoral college and so forth. What is Yang’s theory of change? We Shall Overcome with the sheer power of techbro Silicon Valley knowhow?
4 Likes
I’ll answer this by saying that he plays extremely well with conservatives. I know an elite salesperson when I see one, and if you watch his Ben Shapiro interview from early in the campaign you’ll see what I mean. The man is very very good at convincing people over to his point of view. I think he’d be pretty good at framing the debate in such a way that there would be really serious political consequences for the GOP blocking the Freedom Dividend.
None of the candidates are going to get anything of importance done unless we both win the senate AND eliminate the filibuster. Just beating Trump by a little bit while leaving Mitch McConnells power intact is game over for the entire country and possibly the entire world order.
Let’s make no mistake here… we’re very very close to WAAF here.
Or any number of other things. Seriously we have the money as a country. It costs 3T dollars a year. We’ve gained 5T in annual GDP in the last few years lol.
We’ve got a bunch of so called liberals in here talking about how the single biggest increase in buying power for the poor in American history would be regressive somehow because it cuts the very wealthy a ceremonial check.
I don’t know what you mean by this. Like I don’t know if you’re saying that you aren’t claiming that means testing isn’t stigmatising or that you are suggesting now that it isn’t.
It’s regressive because a huge chunk of the benefit goes to people who don’t need it and the poorest wind up getting less than $1k. OFC progressives are going to question that.
1 Like
?!?! Isn’t everybody asking this, like all the time?
1 Like
That post was at level > 1
Only 10% of the money would go to the top 10% of the population… DUCY? 60% would go to the bottom 60% lol.
I think it’s possible to provide aid to people who need it without stigmatizing them.
A lump-sum basic income would be especially easy this way. Check everyone’s tax return, if they’re above a certain income level they get a discrete deposit in their bank account.
What if they don’t have a tax return? Married jointly aren’t required to file if they make <$24k.
~no homeless people file tax returns
And lots of people don’t have bank accounts
1 Like