But say it's amended by a realistic candidate to only include those who are unemployed/poor - why does that bother you? Do you know how much goes into benefits currently, and how inefficient it is? Do you think less than 90% of these people will use the funds for essentials that go straight back into the economy? Do you not accept certain jobs, like 3.5 million truckers, will be lost to automation and they won't really have the skillset to jump into other professions no matter how much education they receive? Local communities (primarily in poor regions) are equipped to support each other and develop resilience to predatory big business tactics which is the biggest benefit of UBI. Just the basics. Then learn at their own pace with stable home environments and not flip burgers for 10 hours a day, which will also be lost to automation. On the other hand, Yang is smart enough not to pretend like free education past HS is a realistic thing. You can look at examples on here, like Sweet Lou, no amount of education is going to make them get it. They hold back organizations pressured to hire for the sake of hiring and more dangerously, perpetuate stereotypes. UBI is very realistic in it's effectiveness.
you already have programs for the 'essentials'. if its not enough then why not adjust those programs? what is this money supposed to be for?
And why $1,000? I am waiting for a reason why that number is important and picked for a reason, versus a nice rounded, strong sounding number for that sake of getting support. This is essentially be bribing people to vote.
Another argument against illegals. They are sending money out of our economy. Bleeding us for the sake of another country.
Shouldn't be having this conversation if you are unaware of the inefficiency and sluggishness of these "programs" .. and the trap they force recipients into. SNAP can only be used to buy unhealthy food in food desert areas, instead of cash to create a resilient food structure. An opportunity is presented for low income individuals to work together and be a greater sum of parts. Can't blame anyone else if you throw it away on drugs/alcohol when others in the same situation use it to better lives. This is for citizens only.
Yang's plan doesn't get rid of those inefficient programs. Now you are trying to pitch something that Yang is absolutely against, which is replacing those programs with UBI. Yang's plan is a huge hit to the lower class. They get none of the benefits (or atleast far less than others) since they already get over 1K a month from other programs, and their cost of living goes up since Yang wants to tax producers.
Once you get over the "free money" concept that causes alot of people who have never dealt with low income people to go into panic, you'll be able to see what the country can gain from this. If given to the right people (citizens, not those who are employed, make over $60k a year, have trust funds etc.), it is far better scenario than being a part of "programs" that centralize power and allow the same corporations to exploit the have nots . It also overrides the delusion that everyone has the capacity to be a nuclear engineer, doctor, etc. and can find more realistic ways to contribute to society with a stable home environment. Programs never guarantee that, because you're still on a treadmill blindly following orders. With programs, too much is lost in bureaucracy, the same kind that allows infinite tax loopholes for the wealthy , and people are caught up in another system as opposed to creating strong communities. That is what will lower crime numbers and give the poor a better quality of life. I don't think it should be used to allow the middle class to upgrade their car or home leases to luxury, so you need an income cutoff. This is about dignity at the bottom. An amended UBI .. which it will be eventually, and I would have to talk to Yang as to why he hasn't made them .. is more beneficial than a minimum wage of $15/hour. That translate to $30k a year for 40 hours of work a week, something robots will do for much cheaper.
HES NOT GETTING RID OF THE SOCIAL PROGRAMS. Stop telling me how UBI is better than the current social programs. Good grief.
Amendments will be made if he is too be taken seriously , this isn't set in stone helping you understand how politics work ..
He is also not getting elected. He comes off as amateur in his interviews and his ideas are crap. His polling is also not up to par.
yea a few small amendments like 'ending wellfare, food stamps, medicare, and medicaid' . Just some small minucia.
The numbers just don't add up on Yang's plan at all. Doing the rough math, it would be somewhere between $2-3 trillion annually in new spending which, according to his website, he plans to fund with value-added taxes (which tend to be pretty regressive and typically passed down to consumers) along with some of the "it pays for itself!" magical economic sauce that the Republicans love to use to justify their tax cuts. I do appreciate Yang's concern about automation as I think it's going to be a big problem in the coming decades that has the ability to result in mass unemployment, but this plan doesn't work at all financially as it stands. I also can't help but laugh at this statement on his website: https://www.yang2020.com/what-is-ubi/ Presidential candidates seem to love pretending that they don't have to work with Congress to get their agenda passed, although I guess after seeing the latest episode of Presidential Apprentice where Donald decided to just go around Congress and declare a national emergency to get his pet issue funded, it's not as wild of an idea as it used to be.
...Game of Thrones has got nothing on the Donald's programming... ...even though Kellyanne Conway's husband's been a nice parallel for David Dinklage...
No offense to Andrew, because he is very successful and smart, but he is probably more suited for a cabinet position rather than legitimate contender status. Announcing for prez is a great way to get your name out there though.
Errmergerd, here we go with UBI again. This won't work for so many reasons that I can't even count them all. Here, I'll pick one. If everyone gets 1,000 a month, prices will rise, and no one will be any better off. "Too many dollars chasing too few goods," as the economists say. Unless price controls are also going to part of the picture. Then get ready for shortages, scarcity, and rationing. I also find the assumptions overblown: "This will mean the end of trucking" (no it won't); "there will be 50% unemployment" (no there won't); ad nauseum. Will it kill some jobs? Yes, it will. Is at anything we should be worried about? No, it isn't. Do you remember when some gas station jockey filled up your tank for you? (Some of you might not.) Do you see that guy anymore? No, you don't. Did the world end? No. OP, don't know if you are actually supporting Mr. Yang's views, so......
No, that doesn't work. What percentage of US citizens get welfare now? Let's call it 30 to 50%, depending on how you define welfare. Now, *everyone* gets welfare? If you thought 22 trillion in debt was bad......but then again, I don't think UBI proponents care about the debt. Or taxes. (Probably because they don't pay any)
I listened to Yang last night. He said the income tax will eventually go away. Now, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell, for anyone that believes that.
