Board 8 > Do you generally think andrew yang's ubi proposal is a good idea?

(+) Yeah! (+)

topic

---

Well its a dividend, not income

---

yes, but hes wrong to suggest that its a substitution for Medicare for all, increased minimum wage, free college, etc.

it should only be implemented in addition to other progressive policies.

Andrew Yang's UBI proposal? Absolutely not. A better UBI proposal? More likely yes.

---

WazzupGenius00 posted...

Andrew Yang's UBI proposal? Absolutely not. A better UBI proposal? More likely yes.

what's a better ubi proposal?

---

Hannyabal posted...

yes, but hes wrong to suggest that its a substitution for Medicare for all, increased minimum wage, free college, etc.

it should only be implemented in addition to other progressive policies.

this is it, though I'd also add housing to this list to things that should be addressed before/alongside UBI

A good idea but Yang's priorities are out of order

---

Hannyabal posted...

yes, but hes wrong to suggest that its a substitution for Medicare for all, increased minimum wage, free college, etc.

it should only be implemented in addition to other progressive policies.

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

this is it, though I'd also add housing to this list to things that should be addressed before/alongside UBI

100% of UBIs require replacing other forms of welfare. In other words, the $3.6 tril that is used to fund UBI could always be used to fund $3.6 tril of other welfare. Eliminating existing programs is just a shortcut to the same thing.

What you're saying is that you would never support UBI at any real point in time, because you don't think it's better than politician-defined welfare.

---

I used to be in favor of UBIs, but I don't know maybe that's a shotgun answer to problems that need scalpels.

But I ain't gonna complain if I suddenly get a little check in the mail.

---

foolm0r0n posted...

100% of UBIs require replacing other forms of welfare. In other words, the $3.6 tril that is used to fund UBI could always be used to fund $3.6 tril of other welfare. Eliminating existing programs is just a shortcut to the same thing.

What you're saying is that you would never support UBI at any real point in time, because you don't think it's better than politician-defined welfare.

No, I'm saying that out of that $3.6 trillion allocation there is likely some combination of (universal, politician-defined) welfare programs and UBI funding that is optimal. Of the two, we should prioritize the welfare programs.

---

foolm0r0n posted...

100% of UBIs require replacing other forms of welfare. In other words, the $3.6 tril that is used to fund UBI could always be used to fund $3.6 tril of other welfare. Eliminating existing programs is just a shortcut to the same thing.

What you're saying is that you would never support UBI at any real point in time, because you don't think it's better than politician-defined welfare.

First of all, M4A, raising the minimum wage, and free college / erasing student loan debt shouldnt be framed as welfare programs in the same vein as SNAP, TANF, etc. Its viable for a UBI to replace those types of programs but UBI isnt going to do anything to address rising costs of healthcare and education.

my issue with yangs UBI proposal is that hes funding it via VAT instead of a wealth or capital gains tax. a truly progressive UBI program should more or less be redistributing wealth to create a safety net. And furthermore, hes quite weak on policy to supplement a UBI program which he seemingly touts as a cure-all.

VATs are generally more stable forms of taxation than wealth taxes. Also business to business transactions make up a large part of vats in europe if i recall. Also the best implementation of a vat tax would be what yang wants it for, not something the government would allocate it to but would barely help day to day lives of americans

---

Metal_DK posted...

VATs are generally more stable forms of taxation than wealth taxes. Also business to business transactions make up a large part of vats in europe if i recall. Also the best implementation of a vat tax would be what yang wants it for, not something the government would allocate it to but would barely help day to day lives of americans

Sure, but a VAT tax diminishes the returns on the UBI such that it may only marginally (or not at all depending on their current support) impact the lives of the impoverished over current welfare programs, as compared to taking it from wealth / capital gains / progressive income tax rates

I will admit i was unaware of VATs in terms of business to business interactions though and thats something to look into for sure.

I don't know anything about Yang but I UBI is not only necessary, it's the only thing preventing automation-induced genocide.

And it's almost guaranteed to happen since people won't just accept the widespread starvation and will revolt if UBI doesn't already exist at that point.

Hannyabal posted...

Sure, but a VAT tax diminishes the returns on the UBI such that it may only marginally (or not at all depending on their current support) impact the lives of the impoverished over current welfare programs, as compared to taking it from wealth / capital gains / progressive income tax rates

Barely. Also the vat that yang is suggesting i believe is not on more essential items and moreso on iphones and other technology items

---

Hannyabal posted...

but UBI isnt going to do anything to address rising costs of healthcare and education

That's specifically the whole purpose. Right now the government writes blank checks to healthcare and education, so the execs can decide their own price with absolutely no market pressure. UBI brings market forces back to those industries, so even though the same amount of money is potentially flowing around, they have to actually compete for it.

SNAP is a good example of something that would NOT need to be replaced by UBI, since we don't have a problem where bananas are $99 each because of food stamp abuse (despite what some people think). SNAP is also very market-based and shares a lot of the same effects as a UBI.

Hannyabal posted...

my issue with yangs UBI proposal is that hes funding it via VAT instead of a wealth or capital gains tax.

I mean fundamentally the dude is trying to bring a hyper libertarian policy into the Democrats' (and more importantly, the centrists') overton window, and it's actually working, which is pretty crazy. This seems like one of the more centrist-appealing things, which is fine. Bernie could easily say "ok we'll do UBI but with a WEALTH TAX!!!" which would be a huge victory for Yang.

---

ITT a policy that's essentially communist is "hyper libertarian"

---

foolm0r0n posted...

That's specifically the whole purpose. Right now the government writes blank checks to healthcare and education, so the execs can decide their own price with absolutely no market pressure. UBI brings market forces back to those industries, so even though the same amount of money is potentially flowing around, they have to actually compete for it.

SNAP is a good example of something that would NOT need to be replaced by UBI, since we don't have a problem where bananas are $99 each because of food stamp abuse (despite what some people think). SNAP is also very market-based and shares a lot of the same effects as a UBI.

I mean fundamentally the dude is trying to bring a hyper libertarian policy into the Democrats' (and more importantly, the centrists') overton window, and it's actually working, which is pretty crazy. This seems like one of the more centrist-appealing things, which is fine. Bernie could easily say "ok we'll do UBI but with a WEALTH TAX!!!" which would be a huge victory for Yang.

Its nothing more than a libertarian/free market fantasy to expect a UBI to result in healthcare costs going down. By giving people more spending money, in all likelihood prices will go up as the capitalists running health insurance, higher education, etc. want more of that UBI slice. In this free market fantasy of course the invisible hand of the free market will guide prices to an affordable equilibrium but in the real world, prices will continue to rise without government intervention.

my entire argument is essentially that Yangs UBI proposal is more or less bad in execution precisely because its a libertarian policy. but a UBI implemented progressively could be a positive. in a vacuum, its fine. it needs to be built around progressive policy though, which I dont personally believe Yang has demonstrated.

Hannyabal posted...

Its nothing more than a libertarian/free market fantasy to expect a UBI to result in healthcare costs going down

When keeping the old healthcare welfare system, yes. Which is why it's NECESSARY for UBI to be a replacement for many existing systems (which are FAR more lucrative to the execs).

UBI doesn't magically solve any broken systems. But it does act as a replacement (even just temporary) for the void that is formed after dismantling the old broken system. So we can actually dismantle shit instead of just complaining about how everything sucks but never doing anything about it because we hate viable solutions.

---