the point i made was that you criticized sanders plan because you claim he only thinks people who work should be able to live outside of poverty (not true btw), and then in your defense of why it's necessary to give up benefits to receive the $1k you posted an argument that says it's because this is the greatest incentive to get people to work (i.e. what your meme criticized sanders for)

Quote :

" if they opt-in to the dividend, then it must be paying more than they were getting from TANF/SNAP. and as such they no longer have a disincentive to take a higher paying job because there is no means-testing on the dividend."

this won't always be true, but i understand libertarians don't like paternalism so this isn't my main criticism

also, why is it necessary to require people to preemptively give up their benefits? if the $1k will lift them out of poverty then they would move out of qualifying them anyways.

requiring them to give up benefits is just the new tech bro version of the welfare queen myth

[Edited on September 24, 2019 at 2:26 PM. Reason : .]

9/24/2019 2:22:37 PM

Quote :

" he only thinks people who work should be able to live outside of poverty"

I know he doesn't actually believe that. but his policy proposals have that effect, which is why he should get with the program and support the Freedom Dividend and acknowledge the flaws in his own policy proposals. I would be very supportive if he did.

Quote :

" why is it necessary to require people to preemptively give up their benefits"

well one because that's how we pay for it and two, as I've described, these programs 1) have perverse incentives 2) serve only a small fraction of the people they are intended to reach. we can create a far superior safety net for more people without the perverse incentives, stigma, bureaucracy if we implement the Freedom Dividend instead.

[Edited on September 24, 2019 at 2:36 PM. Reason : Bernie's own plans pay for themselves by accounting for a decrease in welfare spending you realize?]

9/24/2019 2:35:57 PM

a decrease as people move out of poverty, vs a decrease because your goal is to stop these social programs that people need

why is it fair to stop someone's benefits so you can give a wealthy person $1k/month?

[Edited on September 24, 2019 at 2:44 PM. Reason : .]

9/24/2019 2:40:27 PM

since you seem to have time can you respond to the previous posts?

9/24/2019 2:42:13 PM

Quote :

"a decrease as people move out of poverty, vs a decrease because your goal is to stop these social programs that people need"

who says anybody's goal is to stop these social programs????????

the goal is to reduce poverty and financial distress by providing an income floor for those who want to opt-in. you're prioritizing an ineffective bureaucracy over putting unconditional money directly in people's hands.

[Edited on September 24, 2019 at 3:25 PM. Reason : Geppetto you're next. dtownral continues to ask questions in bad faith and is a waste of my time unfortunately

[Edited on September 24, 2019 at 3:28 PM. Reason : .]

9/24/2019 3:23:38 PM

8% in a national poll. a bit of an outlier I acknowledge, but we'll take it

9/24/2019 3:26:07 PM

Quote :

"who says anybody's goal is to stop these social programs????????"

Yang did, he said this was the first step

(also to abolish minumum wage and labor bargaining)

Quote :

"the goal is to reduce poverty and financial distress by providing an income floor for those who want to opt-in. "

but why force them to give up their benefits? why is it fair to force them to give up benefits so rich people can get free money?



[Edited on September 24, 2019 at 4:04 PM. Reason : wage and labor]

9/24/2019 3:46:44 PM

Quote :

"yes, that is the free market. service providers fight for the business of consumers. you might as well say that McDonald's is gonna start charging $1001 for a cheeseburger bc they know consumers have the extra money."

so no concern because of "free market"? this is supposed to be a progressive idea?

Quote :

"A UBI+VAT however, which is Yang's proposal, is not regressive for 94% of Americans."

how is it still not regressive if someone who has to opt-out of services sees a smaller net benefit than someone who doesn't?

Quote :

"i'm not sure what you mean here. what risk?"

not everyone will manage their money well? i know libertarians don't like paternalism, but certainly they can acknowledge this risk, right?

Quote :

"Yang has stated that existing services for those who do not opti-in will be scaled up to counteract the effects of the VAT"

can you provide some more details on this, because he's also said that this is the first step to removing those services. one of the cornerstones of paying for his UBI is the cuts to welfare spending, are you saying they will cut spending but also increase services? does this not conflict with his statements that this is the first step to removing those services? i know that he wants to increase medicare support, but that's not what we are talking about (or is it, are you saying increased spending for medicare offsets those lost services?). and if efficiency is a goal, doesn't all of this erase that and make it another bureaucracy of it's own?

9/24/2019 3:56:14 PM

Quote :

" Yang did, he said this was the first step (also to abolish minumum wage and labor bargaining)"

citation needed. this is blatant misinformation

Quote :

"how is it still not regressive if someone who has to opt-out of services sees a smaller net benefit than someone who doesn't?"

who are these people who will opt-in to the Freedom Dividend who are currently receiving benefits in excess of $1000/month?

Quote :

" but certainly they can acknowledge this risk"

sure. the same concern exists for people who currently receive existing cash and cash-like benefits. point?


RE: minimum wage and organized labor

https://twitter.com/AndrewYang/status/1058517115861381120
https://twitter.com/AndrewYang/status/991050364345602050
https://twitter.com/AndrewYang/status/1155518350904221696

for context from the left and the right





[Edited on September 24, 2019 at 5:15 PM. Reason : forward]

9/24/2019 4:58:38 PM

He said when he visited the Rubin Report, I'm not watching to get you a timestamps, I'm sure you can find it

9/24/2019 8:06:46 PM

Quote :

" who are these people who will opt-in to the Freedom Dividend who are currently receiving benefits in excess of $1000/month? "

If you currently receive benefits the freedom dividend is worth maybe a few hundred bucks, but if you are rich its worth $1,000. Why is this fair?

9/24/2019 8:08:21 PM

Quote :

" He said when he visited the Rubin Report"

look friend...I JUST posted a video of his Rubin Report interview, and he said nothing of the kind. In fact, he said the OPPOSITE of what you have claimed.

as for ^ this basically amounts to the same thing I explained last week

Quote :

" If you support a $15/hr minimum wage but not the Freedom Dividend, you're saying that you'd rather 242 million Americans and their families get NOTHING, so that 17 million people MIGHT be better off."

- people who receive money from social safety net programs today will receive MORE money without the bullshit that goes along with getting that money
- people who receive no money from social safety net programs today but who SHOULD qualify for those programs will receive MORE money
- people who don't qualify for social safety net programs but could still sure use the extra money will receive MORE money
- people who don't have a traditional job (37% according to the labor participation rate) but are probably spending their time in productive ways (raising children and caretakers perhaps) will receive MORE money
- the top 6% of Americans (the "rich" people you're so worried about getting a measly extra $1k to remind them that they are American citizens like everybody else) will start contributing billions of dollars in taxes back to this nation in the form of a VAT which is a lot easier then trying to figure out how to make them pay the income/corporate taxes they've gotten so good at avoiding.

but because a very tiny slice of the population will only get $1000 instead of $1213.49 or something, you'd rather not do any of it?


quit looking at this in terms of Bernie vs Yang. UBI is a good idea. The MATH shows that it benefits the people of this country more than any other idea. period. you can still support Bernie and also support the Freedom Dividend.

[Edited on September 24, 2019 at 8:40 PM. Reason : .]

9/24/2019 8:29:40 PM

He literally said that this is just the more politically acceptable version to remove welfare programs than immediately ripping them out from the root. (He also seemed to have no problem with Rubins description that welfare is bad and does more bad than good)

9/24/2019 8:43:17 PM

The fucking math shows that a poor person gets less aid than a millionaire and that we have to cut the poor person's benefits to give money every month to a rich person

These are all tight leaning libertarian views, why should any progressive want this?

[Edited on September 24, 2019 at 8:46 PM. Reason : .]

9/24/2019 8:44:40 PM

I'm not sure about the VAT... i know it has the same impact in a way as Trump's tariffs, but people will be more resistant to an explicit VAT as a line item on a receipt, than a tariff which is hidden in a cost increase of a good typically.

I prefer a wealth tax.

[Edited on September 25, 2019 at 1:16 AM. Reason : ]

9/25/2019 1:15:41 AM

I prefer this



[Edited on September 25, 2019 at 8:10 AM. Reason : whoops]

9/25/2019 8:09:27 AM

Quote :

" I'm not sure about the VAT"

I wasn't sure about the VAT at first either. I knew it exists in other countries, but didn't understand the reason why it's implemented in almost every other country until Yang started talking about it. It's simply a more efficient way to make sure we get tax revenue evenly from all participants in the economy.

Quote :

"i know it has the same impact in a way as Trump's tariffs"

in what way?

Quote :

"people will be more resistant to an explicit VAT as a line item on a receipt, than a tariff which is hidden in a cost increase of a good typically."

yeah I agree with that. I think it's better to be transparent with the public about taxes rather than hiding them though.

And especially considering that this is a UBI+VAT proposal, I would hope that most Americans would recognize that they are getting much more out of this arrangement than they would be paying in VAT



and btw dtownral re: "a poor person gets less aid than a millionaire"

note that 10th decile. paying much MORE in VAT than they're receiving with the Freedom Dividend. you gotta look at the whole picture.

Quote :

"I prefer a wealth tax."

I like the idea of a wealth tax too, in principle. Warren's wealth tax is pretty reasonable imo and I would have no problem if it were implemented. There is the risk that those who do fall into that category of over 50M will use financial trickery to shield those assets from the wealth tax though, or just renounce US citizenship. Folks with that much wealth are more likely to be operating their businesses and lives on a global scale, so having US citizenship is arguably less essential.


[Edited on September 25, 2019 at 12:30 PM. Reason : MATH]

9/25/2019 12:26:54 PM

ok geppetto

Quote :

"1) On the subject of rents, which is intentionally distinct from home prices, whether he intended that distinction or not: Classic microeconomics does show that individuals have a certain willingness to pay, which essentially reflects one's pain of departing with their money. Stipends, coupons, etc for users do not reduce prices to the consumer. Consumer A is willing to pay $30 for a shirt. JCP marks a $60 shirt 50% off and sells it for $30. Consumer A buys a shirt for $30 still, because that is their WTP, rather than buying a $30 shirt at a lower price of $15. Same applies to BB&B coupons. This has a distinct impact on rents, as can be seen in areas of NYC. Foreign students at both Columbia and NYU tend to get a particular cash assistance to help for renting a place to live. When these payments went into place rents in the area rose by approximately the same price as the allowance. Now I don't believe that all of a sudden rent will go up by $1000/month. The stipend above was relatively small and could easily be consumed by an increase of a few percentage points. But when consumers view the UI payment as 'free money', they will be more willing to hand that over and pay the same out of pocket for rent. Landlords will identify this and prices will rise. While I agree that rent won't absorb all of these, I am not sure how many services will rise to absorb the lift the UI is meant to provide. This should be acknowledged by opponents and proponents alike. You also have more people competing for the same goods and services, which will increase prices as people at the margins of consumption levels move up from one to the other and the top echelon for that tier remain. Mo' competition mo' prices."

I understand what you're saying about willingness to pay, but most people are particularly sensitive to rent affordability vs a $30 tshirt. as for stipends, well yeah if you're given a stipend for a very specific category, you're more likely to be willing to spend in excess of what you might normally on that category, because if you don't you lose the stipend. But because UBI is not limited to specific spending categories, consumers will still choose to spend that income on what is most effective for them. there's no artificial opportunity for sellers to raise prices.

so here's a good analysis on rents in particular

https://medium.com/discourse/would-a-universal-basic-income-cause-a-major-spike-in-rent-prices-50fca12b06ab

Quote :

"In Thomas Picketty’s landmark book, Capital in the 21st century, he analyzes income from all kinds of capital. Picketty observes that real estate has a remarkable stable rate of return. In developed countries as far back as the antiquity, land has nearly always enjoyed a 4–5% annual return. That trend is remarkably durable, and holds true in today’s economy."

but basically your concern boils down to "anything that broadly increases income for Americans, whether UBI or increased wages due to minimum wage or organized labor bargaining, will lead to increased rents". so therefore we should avoid doing anything that increases income. I think we can agree that this is an obviously silly result. Increased incomes for American families is GOOD.

9/25/2019 2:56:58 PM

Quote :

"2. Not everyone spends money efficiently or to serve their best long term interests. Unfortunately, this tends to be the group of people- the undereducated, low socio-economic background, etc- that needs this help the most. Even in my wildest dreams I don't believe that distributing 1K/month would remove homelessness or poverty. An honest conversation about UBI should acknowledge this aspect of human nature or else it is doomed to scarecrow arguments or large disappointment if ever implemented."

this is a talking point for any public benefit.
we shouldn't have 15MW because those people will just waste their increased income
we shouldn't have food stamps because those people will spend it on mountain dew and filet mignon
we shouldn't have public education because those people are too dumb and will never put their education to productive use

it's so easy to look at others and say they're all a bunch of dummies who will fuck things up. the reality is the far far majority of people in this country are just honestly trying to make life work for them and their families. we should put more trust in ourselves and our fellow citizens than we do.

we also don't go around trying to regulate the middle to upper class on what they should spend their money on. somebody making $100k gets a raise and goes out and buys a Mercedes, we don't say "they're wasting their money on luxury cars instead of paying down their student loans or saving that money for their own kid's college fund". If somebody who owns their own business is doing really well and goes out and buys a boat, we don't care. if a hedge fund manager gets a big dividend check from their stock portfolio goes out and buys a $1M painting, we don't care. none of these luxury purchases benefit society very much. we have been conditioned to feel it's appropriate and necessary to scrutinize and regulate the choices of only the struggling disadvantaged and disempowered.

and in the end, if 1%, 5% or even 10% of the population uses this money inefficiently (in somebody's elitist opinion) and the other 90-99% of the population uses it in a way that clearly benefits their lives, then that's still a very strong ROI for our society.


[Edited on September 26, 2019 at 11:23 AM. Reason : . ]

9/25/2019 3:00:04 PM

Quote :

"I'd also like to add a #3, suggesting that UBI may just make the rich richer and marginally move the needle for poorer groups. If you give people money that mostly replaces the benefits they were receiving elsewhere, then it's a net zero benefit (mutatis mutandis). However, if I receive that $1K a month, then you up my consumption some (maybe $300/month) on ways for me as an already affluent individual to enjoy their life even more and also build additional wealth through saving ($700/month). I see two problems there. The first being that while my consumption does do something to help drive demand of the services the lower quartile provide (home cleaning, food service, etc) it's largely just increasing the status of my life but not much to change the day to day nature of those lower groups. The second issue is it builds wealth for me, while getting the lower income groups at net zero. This expands the wealth gap in America, rather than helps to resolve it."

the "rich" will significantly pay into the UBI+VAT system. the lower 94% of Americans will net gain from it.

Quote :

"If you give people money that mostly replaces the benefits they were receiving elsewhere, then it's a net zero benefit "

it's not a net zero benefit at all

Quote :

"- people who receive money from social safety net programs today will receive MORE money without the bullshit that goes along with getting that money - people who receive no money from social safety net programs today but who SHOULD qualify for those programs will receive MORE money - people who don't qualify for social safety net programs but could still sure use the extra money will receive MORE money - people who don't have a traditional job (37% according to the labor participation rate) but are probably spending their time in productive ways (raising children and caretakers perhaps) will receive MORE money"

Quote :

"However, if I receive that $1K a month, then you up my consumption some (maybe $300/month) on ways for me as an already affluent individual to enjoy their life even more and also build additional wealth through saving ($700/month)"

why don't you think you deserve that $700/mo savings? you will surely use it to improve your own life, and it will be put to better use than sitting in Apple, Google, Amazon's or any other fortune 500 bank account or perhaps being used for stock buybacks to drive up stock prices for corporate executives and hedge fund managers to accumulate even money

https://twitter.com/AndrewYang/status/1163967959397818370

Quote :

" The distribution of wealth in America is wildly unequal. We have plenty of resources, but they're not being distributed effectively. The #FreedomDividend will fix that."

The Freedom Dividend will reduce income inequality by 15% on the gini index. What other policy can we implement that more effectively reverses the widening income inequality we've seen over the last 50 years?

[Edited on September 25, 2019 at 3:21 PM. Reason : .]

9/25/2019 3:17:19 PM

His wife AKA future first lady is hot!

9/26/2019 10:51:36 AM

Quote :

"note that 10th decile. paying much MORE in VAT than they're receiving with the Freedom Dividend. you gotta look at the whole picture."

why are you going to the 10th decile?

why does someone who qualifies for benefits receive less of a benefit than someone who doesn't so we can cut a check to rich people?

9/26/2019 11:37:59 AM

the 10th decile is the rich people you're worried about getting $1k. they're paying much more in taxes than they're receiving from the FD

[Edited on September 26, 2019 at 11:44 AM. Reason : i've explained this how many times??]

9/26/2019 11:43:04 AM

i am not only worried about the 10th quartile, no, and none of my posts have implied that

you've stated that benefits have to be cut to fund the dividend, why not instead cut the dividend to people who don't need it?

why does someone who qualifies for benefits receive less of a benefit than someone who doesn't so we can cut a check to rich people?

if you currently receive benefits the freedom dividend is worth maybe a few hundred bucks, but if you are rich its worth $1,000. Why is this fair?

why is it fair to cut benefits of a poor person so you can cut a check for a rich person?

[Edited on September 26, 2019 at 11:51 AM. Reason : .]

9/26/2019 11:49:17 AM

so your progressive values include helping people in a portion of the bottom 10% who manage to qualify for benefits or a 15MW, but denying help to the rest of the 90%

Quote :

" let's do an experiment. you go find a person making $7.25/hr right now getting $300/month in means-tested public benefits. offer them an unconditional $1000 instead. I bet you they'll accept it. Then tell them that you're also going to give $1000 to Bill Gates but he'll also pay an additional $10M in VAT a year. Think they'll suddenly turn down your offer?"

[Edited on September 26, 2019 at 12:47 PM. Reason : .]

9/26/2019 11:52:52 AM

where did i say bottom decile?

friend i've never said top or bottom decile, so i'm not sure why you keep trying to say i do (actually we both know exactly why you are, to twist my argument to fit what you've been told)

answer my questions

let's do an experiment. you go find a person making $7.25/hr right now getting $300/month in means-tested public benefits. offer them an unconditional $1000 instead.

Is it a dickhole move to remove their $300 so you can give bill gates $1000?

[Edited on September 26, 2019 at 11:55 AM. Reason : it is, very dickhole]

9/26/2019 11:54:43 AM

you talk about the rich. what's your definition of rich? I assume they're in the top decile in your mind?

you talk about people who are going to opt-out of public benefits. I assume they're in the bottom decile in your mind?


bill gates is going to be paying millions of dollars in VAT. the $1k FD doesn't mean squat to his bank account.

the universal part of universal basic income is key. the minute we start saying this person gets it and this person doesn't, is when it stops working.

why does public education work? cus everybody gets it. can you imagine if we ONLY let the bottom 10% of children go to school? and they had to prove to a bureaucrat that they needed it? and if the kids got too smart, we would kick them out of school.

[Edited on September 26, 2019 at 11:59 AM. Reason : .]

9/26/2019 11:56:37 AM

no, rich people are way more than the top decile

(lol, thinking rich only means the top decile is such a priveleged belief that this question is chef's kiss)

__

let's do an experiment. you go find a person making $7.25/hr right now getting $300/month in means-tested public benefits. offer them an unconditional $1000 instead.

Is it a dickhole move to remove their $300 so you can give bill gates $1000?

you've stated that benefits have to be cut to fund the dividend, why not instead cut the dividend to people who don't need it?

why does someone who qualifies for benefits receive less of a benefit than someone who doesn't so we can cut a check to rich people?

if you currently receive benefits the freedom dividend is worth maybe a few hundred bucks, but if you are rich its worth $1,000. Why is this fair?

why is it fair to cut benefits of a poor person so you can cut a check for a rich person?

9/26/2019 11:59:08 AM

what's your definition of rich? above what income do you think somebody should no longer qualify for the Freedom Dividend?

[Edited on September 26, 2019 at 12:01 PM. Reason : .]

9/26/2019 12:01:25 PM

I agree with the concept of providing services such as healthcare and education across the board. It's just stupid to give everyone a flat amount of $1000 when everyone has different needs. How about we take the VAT tax and use it to fund other things, like every other country does? Still regressive, but a lot better than the freedom dividend.

9/26/2019 12:04:46 PM

Quote :

"I agree with the concept of providing services such as healthcare and education across the board"

indeed

Quote :

" everyone has different needs"

that's exactly why unconditional money is better. money buys what you need. government programs MIGHT get you what you need

there is tremendous wealth in this country. the best way to even out the inequality is to just give some of that wealth back to the people, and let them figure out what they want to do with it

what is the stock market instead of giving you MONEY as a dividend, gave you credits to buy groceries? no. money is power and freedom. give the people money.

[Edited on September 26, 2019 at 12:11 PM. Reason : .]

9/26/2019 12:09:14 PM

Quote :

"money buys what you need. government programs MIGHT get you what you need"

flatly untrue, as evidenced by our health insurance and prescription drug markets

the market is volatile and cruel by default. basic needs can and should be provided by the government.

9/26/2019 12:13:00 PM

money is a basic need

the market generally works. there are a few (critical) areas where it has not in recent decades. healthcare, education and housing

https://twitter.com/AndrewYang/status/1010662399706267648

Quote :

" Increased citizen purchasing power is not driving unaffordability of healthcare, education, and housing. Those markets are distorted due to principal-agent problems, govt subsidized school loans, zoning regs, etc. My book goes into this. Increased purchasing power will help."

water is a basic need. look at Flint MI.
healthcare is a basic need. look at the VA.

the internet, computers, cell phones have become ubiquitous enough that they're more or less basic needs. should the government take over Verizon and Apple and start providing these services?

both the free market and government are imperfect. let's not kid ourselves. but at least with MONEY, people can make their own choices instead of hoping that government officials won't fuck them over

[Edited on September 26, 2019 at 12:55 PM. Reason : .]

9/26/2019 12:15:28 PM

Quote :

"what's your definition of rich? above what income do you think somebody should no longer qualify for the Freedom Dividend?"

i would defer to more experienced finance experts, but definitely somewhere. perhaps 200% or 400% poverty levels, wherever they would need to be to not cut benefits for the poor.

this is still rough because it's not cost of living adjusted, but at least you're not cutting benefits to write checks to rich people. it would still be a bad system

if you had to define rich it would probably start somewhere in middle class

let's do an experiment. you go find a person making $7.25/hr right now getting $300/month in means-tested public benefits. offer them an unconditional $1000 instead.

Is it a dickhole move to remove their $300 so you can give bill gates $1000?

you've stated that benefits have to be cut to fund the dividend, why not instead cut the dividend to people who don't need it?

why does someone who qualifies for benefits receive less of a benefit than someone who doesn't so we can cut a check to rich people?

if you currently receive benefits the freedom dividend is worth maybe a few hundred bucks, but if you are rich its worth $1,000. Why is this fair?

why is it fair to cut benefits of a poor person so you can cut a check for a rich person?



[Edited on September 26, 2019 at 12:21 PM. Reason : ?]

9/26/2019 12:18:02 PM

The poverty level is $12,490/year. Notice the how the Freedom Dividend provides $12,000/year

400% of poverty level is $49,960. ask anybody making that much if they feel rich. now ask them how their life would be improved if they had an extra unconditional $1000/month in their hands.

[Edited on September 26, 2019 at 12:57 PM. Reason : .]

9/26/2019 12:20:21 PM

^^^
it's a means of obtaining basic needs and it's inferior to having those needs guaranteed to you by the government, which isn't subject to market volatility and manipulation (or wouldn't be in a democratic socialist administration - we all know how much neoliberals and conservatives love austerity measures)

[Edited on September 26, 2019 at 12:21 PM. Reason : .]

9/26/2019 12:21:38 PM

^^are you not responding to my questions because you agree that the freedom dividend should be capped at some income level?

i've answered your questions, you have a long list of questions in this thread you have not answered

[Edited on September 26, 2019 at 12:22 PM. Reason : .]

9/26/2019 12:22:37 PM

i've answered your questions.

[Edited on September 26, 2019 at 12:27 PM. Reason : and i'm done talking to you. you've derailed this thread enough. cheers]

9/26/2019 12:24:06 PM

so then yes, you do agree the freedom dividend should be capped and it's a dickhole move to give bill gates $1000/month so you can stop benefits from someone who needs them

at least i've saved one person from the yang cult, do you want to learn about actually progressive solutions now?

9/26/2019 12:27:00 PM

dtownbiscuit is the ultimate pigeon on a chess board. hes also not a progressive.

next.

9/26/2019 12:45:40 PM

:dab:

9/26/2019 12:58:41 PM

This is why we get bad elected officials. People focus on ONE TOPIC out of a given candidate's plan. A lot of people are going to vote for yang in the primaries based solely on UBI, and a bunch are going to vote against him solely on that idea.

At least quantumfrederick is looking at the whole of yang's proposals. He's just still wrong because Elizabeth Warren is better.

[Edited on September 26, 2019 at 1:41 PM. Reason : also, i just saw a pic of him in dead kennedys shirt. did he think punx wore blazers?]

9/26/2019 1:40:12 PM

Quote :

" He's just still wrong because Elizabeth Warren is better. "

As I've said, I like Warren too, with some reluctance.
And I like Bernie as well, with some reluctance. (his supporters being a nontrivial part of that. they certainly aren't helping dispel the "maga of the left" perception)
And I've also noted some areas that I have reluctance with Yang's stances.
None of them are perfect candidates, but they're all infinitely better than Trump.

https://twitter.com/AndrewYang/status/1107234447081046016

Quote :

"I don’t think people mind that much if you disagree with them as long as you respect their point of view and are open to learning more."

[Edited on September 26, 2019 at 2:40 PM. Reason : looks like a trenchcoat to me? #goth]

9/26/2019 2:37:31 PM

Quote :

" looking at the whole of yang's proposals"

a good point. because Yang's campaign and platform is about a lot more than just UBI

https://www.yang2020.com/policies/

He did an AMA type session on quora today (i hate quora but whatever)

https://www.quora.com/session/Andrew-Yang/1

https://www.quora.com/What-kind-of-education-reform-would-be-most-beneficial-to-the-U-S-right-now/answer/Andrew-Yang

https://www.quora.com/As-President-how-would-you-work-to-repair-the-increasingly-partisan-divide-in-American-politics/answer/Andrew-Yang

https://www.quora.com/What-do-you-think-of-the-two-party-system/answer/Andrew-Yang

https://www.quora.com/Why-should-we-give-every-person-1-000-month-when-different-people-have-different-levels-of-need/answer/Andrew-Yang

https://www.quora.com/How-will-automation-and-AI-change-the-workforce-in-the-future-and-what-can-we-do-to-prepare-for-it/answer/Andrew-Yang

https://www.quora.com/What-role-should-U-S-Government-have-in-Climate-Change-debate/answer/Andrew-Yang

https://www.quora.com/Do-you-think-Ranked-Choice-Voting-is-a-good-idea-Why-or-why-not/answer/Andrew-Yang

https://www.quora.com/What-can-be-done-to-make-voting-easier-for-the-US-population/answer/Andrew-Yang

https://www.quora.com/What-is-your-plan-to-get-government-debt-under-control/answer/Andrew-Yang

https://www.quora.com/Is-American-democracy-in-danger-right-now/answer/Andrew-Yang

https://www.quora.com/Ideologically-would-you-self-identify-as-a-progressive-liberal-moderate-conservative-or-traditionalist/answer/Andrew-Yang

https://www.quora.com/Isnt-UBI-Universal-Basic-Income-just-a-more-inclusive-form-of-welfare-Does-it-still-not-perpetuate-class-differences/answer/Andrew-Yang

https://www.quora.com/Have-you-spoken-to-economists-about-the-pros-and-cons-of-your-proposed-UBI-plan/answer/Andrew-Yang

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-evidence-that-the-Freedom-Dividend-would-have-the-effect-you-intend-it-to/answer/Andrew-Yang

https://www.quora.com/Why-did-you-choose-a-charter-school-over-your-local-public-school/answer/Andrew-Yang

https://www.quora.com/What-would-it-take-for-Andrew-Yang-to-go-to-war/answer/Andrew-Yang

https://www.quora.com/How-important-would-improving-border-security-be-to-a-Yang-administration/answer/Andrew-Yang

https://www.quora.com/What-would-you-say-to-skeptics-who-think-your-Freedom-Dividend-plan-is-unrealistic/answer/Andrew-Yang

https://www.quora.com/What-are-your-major-qualifications-to-be-a-president/answer/Andrew-Yang

https://www.quora.com/Should-we-adopt-a-drug-policy-like-Portugal/answer/Andrew-Yang

9/26/2019 3:15:32 PM

should progressives be concerned that yang doesn't consider himself progressive?

[Edited on September 26, 2019 at 3:28 PM. Reason : his own words]

9/26/2019 3:28:43 PM

^dtownral^

9/26/2019 3:55:59 PM

Okay I've read through the thread and am going to do my best to remember all the points I wanted to tackle and not miss new ones coming in. I will also do my best to keep this somewhat structured and not a wall of text.

Quote :

" I understand what you're saying about willingness to pay, but most people are particularly sensitive to rent affordability vs a $30 tshirt. as for stipends, well yeah if you're given a stipend for a very specific category, you're more likely to be willing to spend in excess of what you might normally on that category, because if you don't you lose the stipend. But because UBI is not limited to specific spending categories, consumers will still choose to spend that income on what is most effective for them. there's no artificial opportunity for sellers to raise prices. ... but basically your concern boils down to "anything that broadly increases income for Americans, whether UBI or increased wages due to minimum wage or organized labor bargaining, will lead to increased rents". so therefore we should avoid doing anything that increases income. I think we can agree that this is an obviously silly result. Increased incomes for American families is GOOD. "

I see what you're saying about specific category and would need to consume that a little bit more, but I think that more points out that stipends/coupons weren't the best example than explains why the costs of goods and services would not rise. When you say that there is no artificial opportunity for sellers to raise prices and increased incomes, regardless if prices, such as rents, would rise is an overall good and would be silly to avoid in the sake of increased prices, I am immediately focused on the word inflation.

Inflation is not an artificial opportunity to raise prices. Inflation comes from an increased demand from goods and services- read more money generating demand for goods and services which has been a model on which we have operated for economic stimulus for ages and is a generally accepted part of economic theory. What I take away from this is that extra income will provide pressure on goods and service as an inflationary source. Likewise, inflation is an example of where I don't believe that increased incomes are always good. At the micro level, do I believe people deserve wage growth, yes. At the macro level, I believe it should happen to each individual, but not on one fell swoop because those factors drive inflation. With inflation, incomes do go up but so do costs and the breakeven is hard to ascertain.

Really what I'm looking for here would be why would prices not rise and if they did how we'd measure a positive net gain to consumers despite inflation.

9/26/2019 4:48:09 PM

Quote :

" it's so easy to look at others and say they're all a bunch of dummies who will fuck things up. the reality is the far far majority of people in this country are just honestly trying to make life work for them and their families. ... we also don't go around trying to regulate the middle to upper class on what they should spend their money on."

I disagree with the first part of your statement. It's not easy to look at people and see how they'd spend their money in a way that keeps themselves in poverty. It's pretty painful actually, which is why I tend to advocate for programs, system, and of course education that can counteract those effects. I also wouldn't suggest that these people are dumb; it's often ignorance. People from affluent families tend to know better than those raised in economically constrained families how to build wealth. That isn't to suggest they are all great with their money- they absolutely are not- but as they come from backgrounds with means and tend to land in roles that give them access to means they do tend to have more wiggle room with their spending. This means they can often times spend a strong ratio of their income but still be able to afford wealth building assets, such as a house and invest in a 401K.

Those who come from less affluent families tend to know more about consumption based economics rather than wealth based. Again, not because their dumb or whatever other pejorative people tend to attach, but, rather, because when means you have are limited and thus need to be consumed by basic goods and services, then you don't have excess to spend on wealth, so your economics remain around consumption.

I'd also like to point out that we know individuals with lower incomes build less wealth and spend greater percentages of their income (read the inverse being save at a lower rate). Now one might say, okay but once they have more money, then they can save a little. Do I think it will happen, yes it will for some. But I really think that 1) not sure if $1K a month would be enough to reach that mark since people really start saving after basic needs + basic desires are met and 2) the time horizon for that to happen would be incredibly long for those who weren't from families who were accustomed to building wealth and have not been surrounded by social influences who are also familiar and promote those things.

I also agree that people don't try to regulate how wealthy people spend their money. Is it fair, no, is it somewhat paternalistic, yeah, but is it wrong, not entirely. I'd say that because as stated earlier wealthy people tend to have more flexible income, affluent social circles, and other measures of wealth. The general sense is that they managing their money won't have an adverse effect on their overall ability to meet the basics. Even if they lose their job, they have other areas of support like mentioned earlier. It's the difference between being poor vs. just being broke.

9/26/2019 4:48:34 PM

Quote :

" the "rich" will significantly pay into the UBI+VAT system. the lower 94% of Americans will net gain from it. ... it's not a net zero benefit at all ... why don't you think you deserve that $700/mo savings? "

I see your notes from how UBI less benefits will net out for people, so I can agree that it would not be a net zero benefit from entitlements, but I do still have some questions around increase in prices. So any information about the adjusted for inflation and benefits net gain would be helpful. You've addressed benefits several times, so just inflation points would be needed.

Also to keep my VAT questions and response as ordered as possible I'll jump to me saving. I'm not saying I don't deserve $700 in savings. I'm saying there are other people out there who deserve or need it more than I do. The way I view it is there is a large pot of money (program funding) for social benefit. Every dollar I take out of is less money that someone who has less wealth or standard of living can receive. My position is if we're looking to help those who most need it, then the pot should all be directed there. My subpoint is that if I, and other people living comfortably, save that income, then the intended spending doesn't roll back into the VAT but what poor people pay for necessities and living does.

That said, I do have a question about how do the rich pay into the UBI + VAT system. Does this assume an increase in spending by the rich, because if so, then I'm curious if that is being excluded from the analysis on how lower economic groups would spend their money. Or is this based on existing consumption from affluent groups, in which case would we describe VAT as a light-impacting-broader-reaching version of the wealth tax? This isn't an contrarian leader for me as much as it is for general understanding. In general I need to understand VAT more because the benefit to the consumer escapes me. I know it is in place in other countries and would fund the UBI, but I'm struggling to understand, in concrete terms, how this is more than just a tax on everyone and how it would actually fund UBI.

From what I know, businesses are taxed at purchase of their materials, but since consumers pay the final product (sum of all materials + margins from each stop in the chain) it seems to me that consumers pay the majority of the tax. Looking at a 10% VAT, Company A charges $5 to company B for a product, but the total price is $5.50 due to the tax, with 0.50 going to the government. Then I want to buy the B's product and they charge me $10 to make a 50% margin (not uncommon), so now pay $1 in tax. As a consumer I have just paid 2x the tax as the company, so I'm unclear how that is a boon for individuals of all classes. I'm admittedly ignorant on the VAT, so happy to learn here. I'm also curious on how it would actually fund UBI if wealthy individuals save the extra and only a percentage of the population spends it. I'm additionally concerned that the population spending their money would be that which needs the additional savings.

9/26/2019 4:49:09 PM

I also now see that I missed that AMA, which probably could have helped addressed some of ^,^^,^^^. @qntmfred if you see an AMA that directly addresses it, no need to type something new. You can just copy pasta the link under my quote, so I know which is which.

kkthnx

9/26/2019 4:50:40 PM