What do you think of Democratic Presidential candidate Andrew Yang and his policy to create a $1,000 a month ubi for every US citizen? According to him it would be money from big tech and the companies he has spoken with are open to it.


Original Post

According to his web site, money would come from a VAT, in part to punish “large corporations who are experts at hiding profit”. Also more tax on “top earners”. 

Im not a fan of handouts, especially when it’s taken from other individuals and companies under the assumption that all wealthy people and successful companies are evil. I’d rather see barriers removed from people attaining success and pulling themselves up, as well as rewards for those who help others. I’m not an economist or financial guru so I’m not going to get into discussions about it that I’m not well learned in. Just stating my opinion.

Closing many of the corporate tax loopholes is good, regardless of what we do with the money; paying down the deficit, investing in public education, reducing greenhouse gases, etc.

The 10% VAT with a $1k/month UBI is an interesting proposal. Assuming the VAT doesn’t apply to real estate, the consequence of the propsal is that a household would generally need to be making well over $300k / [person over 18] in order not to do better under the proposal.  (It would get a little regressive within the top 1% as households with $1m/year incomes tend to spend more of their money than households with $10+m/year incomes.)  The plan could also contribute to making college more affordable. 

I’m not certain the math holds up and that the overall plan isn’t likely to increase our deficit. Nor am I certain this is the best way to go about tackling wealth inequality and the strains on the working classes in the country. But it isn’t crazy. 

Last edited by winetarelli

The theory is sound.

You'd have to work over 50000 years at making 1 million dollars a year with no taxes to even come close to catching up to the wealth in being the top 100 richest in america

That's dynastic wealth and there have been many many many studies/research into why dynastic wealth doesn't allow for a "lower barrier of entry" as you're suggesting Bill.

Even Adam Smith writes about rent seeking and how the wealthy will start going towards such practices to maintain their wealth by working as little as possible.  It's why he wrote a second book about Morals of wealth.

But more importantly, one should appropriately ask, are we working towards the betterment of society, or are we simply working because it's something to keep people busy or are we working because we have been enslaved to a particular system where if we want to survive, we have to work due to policies of a small group of people.

Keynes talks about how it would ahve been great if full automation happens and that if we only had to work 10% of the day and still offer the same productivity, people will live more fruitful and happier lives.

There's obviously alot of economic schools of thought and plenty of well written ideas around the subject, as such my opinion is that UBI is a good thing.  I'd much rather those who can't, go back to school to learn, than work dead end jobs then to simply ask the government to pay those dead end jobs more money.  I'm not a believer when folks say "Janitor is a noble profession".  Working hard to move forward in society and improve society is a noble profession.  Working hard becuase you want your kids to be smarter and not be a janitor is a noble profession.  Being stuck at being a janitor for no other reason except you want to be a janitor is not noble.  People seem to conflate many of those ideas and boil it down to 1 step talking points, which this shouldn't be.  The UBI in my opinion is the first step in allowing those who are forced to be Janitors, (language barriers, skill barriers, etc) go back to school without having to worry about certain survival basics that shouldnt really occur in one of the richest countries in the world.  What's the point of being an American citizen, if the American government won't take care of you?  (The low taxes might be valid though hah)

My way of paying for it though, would be a wealth tax on those who hoard wealth at the very top.  If you flattened out the wealth inequality to say that the top 3 men of America doesn't own more than 50% of all wealth in this country, you could pay for UBI and move to a flat tax that people like to talk about. I would decimate dynastic wealth in this country.  You want to be super wealthy?  You work much harder for it.   For everyone else, it should be, work hard, retire easily without having to find another job just to support yourself.

Last edited by g-man

My worry is the trillions in debt that keeps piling up.  Our debt payments are greater than the defense budget.  Always have loved a VAT.  We must find a way to guarantee that all corporations pay an adequate amount of tax.  No more allowing losses to be carried forward so you don't pay tax.  Live year to year.

The salaries of CEO's should be set back.  Don't believe any CEO is worth 50 Million a year or more, and then provide a golden parachute worth $200 million more. 

Some of these rich folks have more more than many 3rd world countries.

I'm not a socialist, but there needs to be some equity in the business world, and also be able to finance the government

Need a balanced budget amendment.  If you want to spend, need to raise taxes.

Yang might be the one to do it, but has no other skills in govt.

billhike posted:

“Skills in government” is clearly not a requirement of the job.

The current guy has no skills at all.

Add Reply

Link copied to your clipboard.