Yang explains his UBI plan to TYT
September 23, 2019 at 9:21 AM - Views: 78 #159699
September 24, 2019 at 12:40 AM #160547
September 24, 2019 at 6:46 AM #160800
Cenk said something about the VAT but I didn’t hear Yang say anything about it. I’m surmising that instituting a VAT is an accompaniment to UBI & that would be a tax on every step of the commodity chain; a further reduction of the value of UBI.
Also, he said ‘cash or cash-like benefits,’ but only talked about food stamps and heating oil. SSI, SSD, and SS are all cash programs, where you get a check. Nothing about Medicaid or Medicare either.
Then Cenk gives the seal of approval, saying how Yang answered the question straightforwardly. Not my questions, he didn’t.
September 27, 2019 at 12:01 AM #164412
I’m for Bernie but I am with Yang on the UBI. I wish that Bernie would come out for it. I think that this is something that we need right now and would help many Americans tremendously, especially those in poverty. I also think that we may have no choice to adopt a UBI in the future with automation.
September 27, 2019 at 12:41 AM #164429djean111Participant
- Total Posts: 5,020
The UBI is great for those who don’t need the money. But anyone getting any government assistance has to choose between the UBI and the assistance. In addition, this is paid for by a VAT, which is a regressive tax, and also the taxes on each stage of a product will most certainly be passed on to consumers. It is sort of a cruel thing, IMO.
September 27, 2019 at 2:57 AM #164579
I will admit a VAT Tax is not the way that I would pay for it. However, I think that we are going to have to implement a UBI at some point because of automation taking the jobs, at least he is bringing attention to the issue, and I think that regardless of how it is paid for, it would help those at the lower end, or even most of us who are not wealthy for that matter. However, I do agree with you in that I don’t like paying for it with a VAT tax.
I am honestly not sure how I feel about having people choose between welfare benefits and a UBI(as Yang is proposing), or maybe even replacing some welfare programs with the UBI(I am not in favor of eliminating things like universal healthcare, Medicare/Medicaid, social security, and public education, which those on the left who favor a UBI are not advocating for), as long as the UBI is equal to or greater than the benefits/cash those currently on these programs receive, especially if it is enough to cover basic needs,(and I do think that $1,000/month is actually greater than what most government assistance programs pay out, not to mention they receive the money with no strings attached/being told what they have to spend the money on, and they would be guaranteed the money without having to meet some threshold and prove eligibility, unlike most current programs)I also think that receiving $ through a UBI would come with a lot less social stigma, and would be more efficient/easier to administer than some programs, and simpler, as well as more popular with the public overall because the benefits would be universal. I believe there was a poll conducted by those who are currently on welfare as to whether or not they would choose the $1,000/month from the UBI or the benefits they currently receive, and most choose the UBI.
However, with that being said, I do agree that if someone on the right was implementing a UBI, I would worry that they would be using this as an opportunity for cutting benefits to the poor overall(and also programs like Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid), and/or seeing it as a panacea/putting all eggs into one basket for solving poverty.
Ideally, I would pay for a UBI through a social dividend, and/or sovereign wealth fund.
September 27, 2019 at 3:19 AM #164582
automation won’t be taking jobs when the cost of labor is lower than the cost of labor-saving automation. and right now the cost of labor is lower than it was 40 years ago (minimum wage).
$1000/mo is #12K a year. Divided by 52 weeks in a year that’s $230 a week, $5.70/hour assuming a 40 hour week, so if you were working for it, it would be lower than minimum wage.
People who are already getting benefits get the $1000 OR their benefits, not both. So at most, it would give those people a few extra $100. People who are working get the $1000 AND their work salaries. Bill Gates gets whatever he makes every month, AND $1000.
That means everybody EXCEPT the poor get the extra $1000. That means basically the economy inflates by $1000, leaving the poor comparatively poorer than before.
Then a VAT is put in place to pay for it, which means extra taxes on everything you buy, which is a cut right off the top of that $1000. The top 20% isn’t touched, cause they don’t spend all their money, but the bottom 80% is.
So basically you got the poor and middle class paying for the $1000 while the top 20% & the rich slide for the most part. Which is exactly why the tax dodgers have been pushing VAT internationally, as well as here.
It’s a trojan horse to destroy what’s left of the welfare state & it doesn’t do dick for the poor, or the middle.
And Yang has been very cagey about how it will affect Social Security, Social Security Disability, and SSI. Which generally DO pay around $1000 or more, and are whats keeping a good chunk of the population from sleeping on the streets.
It doesn’t decrease inequality whatsoever, and its inequality thats the problem, not lack of $$ per se. There are people working full-time right now living in their cars, because the concentration of wealth in this country and internationally means that the rich can buy and bid up real estate to achieve quasi-monopoly power. That’s what happened after the last crash, and done by big players like Berkshire-Hathaway. Even in my small town I can see the huge increase in properties held by owners outside the area. Even in this small town, renting will cost you close to $1000 if you prefer to live with functional utilities and without dry rot.
September 27, 2019 at 3:26 AM #164583
The way to solve inequality is through progressive taxation as well as structural changes in the economy. Almost all of the experts, left or right, say that automation is going to be a huge problem in the future if we don’t adapt and come up with some solution for those whose jobs are going to be replaced by machines or eliminated.
I am not for Yang, I am for Bernie anyway, I do have my issues and areas of disagreements with Yang, I was just saying I wish that Bernie would adopt a UBI. (I also think that calling Yang a libertarian or a right wing trojan horse is a bit of a stretch, despite my own problems with him and thinking that Bernie is just a way better candidate in general, especially considering some of the other policies that Yang does support and stances he takes on the issues)
September 27, 2019 at 3:32 AM #164585
The “experts” are the same people who tanked the economy, that got us into 400 wars, that keep ramming plastic throw-away shit down our throats for a profit, that decided health care was their next profit center because desperate people will go broke to save their lives, how hard it this to understand?
I learned it in economics before economics went Friedman: Capital doesn’t automate unless labor gets expensive enough that early entrants can get a jump on their competition via automating.
Production labor today is cheaper than it was 40 years ago. I don’t give a damn what the ‘experts’ say on the Propaganda Channel. Shit, uber drivers are making less than minimum wage now — but yeah, self-driving cars are right around the corner.
Why would Capital give people a basic income when they can just let them die (and ‘decrease the surplus population,’ as some keep insisting is necessary)? They aren’t going to do shit that would help anyone but themselves.
Yang and all his Silly Valley pals can bite me.
September 27, 2019 at 4:46 AM #164648
I am not saying that robots are going to take all of the jobs and over the world in some kind of a dystopian future, or that this problem is going to happen soon, just that technology is going to eliminate a lot of jobs and that the economy is going to go through a massive change where many low-skilled jobs are going to be replaced with high skilled jobs with different skill sets, and I am not sure if many of those currently working in these lower skilled jobs are going to be able to adapt and change careers.
Also, regardless of the technology replacing the jobs problem, wouldn’t a UBI improve life for the poor, or even the average person who is not wealthy in many ways? It would provide economic security and stability for many, and might also allow many to do the kind of work or jobs that they actually want to do instead of being forced to take a job they hate. In addition, if a UBI is funded in a progressive way(which I will admit Yang’s proposal is not) it would go a long way towards solving the wealth inequality problem, even if the wealthy were receiving the benefits as well.
I do like Dean Baker, I have read some of his stuff and he was one of the few who predicted the great recession. I did see an article where he does think that a UBI would be a good idea someday, but not right now because he thinks that there are other problems to focus on and not because we he thinks we are losing jobs. However, most left wing economists (or even most economists in general that I have heard of) seem to favor one and that technology at the very least is going to cause some major changes in the job market.
I also remember an article where he said that a government job guarantee isn’t realistic, practical, or economically sound, which many progressives support. I will admit that I am skeptical of a government job guarantee myself(which is not to be confused with economic stimulus or government jobs programs an economic downturn, which I wholeheartedly support). I also think that it would essentially be wage-slavery or workfare, and favor a UBI instead.
September 27, 2019 at 3:49 AM #164588
Here’s one ‘expert’ with a different opinion:
Yet Another New York Times Column Gets the Story on Automation and Inequality Completely Wrong
“(I)t’s hard not to be upset over yet another column telling us that the robots are taking all the jobs and that this will lead to massive inequality.
The first part is more than a little annoying just because it is so completely and unambiguously at odds with reality. Productivity growth, which is the measure of the rate at which robots and other technologies are taking jobs, has been extremely slow in recent years. It has averaged just 1.3 percent annually since 2005. That compares to an annual rate of 3.0 percent from 1995 to 2005 and in the long Golden Age from 1947 to 1973.
In addition, all the official projections from places like the Congressional Budget Office and Social Security Administration assume that productivity growth will remain slow. That could prove wrong, but the people projecting a massive pick up of productivity growth are certainly against the tide here.
But the other part of the story is even more annoying. No, technology does not generate inequality. Our policy on technology generates inequality.…Maybe one day the New York Times will allow a columnist to state this obvious truth in its opinion section.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.