[vtsnowedin]

And you never, ever sleep!

I have insomnia so they will never know if I'm asleep or waiting for them.
It is a side issue as I just do not think you can buy off the poor into behaving lawfully with an unearned benefit. So $1000 a month in insurance would provide no security while impoverishing the tax paying class.

[Newfie]

I believe Everyone here supporting it is assuming that all those other benefits go away. If they don’t then It’s a totally different proposal and the support goes away.

So if your assuming it’s in addition to what is existing, yeah then it’s a non starter. But from what was described above that is not what Yang is proposing.

[vtsnowedin]

One problem with that is people already receiving welfare are getting more then a $1000 a month now.

The combination of food and cash assistance comprise the total monthly benefit amount, which is determined by the applicant's location. A single-parent family of four in Texas with no resources or income would receive a total of $980 per month. Alaska pays the highest percentage of the federal poverty line, at 50 percent, and a family of four could receive up to $1,025 per month in cash assistance alone.

https://www.sapling.com/8590871/much-fa ... ve-welfare
Then add in that that same family qualifies for housing assistance and medicare and all of these will not choose to get off the programs they are on. They are poor not stupid.

[careinke]

One problem with that is people already receiving welfare are getting more then a $1000 a month now.

The combination of food and cash assistance comprise the total monthly benefit amount, which is determined by the applicant's location. A single-parent family of four in Texas with no resources or income would receive a total of $980 per month. Alaska pays the highest percentage of the federal poverty line, at 50 percent, and a family of four could receive up to $1,025 per month in cash assistance alone.

https://www.sapling.com/8590871/much-fa ... ve-welfare
Then add in that that same family qualifies for housing assistance and medicare and all of these will not choose to get off the programs they are on. They are poor not stupid.

Your right, poor people are not stupid. On Yangs plan, you have to opt in. Obviously, if you took more in than a grand a month in welfare you would not opt in. According to Yang, this is about 30 percent of recipients. On the flip side, you get to eliminate 70 percent of the rest of welfare recipients including the administration costs. I would be willing to bet it would cost us less than the current system.

[vtsnowedin]

No you do not eliminate 70 percent of recipients just bump them up from what they receive now to $1000 each costing more not less. Also you have millions that receive nothing now but would get $1000 a month which would quickly raise the cost of living by $1000 a month as Tanada points out.
It is a totally unworkable plan that would be a disaster for the country.
Next applicant please.

[Ibon]

And you never, ever sleep!

I have insomnia so they will never know if I'm asleep or waiting for them.
It is a side issue as I just do not think you can buy off the poor into behaving lawfully with an unearned benefit. So $1000 a month in insurance would provide no security while impoverishing the tax paying class.

An ounce of prevention is worth the 10 lbs of your AK47

[vtsnowedin]

And you never, ever sleep!

I have insomnia so they will never know if I'm asleep or waiting for them.
It is a side issue as I just do not think you can buy off the poor into behaving lawfully with an unearned benefit. So $1000 a month in insurance would provide no security while impoverishing the tax paying class.

An ounce of prevention is worth the 10 lbs of your AK47

I don't even have an AK-47 but have several other options. But we are not talking about an once of prevention but trillions in public spending that will still not prevent crimes committed in the pursuit of drugs.
The fact that it would eventually bankrupt the country (look at the national debt to see how close we already are) and place all of us on the street living hand to mouth and at the mercy of foreign adversaries should place a deep chill on the idea.

[yellowcanoe]

A Universal Basic Income has actually been supported by conservatives who see it as a cheaper, more effective solution than the hodge podge of benefit programs and tax credits that currently exist. In a society where a significant percentage of people are well educated and have good jobs there is really no reason not to provide a reasonable income to those of lesser ability. However, the US now appears to have a large and growing share of minimum wage earners and good jobs can be elusive, even for those who have a good education. The US also has a large influx of uninvited asylum seekers every year. Therefore, I think it would be very challenging to find the funds required for such a program.

[Outcast_Searcher]

And you never, ever sleep!

I have insomnia so they will never know if I'm asleep or waiting for them.
It is a side issue as I just do not think you can buy off the poor into behaving lawfully with an unearned benefit. So $1000 a month in insurance would provide no security while impoverishing the tax paying class.

In my city, to rent a decent apartment costs close enough to $1000, it's not worth arguing about. If you want one in a bad neighborhood, you can go more like $750. (And real estate is rather cheap here, as cities go, even for red states). I'm not seeing a family living well (OR AT ALL) on $1000 a month, so NO QUESTION, the left won't put up with removing a meaningful amount of the existing social "safety net" programs.

So it's a joke. An empty campaign slogan re wealth redistribution, a VERY frequent refrain from left wing presidential candidates this time around.

Funny, if we really need far more income, why not just ADMIT it, institute much higher income taxes, and get on with business?

Oh yes, people don't want to PAY for their goodies, not even the upper middle class, and getting elected is "a thing". So only promising magic and attacking someone ELSE'S income flies.

I suppose with this idea, since you're attacking the poor the hardest via a highly regressive VAT, one can assume the poor may be too ignorant/uneducated to realize it, and just grabbing hard for that "extra" income. But what happens after the reality bites after implementation? Blame the GOP?

[vtsnowedin]

Let's look at the numbers a bit.
Yang's proposal is to give $1000/ month to every American that is over 18 and is not already receiving that or more. Well the US population is 329 million and growing but 74 million are under 18 and 63 million are drawing social security with an average benefit of $1400 a month. Lets count them all as non participants because those that are below $1000 are often getting housing subsidies and or food stamps. So that leaves us with 192 million but a percentage of them are already on welfare. I found it hard to find a number of just adults between 18 and 65 on welfare but 21 percent of all Americans are drawing and family sizes of welfare families are said to be the same as non recipients so 79 percent of 192 rounds to 150 million adults that would get the new UBI benefit.
150,000,000 X 1000 X 12 months = $1,800,000,000 per year . That is 1.8 trillion on top of the one trillion a year we are already spending.
Cant be done.

[vtsnowedin]

I'm not seeing a family living well (OR AT ALL) on $1000 a month, so NO QUESTION, the left won't put up with removing a meaningful amount of the existing social "safety net" programs.

Perhaps you missed that each adult gets $1000 so a couple with a eighteen+ year old at home or in school would get $3000/ month. That is equivalent of one of them earning $17.04 an hour on a full time job.
The rest of your comment I heartily agree with.

[Outcast_Searcher]

Let's look at the numbers a bit.
Yang's proposal is to give $1000/ month to every American that is over 18 and is not already receiving that or more. Well the US population is 329 million and growing but 74 million are under 18 and 63 million are drawing social security with an average benefit of $1400 a month. Lets count them all as non participants because those that are below $1000 are often getting housing subsidies and or food stamps. So that leaves us with 192 million but a percentage of them are already on welfare. I found it hard to find a number of just adults between 18 and 65 on welfare but 21 percent of all Americans are drawing and family sizes of welfare families are said to be the same as non recipients so 79 percent of 192 rounds to 150 million adults that would get the new UBI benefit.
150,000,000 X 1000 X 12 months = $1,800,000,000 per year . That is 1.8 trillion on top of the one trillion a year we are already spending.
Cant be done.

And it certainly sounds arbitrary re those rules, and likely to piss lots of voters off. So if you're a poor retiree making $1100 of SS income and have plenty of medical bills (Medicare eats part of the SS check, and Medicare doesn't pay for everything -- not even close), you get nothing as I understand this.

But if you're working and make $20,000 or $50,000 or $100,000 or are a billionaire many times over, you get this benefit (as I understand the program -- tell me if I'm wrong).

So in what universe is that REMOTELY fair or reasonable.

If they're going to do that and not means test it, I predict the world's largest (virtual) fist fight over that in the election and the polls, based just on peoples' sense of fairness.

I understand the desire to not lard this on top of all the other welfare programs, but not means testing this to SOME moderate level of income just seems like sheer madness to me.

Or again, am I missing something re the benefits being given to rich people?

[vtsnowedin]

Or again, am I missing something re the benefits being given to rich people?

Well the rich having more discretionary income will of course pay more VAT tax then the poor will but it would take a lot of spending to have say a 10 percent VAT wipe out your $1000 each month so you could count on income taxes being raised a lot on anyone making over say $25/hour.
Not to worry, Yang made the mistake of telling the truth about how he favored this approach and the voters will show him the door the first chance they get.

[Newfie]

I personally wasn’t arguing Yangs exact proposal, just that it a concept with some promise. It probably needs a lot of work to make it work. And it would have to get rid of a lot of existing government programs.

The math is going to be complex. If you get rid of the programs, you get rid of the salary and other overhead to pay for program administration. OTOH you out a lot of government workers out of work and as a minimum additional folks drawing in the minimum income.

There is another issue that needs to be addressed which I have heard called “the last dollar tax.” The concept is that if you make below some firm value you qualify for some form of assistance. For sake of demonstration let’s say the cut off is $15,000 income to receive a $8,000 benefit. Once you make $15,001 you loose the $8,000 benefit. So the effective tax, using the word loosely, on that “last dollar” is $8,000. Obviously this is a strong disincentive to working more hours or even taking a better job. There are various ways these traps manifest.

I guess my main point is that it is easy to find fault with any proposal put forward. And the guy making the proposal needs to have rhino skin. It’s much more interesting and rewarding and difficult to take some proposal and see if there is a way that it can be improved and made meaningful and acceptable.

[Plantagenet]

There is another issue that needs to be addressed which I have heard called “the last dollar tax.” The concept is that if you make below some firm value you qualify for some form of assistance. For sake of demonstration let’s say the cut off is $15,000 income to receive a $8,000 benefit. Once you make $15,001 you loose the $8,000 benefit. So the effective tax, using the word loosely, on that “last dollar” is $8,000. Obviously this is a strong disincentive to working more hours or even taking a better job. There are various ways these traps manifest.
.

Yup. You are 100% right.

Studies show that existing welfare programs have tended to destroy stable families in the black community. Once people get on welfare they tend to stay on welfare because if they start working they lose benefits. Similarly, people tend not to marry because they lose benefits if there is a married spouse with a job or even someone who is able-bodied but not working.

A UBI program removes all the disincentives to work. When someone receives UBI and then gets a job, everything they earn is gravy. The better the job they get, the more they earn on top of the UBI payments. The idiotic disincentives to work built into current welfare programs just go away.

Cheers!

[vtsnowedin]

There is another issue that needs to be addressed which I have heard called “the last dollar tax.” The concept is that if you make below some firm value you qualify for some form of assistance. For sake of demonstration let’s say the cut off is $15,000 income to receive a $8,000 benefit. Once you make $15,001 you loose the $8,000 benefit. So the effective tax, using the word loosely, on that “last dollar” is $8,000. Obviously this is a strong disincentive to working more hours or even taking a better job. There are various ways these traps manifest.
.

Yup. You are 100% right.

Studies show that existing welfare programs have tended to destroy stable families in the black community. Once people get on welfare they tend to stay on welfare because if they start working they lose benefits. Similarly, people tend not to marry because they lose benefits if there is a married spouse with a job or even someone who is able-bodied but not working.

A UBI program removes all the disincentives to work. When someone receives UBI and then gets a job, everything they earn is gravy. The better the job they get, the more they earn on top of the UBI payments. The idiotic disincentives to work built into current welfare programs just go away.

Cheers!

Excellent point. I have a real life example. I as an social recipient that has not reached full retirement age. In my case 66 years and two months, have an earnings limit before they start taking away my benefits to the tune of one dollar for every two dollars I make over the limit. for 2020 that limit is $18,240 So after I reach that limit it is in effect a fifty percent tax on my income plus all my income is fully taxable on both federal and state rates. Bottom line is anything I make over $18,240 is taxed at better then 60 percent or better. Needless to say if my employer calls me and has work for me this summer I will just divide my hourly rate into $18,240 and tell them that is how many hours I can work for them.

But rather then install a new program with exorbitant cost why don't we just change the rules that discourage work for those willing and able to do it?

[careinke]

Let's look at the numbers a bit.
Yang's proposal is to give $1000/ month to every American that is over 18 and is not already receiving that or more. Well the US population is 329 million and growing but 74 million are under 18 and 63 million are drawing social security with an average benefit of $1400 a month. Lets count them all as non participants because those that are below $1000 are often getting housing subsidies and or food stamps. So that leaves us with 192 million but a percentage of them are already on welfare. I found it hard to find a number of just adults between 18 and 65 on welfare but 21 percent of all Americans are drawing and family sizes of welfare families are said to be the same as non recipients so 79 percent of 192 rounds to 150 million adults that would get the new UBI benefit.
150,000,000 X 1000 X 12 months = $1,800,000,000 per year . That is 1.8 trillion on top of the one trillion a year we are already spending.
Cant be done.

Nice to see someone analyzing the numbers. I do have some clarifications to update your numbers:

First, SS payments are not welfare, and will not be affected by this proposal. Yang estimates the population size for the "dividend" would be 230 million. So total cost of the program will be $2.3 Trillion not $1.8 trillion.

Second, his proposal would be completely funded, by the VAT. So basically a stand alone, single purpose tax. Pretty simple, the money comes in from the VAT and then gets sent out to the citizens who have opted in. Basically a net zero sum game as far as other government programs, with the exception of some lower payments on the welfare roles.

Third, after a quick Google, Govt spending was $3.8 trillion in 2017, ($12,000 per person, including children). So I believe your $1.8 trillion number is incorrect.

Some other points addressing yours, and others comments.

Say I'm a person currently drawing $1,000.00 per month in various aid programs. To get that money, I have to fill out applications, meet with case workers every month taking time and resources out of my life. The money I receive, is earmarked and can only be spent on certain items or for certain things. I am working and looking for a better job so hopefully I won't need the assistance anymore.

Now my case worker tells me I can get $1,000.00 per month for the rest of my life, no questions asked, to spend as I want. As a matter of fact, this could be the last time we have to meet. All, I have to do is opt into the "Freedom Dividend" and give up my $1,000 in Aid benefits. What would your choice be??? Yang claims 70% get less than $1,000.00 per month.

Single parent families are at historic highs, in part because our aid programs encourage it financially. What if it was more economically profitable to remain a two parent family, or even multigenerational family?

We already have a minimum wage so that is not really an issue, although it may need some adjustment.

As far as price controls, I lived through the Nixon ones, they didn't work out so well (although it gave me my first interest in economics).

Yes the tax is regressive, especially if you assume the companies will just pass the costs down to the consumer, (a reasonable assumption). However, due to the dividend, the lower income people still come out ahead, especially those who make just enough money not to qualify for welfare. The rich will pay way, way, way, more than they get from the "Freedom dividend" without being able to get around paying it.

The Alaskan "dividend" is very popular in a RED state. It comes from Oil mining in the state. Does everybody here believe the oil companies just eat the costs, or do they pass them downstream like every other company?

The "Freedom Dividend" will not have any stigma attached to getting it, since everyone gets it, and it doesn't matter what you spend it on. I have seen papers showing in a lot of cases the most effective way to give aid is just direct payments to individuals and let them figure out how to use it. The same principle would probably apply here.

The "Freedom Dividend" is obviously not an income replacement, at $700 less a year than the poverty rate.

It will help flatten, (a little), the income differential between the rich and the poor by raising up the poor.

Now would be a great time to try it, with the unemployment rate at a 50 year low, and wages rising faster than inflation, I don't see companies trying to cut salaries if implemented.

Finally, (for now), as an Anarcho Capitalist, I find wealth redistribution like this rather distasteful. In my dream world, this would not be needed, but neither would the FED, taxes,and 99% of government.

As a realest looking at the wave of AI, Automation, self driving vehicles, etc. a LOT of jobs are going away, sooner than most expect. I think this could help in the transition.

[vtsnowedin]

Remember there are huge differences between what candidates propose and what gets through Congress and signed into law.
That my social security check will go up $1000 per month plus another $1000 for my wife's UBI is something I will believe after the checks clear.
Then you have the Total funding by the VAT question. A quick Google nets this.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has estimated that a 5 percent VAT on a broad tax base would raise about $300 billion per year, so a 10 percent VAT would likely raise somewhere in the range of $600 billion per year – less than Yang's $800 billion claim and only enough to cover about one-fifth of the total cost of

https://www.crfb.org/blogs/would-10-vat ... -month-ubi
The article also notes that the average VAT in Europe is 21 percent.
So as a middle income tax payer I expect that the Vat tax at whatever rate they would set it at plus the increases in income tax rates which will be needed to cover the shortfall of the VAT will eat up every dollar of my $1000/m and then some.

[vtsnowedin]

Carinki wrote:

Third, after a quick Google, Govt spending was $3.8 trillion in 2017, ($12,000 per person, including children). So I believe your $1.8 trillion number is incorrect.

That 3.8 trillion (actual 2017-- 4.147T ) is the total federal budget including defense highways and farm payments etc. The total of Federal and State and local welfare programs is the one trillion figure I used and my estimate of 1.8 trillion is how much that budget would have to increase under Yang's proposal. You would then have a six trillion Federal budget before Congress gets around to Medicare for all.

[Newfie]

VT,

Re: your SS reduction. I’m not 100% sure, but close, that you don’t “loose” that money. Your future post full age allotment will be adjusted upward so that when you reach the statistical average age of death you will have been reimbursed. If you live shorter you loose, longer you gain.