Andrew Yang (Former 2020 Presidential Candidate): What's his future? #YangGang :lupe:

[Shogun]

It would be interesting to see how much he would fair if the primary field wasn't so loaded.

Honestly, I dont think its loaded. It's a lot of people, yeah, but noone all that strong. Biden being the clear front runner says a lot...

 

[88m3]

I'm starting to think dude might win.

Look at the big picture : Bush fukked up the ecomony and the country and a black man had to clean it up.

Trump fukked up the country and an Asian man has to clean it up.

Casual observer but Yang seems like a grifter

 

[---]

Casual observer but Yang seems like a grifter

Understand it's a casual observation but based on what though?

 

[88m3]

Understand it's a casual observation but based on what though?

his ubi sounds like it would short change people, it's typical conservative nonsense


by getting rid of other programs that are known to work and replacing them with cash, people are going to end up with even bigger holes in their budgets and lead to quality of life issues

Say he gets rid of HEAP and SNAP in exchange for cash(I'm sure the list of programs would be staggering if the 3 trillion a year are accurate

seems like a disaster in the making even hearing him talk about it and do his little spin

I like UBI but not at the cost of destroying the underpinning of our society on some libertarian/personal responsibility wet dream

 

[CurrencyChase]

his ubi sounds like it would short change people, it's typical conservative nonsense


by getting rid of other programs that are known to work and replacing them with cash, people are going to end up with even bigger holes in their budgets and lead to quality of life issues

Lmao

Read up on it more bro. It's not replacing

 

[88m3]

Lmao

Read up on it more bro. It's not replacing

he straight up said that the tradeoff would be by people opting out of other programs

I'm not jousting windmills

 

[CurrencyChase]

If you currently make more than the UBI, you can Op out and keep your current benefits. But your family over 18 will still get 1000 a month. People seem like forget that everyone over 18 gets 12k a year. Look at the bigger picture. If you make 1200 a month and decide to op out, your wife who got only 300 a month can op in and get 1000 a month your kids over 18 gets 1000 month.

 

[storyteller]

If you currently make more than the UBI, you can Op out and keep your current benefits. But your family over 18 will still get 1000 a month. People seem like forget that everyone over 18 gets 12k a year. Look at the bigger picture. If you make 1200 a month and decide to op out, your wife who got only 300 a month can op in and get 1000 a month your kids over 18 gets 1000 month.

So the people who need it the most are getting less benefit out of it than everyone else. Your wife gives up 300 in benefits a month for the 1000, then she's gained 700 a month compared to 1000 for everyone else. I realize most Yang fans are aware of this, but it seems completely antithetical to me. If it's not going to stack so that people in the biggest economic struggles receive the full benefit, then it's looking sketchy for me (a person who dove in on the results of UBI experiments and who has looked at a few different models and attempts at it). Add to that, Yang pretty much spelled it out for Rubin that his goal is to shrink other welfare programs until they're unnecessary and you have the typical goal for right leaning Libertarian UBI models. It even includes the same tax mechanism to pay for UBI as the Libertarian model (VAT). So the VAT is an added cost, but the poorest people are getting the least benefit from the model compared to everyone else and there appears to be an intention to eliminate other forms of welfare on the agenda...these are serious red flags and most of the time people talk past the points instead of addressing them (ie: 700 dollars is better than no dollars...so it must be good. That doesn't address the problem which is that the gap between the poor and everyone else would effectively be increasing under this model).

 

[---]

his ubi sounds like it would short change people, it's typical conservative nonsense

by getting rid of other programs that are known to work and replacing them with cash, people are going to end up with even bigger holes in their budgets and lead to quality of life issues

Say he gets rid of HEAP and SNAP in exchange for cash(I'm sure the list of programs would be staggering if the 3 trillion a year are accurate

seems like a disaster in the making even hearing him talk about it and do his little spin

I like UBI but not at the cost of destroying the underpinning of our society on some libertarian/personal responsibility wet dream

Hard to get past that first sentence.

But I read further anyway he clearly states thst people have the option to opt out, and keep their current benefits if they so choose to.

Also this thing that if people are given more control of their lives in terms of spending power or supplemental spending power means they will make financial irresponsible decisions is based on what actually? Where does this idea come from?

 

[CurrencyChase]

So the people who need it the most are getting less benefit out of it than everyone else. Your wife gives up 300 in benefits a month for the 1000, then she's gained 700 a month compared to 1000 for everyone else. I realize most Yang fans are aware of this, but it seems completely antithetical to me. If it's not going to stack so that people in the biggest economic struggles receive the full benefit, then it's looking sketchy for me (a person who dove in on the results of UBI experiments and who has looked at a few different models and attempts at it). Add to that, Yang pretty much spelled it out for Rubin that his goal is to shrink other welfare programs until they're unnecessary and you have the typical goal for right leaning Libertarian UBI models. It even includes the same tax mechanism to pay for UBI as the Libertarian model (VAT). So the VAT is an added cost, but the poorest people are getting the least benefit from the model compared to everyone else and there appears to be an intention to eliminate other forms of welfare on the agenda...these are serious red flags and most of the time people talk past the points instead of addressing them (ie: 700 dollars is better than no dollars...so it must be good. That doesn't address the problem which is that the gap between the poor and everyone else would effectively be increasing under this model).

So the alternative is what? This UBI is for everybody. There are different levels of poverty, people in debt, etc. Yall rather keep it as is then?

If all Americans get $1000 a month, it will help out the homeless, it will help that person pay off bills that's holding them down, it will help others with a little more money start business = more jobs for people.

What I like about the UBI is its very fluid in what you can do with it to solve your problem. If every American get it, you think the Gov can just say fukk the whole US pop, Yall not getting that $1000 a month anymore hahaha.. There will be riots, bro.

If everyone gets it, that will also kill the stigma people have a lot people on benefits talking about its govenment handouts, look at these welfare queens, etc. How you going to judge and complain if you getting the same money too?

The Vat tax will stop these corps from abusing the system they already abusing cause they're going to go full automation anyways.

 

[---]

So the people who need it the most are getting less benefit out of it than everyone else. Your wife gives up 300 in benefits a month for the 1000, then she's gained 700 a month compared to 1000 for everyone else. I realize most Yang fans are aware of this, but it seems completely antithetical to me. If it's not going to stack so that people in the biggest economic struggles receive the full benefit, then it's looking sketchy for me (a person who dove in on the results of UBI experiments and who has looked at a few different models and attempts at it). Add to that, Yang pretty much spelled it out for Rubin that his goal is to shrink other welfare programs until they're unnecessary and you have the typical goal for right leaning Libertarian UBI models. It even includes the same tax mechanism to pay for UBI as the Libertarian model (VAT). So the VAT is an added cost, but the poorest people are getting the least benefit from the model compared to everyone else and there appears to be an intention to eliminate other forms of welfare on the agenda...these are serious red flags and most of the time people talk past the points instead of addressing them (ie: 700 dollars is better than no dollars...so it must be good. That doesn't address the problem which is that the gap between the poor and everyone else would effectively be increasing under this model).

UBI has been around in different forms since Western governments decided “Full employment” was and continues to be the main economy goal after World War 2. The primary question is either it should in the form of benefits or cash. There is no one government assistance program that can alleviate all of the people problems on the bottom end of the wealth gap. So that is why cash continues to be the king asset class.

Cash is malleable and can alleviate a lot of problems better than any assistance program can. As a person who once was a high school teacher. I know the opportunity to close the wealth gap for a family evaporates if a child is not ready by kindergarten.

Families with cash are way better suited to close that wealth gap. As cash builds wealth and nothing comes close to building wealth such as the king asset class for lower-income to middle-income families. High net worth individuals move uses other assets classes to build upon existing wealth, but to get to that level cash was needed. It is the most malleable assets class in the world.

The reason why the goal is to shrink assistance programs is that if a family moves up the ladder in terms of wealth, that very assistance they needed won't be needed anymore, hence the cash was used in the way its suppose to be used to build substantial generational wealth.

 

[storyteller]

So the alternative is what? This UBI is for everybody. There are different levels of poverty, people in debt, etc. Yall rather keep it as is then?

The alternative is not to make people choose between current subsidies or this $1000.00 but to stack both. This UBI is for everbody, but not equally. If I receive 300 dollars in aid and have to give it up, then I'm getting a 700 dollar benefit as opposed to $1000 everyone else is getting.

If all Americans get $1000 a month, it will help out the homeless, it will help that person pay off bills that's holding them down, it will help others with a little more money start business = more jobs for people.

- You'll need to address housing issues directly because 12K isn't enough to survive in some areas. Does this UBI even stack with Housing aid or would people be trading in their housing aid for the check?
- If you want to encourage more business owners, UBI can help but it's very unlikely that it's the most efficient answer.

Don't get me wrong here, I'm not saying that those benefits won't exist. But I'm skeptical that the benefits will be dramatic enough to actually address the larger issues. If you really want to attack better paying jobs or the homeless problem, you'll need to target those issues a lot more specifically. Considering that I'm a proponent of UBI specifically to uplift those in poverty, this version isn't enough to address the issues and also presents problems of its own imo.

What I like about the UBI is its very fluid in what you can do with it to solve your problem. If every American get it, you think the Gov can just say fukk the whole US pop, Yall not getting that $1000 a month anymore hahaha.. There will be riots, bro.

I'm not worried about UBI going away once implemented, but I am worried about the other successful programs for the poor being pushed aside to afford this UBI program (something Yang himself has alluded to as a goal). That's the main crux of my complaint, this version follows the models that specifically aim to do away with those programs.

If everyone gets it, that will also kill the stigma people have a lot people on benefits talking about its govenment handouts, look at these welfare queens, etc. How you going to judge and complain if you getting the same money too?

We could always address those complaints by actually pointing to the data though. That data shows the success of current programs and the relative low amount of fraud that actually does take place (not that it doesn't happen but relative to the people these programs help, it's minuscule in impact). On top of that, the people getting those government handouts are giving up those successful programs to get hands on this 1000 dollars which means they aren't gaining 1000 dollars on top of their current situation thanks to that trade off (I know I keep repeating this but it's important).

The Vat tax will stop these corps from abusing the system they already abusing cause they're going to go full automation anyways.

This is another problem that we don't disagree with, but the VAT tax as a solution is where we differ. I'm pretty sure it's Stiglitz who has a few papers out that point out potential issues but in general the VAT doesn't look like a valid solution to me when the costs can be passed on to consumers (especially a consumer base that collectively received a $12,000 a year raise). This is absolutely my least researched aspect of UBI proposals in general, but that's because I've rarely seen people propose VAT as a progressive solution and I roll with the progressive plans mainly.

 

[chico25]

UBI has been around in different forms since Western governments decided “Full employment” was and continues to be the main economy goal after World War 2. The primary question is either it should in the form of benefits or cash. There is no one government assistance program that can alleviate all of the people problems on the bottom end of the wealth gap. So that is why cash continues to be the king asset class.

Cash is malleable and can alleviate a lot of problems better than any assistance program can. As a person who once was a high school teacher. I know the opportunity to close the wealth gap for a family evaporates if a child is not ready by kindergarten.

Families with cash are way better suited to close that wealth gap. As cash builds wealth and nothing comes close to building wealth such as the king asset class for lower-income to middle-income families. High net worth individuals move uses other assets classes to build upon existing wealth, but to get to that level cash was needed. It is the most malleable assets class in the world.

The reason why the goal is to shrink assistance programs is that if a family moves up the ladder in terms of wealth, that very assistance they needed won't be needed anymore, hence the cash was used in the way its suppose to be used to build substantial generational wealth.

The alternative is not to make people choose between current subsidies or this $1000.00 but to stack both. This UBI is for everbody, but not equally. If I receive 300 dollars in aid and have to give it up, then I'm getting a 700 dollar benefit as opposed to $1000 everyone else is getting.



- You'll need to address housing issues directly because 12K isn't enough to survive in some areas. Does this UBI even stack with Housing aid or would people be trading in their housing aid for the check?
- If you want to encourage more business owners, UBI can help but it's very unlikely that it's the most efficient answer.

Don't get me wrong here, I'm not saying that those benefits won't exist. But I'm skeptical that the benefits will be dramatic enough to actually address the larger issues. If you really want to attack better paying jobs or the homeless problem, you'll need to target those issues a lot more specifically. Considering that I'm a proponent of UBI specifically to uplift those in poverty, this version isn't enough to address the issues and also presents problems of its own imo.



I'm not worried about UBI going away once implemented, but I am worried about the other successful programs for the poor being pushed aside to afford this UBI program (something Yang himself has alluded to as a goal). That's the main crux of my complaint, this version follows the models that specifically aim to do away with those programs.



We could always address those complaints by actually pointing to the data though. That data shows the success of current programs and the relative low amount of fraud that actually does take place (not that it doesn't happen but relative to the people these programs help, it's minuscule in impact). On top of that, the people getting those government handouts are giving up those successful programs to get hands on this 1000 dollars which means they aren't gaining 1000 dollars on top of their current situation thanks to that trade off (I know I keep repeating this but it's important).



This is another problem that we don't disagree with, but the VAT tax as a solution is where we differ. I'm pretty sure it's Stiglitz who has a few papers out that point out potential issues but in general the VAT doesn't look like a valid solution to me when the costs can be passed on to consumers (especially a consumer base that collectively received a $12,000 a year raise). This is absolutely my least researched aspect of UBI proposals in general, but that's because I've rarely seen people propose VAT as a progressive solution and I roll with the progressive plans mainly.

I'm not fully aware of the details of Yang's UBI plan so let me ask about a specific scenario. I know a person that currently gets $1000 a month in social security because they're disabled and unable to work. If Yang's plan was implemented would they get an additional $1000 a month or would the UBI offset the social security benefits?

If it would offset then there is no gain for this person that is limited to strictly government benefits for income.

 

[storyteller]

I'm not fully aware of the details of Yang's UBI plan so let me ask about a specific scenario. I know a person that currently gets $1000 a month in social security because they're disabled and unable to work. If Yang's plan was implemented would they get an additional $1000 a month or would the UBI offset the social security benefits?

If it would offset then there is no gain for this person that is limited to strictly government benefits for income.

I believe they said Disability is allowed to stack with the UBI when it was pointed out that this would be an issue. But the Yang Gang crew can clarify which specific programs would it would not stack if that detail has been expanded on since the last time I checked. @FAH1223 i think you might have been the one that let me know about the disability wrinkle or maybe I’m just assuming bc you’re good on policy linking in general. Respect either way fam

 

[CurrencyChase]

I'm not fully aware of the details of Yang's UBI plan so let me ask about a specific scenario. I know a person that currently gets $1000 a month in social security because they're disabled and unable to work. If Yang's plan was implemented would they get an additional $1000 a month or would the UBI offset the social security benefits?

If it would offset then there is no gain for this person that is limited to strictly government benefits for income.

What is the Freedom Dividend? - Andrew Yang for President