Isaiah Bradley
Banned
Yes. I'm about options for insurance, doctors, meds...let me get a tax write off option for approved alternate medicine care/treatment
Andrew Yang (Former 2020 Presidential Candidate): What's his future? #YangGang :lupe:
- Thread starter Shogun
- Start date
What about copays and deductibles? Do you see competition lowering them? What I see there is insurance companies removing benefits to make plans cheaper to compete thus leaving their users footing the bill for choosing a worse plan than the one out of their budget. Medicare for all eliminates that and saves money for everywhere except high earners. Even just then public option prevents removal of benefits more.
Isaiah Bradley
Banned
Because the government has leverage, I was assuming that the public option will include the obvious benenfits of no copays/deductibles, no pre-conditions etc but also including default services/benefits offered, to avoid that legit tactic you described
Any government service has innate quality of service issues, so addressing that problem too is why I advocate for the public option, have a Medicare For Those of us Interested option
1000 a month is just below the max poverty level of 12k a year, its the best balance point for a UBI that operates as a social safety net.
oh and no im not buying this sam seder talking point of UBI being a Trojan horse for eliminating social services. its really fukking tired that we have to hear this shyt every time, enrollment will reduce but if you think Yangs nefarious goal is to eliminate legacy programs that help people i cant take you serious.
The issue is UBI might be more expensive than all social service programs. But people who use those services are in many cases eligible for more money than $1000. So Yang needs to explain how he will able to implement this without hurting those programs. We won't get an answer from an interview with an airhead like Dave Rubin. And he's not taken seriously by the candidates yet. But if he makes into next month and into the actual primaries it will come up. Especially from Bernie or Warren.
This video is a really poor portrayal, of your argument. Sam was wrong from the first few minutes and Yang has already addressed this point. Nothing has been uncovered, I quoted you directly about the end goal of the outcome of the program ie.. benefits vs cash so no need to go down that road again.
The value-added tax follows a good or service from its inception business cycle from primary, secondary to tertiary evolution of a product. Just like CPI the core inflation index is used to determine the average consumer inflation, things are priced differently according to the needs of the average citizen. Different goods and services can be priced either at different stages or different goods and services can be priced differently to reflect the consumption rate of people at different levels of income for the VAT. Another solution is a VAT tax rebate for people on the lower end of the wealth-income stage. VAT is an effective method to make sure corporations pay taxes.
The only problem with VAT is how it runs amuck when applied to financial services where a lot of High Net Worth People (HWNI) use services to compound investment and savings. It is rather tricky to pin it down for financial services but a VAT on financial services can still be done.
That is the only thing that Yang hasn't addressed but I hope someone puts the question to him and if he does implement it you have a near-perfect closed-loop system where the corporation and High Net Worth Individuals can not escape taxes.
Last edited:
storyteller
Veteran
The video illustrated my point exactly straight from Yang's mouth.
"What's gonna happen is you're gonna dramatically reduce enrollment for these programs because a lot of people will be like I prefer the cash and then this new incoming population will just opt for the dividend and never end up in these welfare programs and end up shrinking the enrollments over time. You just wouldn't do it all at once because there are a lot of people in distinct situations. And this is much more politically feasible and popular than trying to go in and tear these programs from the roots up."
This is literally the Milton Friedman argument for a UBI. Use UBI to get rid of benefits programs. If you're cool with that, that's fine. But that's Andrew Yang himself saying that this is a politically feasible way to get rid of certain benefits programs (which is my main point of contention for the model). If you'd like to address my concerns directly; I'm open to hearing which programs he's getting rid of along with some data that shows why those programs are failures. If it's targeting something like SNAP for instance, I don't see the value in attacking a program that is known to be efficient and effective. You could stack it, but why attack something that works. I'm glad he clarified SSDI will be available still; but what programs are targeted that add up to 600 billion dollars and why or how are they failing?
This sounds great in theory, but worrisome as all hell when we look at the make up of our legislative branch and what has happened to well intentioned programs (Obamacare) when they finally got to the main stage. The "fiscal responsibility" crew on both sides of the aisle will attack this program from both the limited use of VAT that would be required to avoid it being regressive and also from the amount of programs Yang admittedly is forcing people to opt out of with aims to increase the programs targeted (think the removal of the Public Option at the zero hour because Lieberman). When Rubin essentially says "this sounds good but why not blow up those programs out the gate" he's a dummy, but he's not completely off base for what the legislative branch can aim to do.
It's a lofty goal that I think would only be possible with a large embrace of MMT. I can't imagine funding this UBI model as it stands without the fiscal hawks circling to expand the taxes and limit the programs just in order to pass it. Even if Yang got everything through exactly as envisioned, we're one bonehead Fiscal Conservative away from accelerating cuts in order to make up for any deficits. I'm more inclined to say, screw fiscal conservatism, lean in to MMT and get something like this done; but at that point, there's absolutely no reason to avoid stacking UBI with other programs. That would be more effective for the people who need benefits (or this cash) the most. It would also give some leeway to compromise with those fiscal hawks and end up with a VAT that works or legitimate limitations on the programs we can't stack/have to cut. So back to that top bit, I'm not mad at UBI concept but this model is precarious and hinges too closely to Libertarian versions for my comfort. When a dude like Dave Rubin is licking his chops at the possibilities for a bill, you definitely want to evaluate what openings the right leaning cats are seeing. In this case, I think it's pretty clear.
Watch at 13 mins on... hilarious esp after 15th min
Not going cut up and dissect this don’t have time for that so will just lay it out in point by point
1) I honestly think you are looking at this all wrong. Some post in here has the cash vs benefits argue I posted and I too lazy to pull it up, but money is superior and better assets to eliminate one's problems and move people out of poverty. Fewer people on the social benefit the less it is needed. Nobody is attacking program for no reason with no motive behind it. What is the point of keeping a program running if fewer people need it? If the program is still needed, those people will always have and can choose to not be on it cause it isn’t mandated people have a choice? Like I quoted the other person why are people afraid of letting people make a choice that is best suited for them is beyond me. It's called doing things efficiently.
2) If you are going to mention that hack economist Milton Friedman to be fair, you need to mention all the other names Yang has mentioned that have views and plans on UBI like MLK. Yang’s plan is aggregated.
3) Not sure what theory you are talking about with VAT, but I have companies in different parts of the world, and they get taxed at different percentages with concerns to VAT. They pay a VAT tax on various sectors of the economy and at different rates. Healthcare is a different sector and different viewpoint, not sure how it relates to good and services of technology companies where the VAT would be directly aimed at. The better argument would be is America isn’t effective at passing laws that fix problems.
4) Don’t care if Rubin or if that hack Milton Friedman was alive and wanted to pass a bill. If the concept is the best one of all ideas and has some practical merits to it, it should be law. The proposal should get passed and get it done. All bills should be examined and looked at no matter who endorses or doesn’t endorse it.
storyteller
Veteran
1) The problem I have isn't that cash >>> benefits; I respect that opinion. The question I have is whether or not this amount of cash eliminates the need for those benefits for everybody and the "choice" in this circumstance means that potentially necessary programs are weakened. What that leads to is an easier program to get rid of because, "what is the point of keeping a program running if fewer people need it?" but what about those people that DO need the program? I'm not concerned about people making the choice on what's best for them; I'm concerned about the choice being removed prematurely if these programs get shut down. Plus the opt-in/opt-out mechanism ought not to even be necessary. Let's say the UBI stacks with all of these programs; we can assume that if it's as effective as Yang hopes, then people will be uplifted and no longer qualify for those programs anyway. Then we'll have proof of concept BEFORE we threaten the programs that are helping people (in an efficient and effective manner I might add).
2) I'm mentioning the hack, Milton Friedman because this model best matches his own proclamations and plans for UBI. He specifically wanted UBI as a replacement for existing benefits, whereas, unless I'm mistaken MLK never brought up UBI as a replacement. This is why I like to point out, that I'm supportive of UBI and would even support this model if it stacked with current benefits. My problem isn't with UBI, it's with this particular version which leans more in the direction of Friedman's comments imo.
3) Not theory, just the simple fact that a VAT can easily be regressive and harm people in poverty which is why most progressives I've seen speak on it, consider it a bad idea. The fact that America can screw up these sorts of things is assumed when I point that out. Here's a link I provided earlier that I think is fair. It points out that there are ways to mitigate the dangers but it makes clear that there are ways the VAT can be a fail.
Who would bear the burden of a VAT?
4) I think it's worth noting who is enthusiastic about a bill and consider their goals because it can tell us how legislators with similar principles will attack the bill. Point blank, I don't think this bill should be passed as described and I've laid out why repeatedly. I bring up Friedman and Rubin because they're giving away the game here. This model threatens to eliminate benefits and if you're cool with that, we simply disagree on that principle. My opinion is that UBI should be a compliment to benefits programs, not a replacement. It should be modeled with the poorest Americans getting the most out of it. By forcing them to opt out of beneficial programs when no one else is giving up anything, I believe this actually does the opposite.
Last edited:
