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" means that the 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.
