Andrew Yang's Universal Basic Income

#1

n_huffhines

What's it gonna cost?
Joined
Mar 11, 2009
Messages
84,305
Likes
49,816
#1
Andrew Yang is running for POTUS mostly on the idea of universal basic income. Even though I love some things about him, like his promise to release all non-violent drug offenders, I’m not going to support him (he’s just too much of a gleeful central planner and an automation doomsdayer). But I don’t mean for this thread to be about whether or not any of us will support him, it’s about the concept of UBI, and if it can work. Here is his plan, more or less:

Every adult citizen of the United States gets $1K every month from the government.

Although the price tag is high (it would be about $3T per year; 248M x $1k x 12), $1.5T is already being spent on our current brand of socialism, in very, very ineffective ways. Current recipients of welfare would have a choice to keep their benefits or take the $1K. A value added tax (at half the European rate) imposed on businesses replacing workers with robots would generate $800B in revenue. The Roosevelt institute projects that putting $ into the hands of Americans would grow the economy by $2.4T (more than 10%) and create 4.6M new jobs. This would result in about $500-600B in new revenue. Savings from reducing public health care costs, incarceration (are you going to commit petty crimes if it might cost you $1k/month? A lot of petty criminals won’t), and homelessness are about $100-200B.

One of the things he doesn’t harp on enough is that our current system discourages people from working, because they get fewer benefits if they work. In this system, you get the $1k regardless.

I don’t know about his projections, but the point is conceptualizing it like that makes it seem possible to find the money without increasing the deficit. His whole basis for all of this is the fact that automation is changing everything and it’s going to wreck our economy. People have been warning about job replacement since the industrial revolution, and I’m not sure that how worried we should be. I’m more interested in the smarter government angle. He’s hyperfocused on trucker jobs (and retail). There are so many truckers and businesses built on serving truckers throughout small town America, and they’re all going to be up a creek when we have driverless trucks.

He had some good responses to criticisms, for example how distasteful welfare is to some Americans. He said we need to look at this as a dividend. We are all shareholders in the USA. Yeah, that sounds like PR ********, but he pointed out that nobody seems to mind the dividend Alaskans get. It’s the same exact concept.

His specific plan?...I don’t know if it’s the right plan, I doubt that it is. I don’t know if it’s the right time, either. But it seems clear to me there is a realistic world in which we could have UBI and see much better results from government spending.
 
#2
#2
If you abolish all other welfare or at least make it very temporary. Maybe also have a cutoff family income to be eligible. Also make it per household (married vs single) and $1k goes to a single person or a married couple. Sadly I think it would just drive up inflation at a more rapid pace.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tim and NEO
#4
#4
Although the price tag is high (it would be about $3T per year; 248M x $1k x 12), $1.5T is already being spent on our current brand of socialism, in very, very ineffective ways. Current recipients of welfare would have a choice to keep their benefits or take the $1K.
I honestly could get on board with a UBI if all other forms of welfare were abolished (i.e., you don't have a choice of welfare or a UBI, everyone gets just a UBI).

Believe it or not Milton Friedman was a proponent of a UBI. It really is a better alternative than the maze of programs that currently exists, and as you said, the more you work the less you get of them. It absolutely discourages work.
 
#9
#9
Problem is no one will agree to cuts to or outright dissolving of other programs. Everybody always wants more and nothing less than more will do.
Yep. And if any plan to tax or "raise revenue" is introduced, and the claim is that it affects only a certain group of people, it inevitably grows to affect large numbers of people. Look no further than the AMT or the income tax itself.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and Vol737
#10
#10
Generally I'm a fan of letting people make choices in lieu of government telling them what they can do (ie, food stamps). If someone wants to blow all their money on lottery tickets and starve, let Darwin work itself out.

Generally? How can you not be for people making their own choices all of the time?
 
#12
#12
Finland played around with this idea a couple years ago, albeit on a very small scale. Didn’t increase the incentive to work much at all IIRC, but I think it’s an intriguing idea for a replacement of current programs, which are easily exploited and offer even less incentive to work.

The automation and future side of the argument is what I find most interesting.
 
#13
#13
I am with others. If this is a complete replacement of all other welfare, go for it.

Issue is, for those relying on welfare this is a cut for them. 1k a month doesn't get them housing and food. Vol737 said it best, "nothing less than more will do"
 
  • Like
Reactions: FLVOL_79
#14
#14
Nice concept. I have no faith politicians would adopt it because they lose power / control. No faith other handouts would cease forever even if they were disbanded initially. And no faith the UBI wouldn't end up on a sliding scale in the future subject to means testing and political demagoguery.

With that stated, i reject any redistribution of tax money doled out to citizens. However, you wanna cut a dividend to voters from the proceeds generated by selling natural resources like Alaska, i'll not object.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: volinbham
#17
#17
Nice concept. I have no faith politicians would adopt it because they lose power / control. No faith other handouts would cease forever even if they were disbanded initially. And no faith the UBI wouldn't end of on a sliding scale in the future subject to means testing and political demagoguery.

With that stated, i reject any redistribution of tax money doled out to citizens. However, you wanna cut a dividend to voters from the proceeds generated by selling natural resources like Alaska, i'll not object.

Yeah, I think that's what makes it the most unrealistic. Once the $1,000 is given away, politicians have greatly limited the political favors they can dole out when social programs are phased out.
 
#18
#18
Yeah, I think that's what makes it the most unrealistic. Once the $1,000 is given away, politicians have greatly limited the political favors they can dole out when social programs are phased out.
I see absolutely no evidence the political class will give up one scintilla of power. Their focus seems to consolidate power at every opportunity. And both the R &D communists love to vote for them to have more power.
 
#19
#19
The VAT tax on robotics is arbitrary and a disincentive for us being competitive in manufacturing.

I agree with McDad that removing levers of power will never do and building of RJD's point while I favor personal responsibility the politicians will simply layer on top our current benefits to help those who indeed did blow their money. In the end it would be another entitlement added to the pile and it in no way would be deficit neutral.

The Alaskan example is proceeds from natural resources. If country as a whole wants to adopt that model to some extent where all get some dividend from the fruits of the land (rather than the fruits of other's efforts) I'm cool with that. Would certainly change the views on energy production; particularly fossil fuels.
 
#22
#22
Generally? How can you not be for people making their own choices all of the time?

As a net tax payer footing the bill, you good with people making choices about how to spend your money?

I'm talking about in the context of UBI and it being a replacement for welfare benefits.
 
#25
#25
As a net tax payer footing the bill, you good with people making choices about how to spend your money?

I'm talking about in the context of UBI and it being a replacement for welfare benefits.

Thanks for clarifying.

UBI is an idiotic pipe-dream.
 

VN Store



Back
Top