111–120 of 474 posts
The problem with UBI is that most versions of it would essentially liquidate social services that people would normally receive. UBI only makes sense in addition to the other parts of a comprehensive safety net (universal housing and healthcare), not as a replacement.
My primary concern with UBI is not the concept itself, but the risk for people in power to use it against the people. Once UBI exists, people will rely on it for survival. It will be the single most influential campaign topic. Worse, if UBI were to get 'Obamacared' then we'd end up with a massive battle over implementation, followed by a much worse system than the one we had prior (worst of all worlds with numerous '…
I think something similar has happened with minimum wages. It appears to me that the natural next step is to make the minimum wage grow with inflation. Unfortunately, this hasn't happened, so we're stuck with various government-mandated minimum wage levels that are tied to the value of money from several years before. Companies can now point to the law, and use this obsolete number as a metric by which to set their o…
>> Seventy-eight percent of Americans are already living paycheck to paycheck; almost half can’t afford an unexpected $400 bill On big part of this is Americans a whole need to get better with their money. I know many people can't save because of low income (or lack thereof), but 78%? Don't forget about all those people making six figures who can't get it together.
I am skeptical that 78% of Americans are "living paycheck to paycheck" unless that has been defined so loosely as to lose all useful meaning.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think something similar has happened with minimum wages. It appears to me that the natural next step is to make the minimum wage grow with inflation. Unfortunately, this hasn't happened, so we're stuck with various government-mandated minimum wage levels that are tied to the value of money from several years before. Companies can now point to the law, and use this obsolete number as a metric by which to set their o…
Make them grow with productivity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My understanding is that if it's known that every American adult collects $1000 in addition to their regular income, prices will rise in an attempt to capture some of that known financial excess, so that the net result isn't that everyone gets an extra $1000 in discretionary income, but that everyone ends up paying that extra $1000 back in inflated prices. Similar logic to how raising tariffs doesn't hurt companies a…
> prices will rise in an attempt to capture some of that known financial excess The assumes financial excess. The reason for UBI is that there isn't excess. If 78% of Americans are living paycheck to paycheck, then that's not excess. If 63% of Americans can't afford an unexpected $500 bill, that's not excess. You're right that inflation happens when there is excess, but given these stats, I don't buy that part of the…
Wouldn't car dealers raise their prices some value up to $1k because they know anyone coming in that month to buy a car also just received a $1k check from the government?
> Someone that was living paycheck to paycheck can now take a breath, buy a TV and a Netflix subscription.
Netflix may raise their prices knowing everyone has a little extra cash to spend, and that people would rather pay a dollar or two more than cancel.
If your streaming subscriptions, phone bill, and everything else goes up incrementally because companies begin to factor UBI income into their pricing, then without making any lifestyle changes, you'll see that overtime you're spending an extra $1k a month due to higher prices (of course it won't work out exactly like that, but the point is that some portion of your $1k UBI will go toward paying for things you were already buying, but that are now more expensive as a result of UBI-aware pricing.)
If you believe that companies won't act that way or that other market forces (such as increased competition) will renormalize prices, I can see the argument, but I don't buy it personally.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes. Also, first home owner's grants increased prices. Reduced interest rates increased house prices. Perhaps the great covid-19 WFH experiment will (partially) undermine the housing geography monopoly. Would socialist free housing, utilities, food, medical care, education might work better than UBI? What incentives would make capitalism provide them?
Capitalism can't provide housing, utilities, food, medical care and education for free. People would just quit their job if they got all that with no effort. Then how would the government be able to pay for the free stuff if it wasn't able to tax workers? Edit: It occurred to me the government could lock people up in work camps in order to be able to tax them.
So people end up in a situation where they are forced to work in order to survive, the same situation they are in now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Make them grow with productivity.
This destroys incentive to invest in productivity improvements, because the gains are eaten by wages. Most productivity gains in the economic sense don't come from people working smarter/harder, they come from investment in better machines and technology (capital). If you took the most productive worker today back two thousand years, their productivity would be massively reduced without access to any modern tools or…
Why he isn't: Suggested income: $12,000 US Population: $327,200,000 Total cost for first year: $3,926,400,000,000 Total government expenditure for US: $3,800,000,000 So we would need to shut down everything the government does to afford his UBI. I personally don't feel like going for free market ICBM solutions is the best way to run an army, but each to their own.
I think his most compelling policy is not UBI, but giving the people money to spend on politics. This country is suffocated by special interests, which create draconian laws for all of us to follow just so that they can collect a little bit ore money. Just filing the taxes alone is a monumentally frustrating experience. This needs to be streamlined, but it will never be until corporations are stripped from their lobb…
Yes, his idea of Democracy Dollars is great. Wash out the lobbyist money and allow politicians to run a campaign on popularity without pandering to donors or special interests. Not sure why this idea hasn't gained more traction tbh.
Why he isn't: Suggested income: $12,000 US Population: $327,200,000 Total cost for first year: $3,926,400,000,000 Total government expenditure for US: $3,800,000,000 So we would need to shut down everything the government does to afford his UBI. I personally don't feel like going for free market ICBM solutions is the best way to run an army, but each to their own.
Aren't there restriction like only for citizens 18+ and under Yang's policy it'd be you either take UBI or other subsidies you qualify for.
At that point you have invented a worse welfare state.