Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 474 posts

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#131

Post by _2d30 »

bluedino wrote: post #51

>> 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'm kind of skeptical of the number. It also doesn't really gel that well with his 50% can't afford a $400 bill. It seems to be based on survey data from CareerBuilder which could be misleading for whole hosts of reasons.

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#132

Post by lukifer »

sesteel wrote: post #69
allovernow wrote: post #65

The fact that covid is screwing the world right now does not mean that we should all be getting UBI under non emergency conditions. Putting Romney's plan in with Yang's is a conflation here because one is only for a single unprecedented global emergency, not everyday life. That said, UBI is quite literal wealth redistribution. You take taxes from the haves and give the cash directly to the hands of the have nots. The…

In order for capitalism to work, money has to change hands. Typically, money changes hands for an item or service of perceived value. Again, typically, there is a profit calculated into that transaction. That small fraction which constitutes the profit is often wealth transferring from one person to another. Over time, that wealth coalesces into fewer and fewer hands. There are many ways to combat this pooling of wea…

We exchange value based on price discovery; but prices are determined by leverage, which is heavily tilted by pre-existing capital. One doesn't notice this at a micro-transaction level (how many shoes for how many chickens), but once one zooms out to the balance of power between labor and capital, one clearly holds all the cards ~90% of the time.

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#133

Post by dillondoyle »

buzzkillington wrote: post #109

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.

The first source I could find puts 2008 crisis programs at 5.7% of GDP (it says output I assume gdp), and New Deal at 40%. [1]

Call it 130MM households in the US. Exclude top 5% ~123M.

For 6 months stimulus 1k/house = 738B.

Doesn't sound like enough really for what we're facing. Less than 2008 stimulus. only ~3.6% of GDP.

This interview with Jason Furman has some other good comparisons+context and other back of napkin maths [2]

If we're talking permanent UBI lowering or even cutting benefits programs (to be replaced by UBI) could get it somewhat close to budget neutral - if you cut a lot [3]. But IMHO would never be able to cut social security etc enough to make a difference, gross tax revenue would have to be raised somehow - but not by a shocking amount.

1 https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-economy/2017/may/which-big... 2 https://www.vox.com/2020/3/13/21177850/coronavirus-covid-19-... 3 https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/14/budget-neutral-universal-bas...

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#134

Post by PopeDotNinja »

allovernow wrote: post #65

The fact that covid is screwing the world right now does not mean that we should all be getting UBI under non emergency conditions. Putting Romney's plan in with Yang's is a conflation here because one is only for a single unprecedented global emergency, not everyday life. That said, UBI is quite literal wealth redistribution. You take taxes from the haves and give the cash directly to the hands of the have nots. The…

All taxation and spending is wealth redistribution.

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#135

Post by Zanni »

neltnerb wrote: post #76
opportune wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uh, the housing market is more complex than you think. If the bottom of the market gets bid up because of an increase in purchasing power that will affect higher priced units too - if previously I was considering a shitty studio in a bad area for $500/mo vs a 1bed in a good area for $1k/mo, and now the studio is $800/mo, don’t you think the 1bed is going to cost more too? Also everybody has low interest rates for the…

It's certainly more complicated than I understand, but I see it like this... Case 1: With no UBI the person who works in food service has to live an hour or more out of town and commutes to work each day. This is because their pay is better in town than out of town so it's worth it financially overall. Or they simply are paying more in housing costs than they should, are feeding money up the rent chain instead of sav…

You make a good case why UBI might not affect rent in high-rent areas, but what makes you think there would be a place where housing costs are $300 a month when everyone has UBI? Why wouldn't the floor immediately become $1000 everywhere?

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#136

Post by surewhynat »

zenhack wrote: post #121
kuzimoto wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You realize the top 1% already pay for a disproportionate amount of the taxes? Also they own businesses that employ hundreds of thousands of people. To tax people's wealth on top of the standard tax is plain evil, and will end up driving all the wealthiest people out of the country...

> You realize the top 1% already pay for a disproportionate amount of the taxes? In absolute terms maybe (though there are some glaring exceptions -- Amazon famous literally pays $0 in taxes), but not relative to how much they make. > To tax people's wealth on top of the standard tax is plain evil, I don't see any reason why taxing net worth is at all less sensible than income. If anything I think it makes more sense…

Bill Gates once talked about money no longer having a utility for him. The utility of money goes away at a certain point when you accumulate too much and there is no longer something you cannot buy. The utility would be most efficient when applied to a better use such applied as the needy, perhaps in a UBI, or some other strategy, which would free up their time to do something more productive for society.

Unfortunately people don't like to help each other in many capitalist countries, and laws are designed to not be easily changed, resulting in a great majority of the population either not heard or reluctant to voice their opinions.

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#137

Post by cycomanic »

kuzimoto wrote: post #98
93po wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's nothing unethical about a wealth tax. Billionaires made their fortunates on the backs of society and have only maintained that power and wealth through corruption and bribery. They should have never had that money to begin with.

You realize the top 1% already pay for a disproportionate amount of the taxes? Also they own businesses that employ hundreds of thousands of people. To tax people's wealth on top of the standard tax is plain evil, and will end up driving all the wealthiest people out of the country...

That's actually the point of the wealth tax. The reason the pay a disproportionate amount is because the own a disproportionate amount. The current system is also a redistribution of wealth, just from the bottom to the top. That's what a wealth tax is supposed to change.

Regarding the argument about companies, I'm sure the French king also employed a lot of people, we still got right of the system of absolutism.

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#138

Post by godelski »

bavell wrote: post #124
godelski wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In several states small political donations (up to $50 or so) are tax deductible. More money spent is not deductible.

I'm happy to learn that but the cap seems pretty low. :/

Half what democracy dollars are, but a good start. Check your state to see if you can take advantage of this. If you can, you have no reason to not donate (I didn't know until I did my taxes. But first time in this state).

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#139

Post by PopeDotNinja »

allovernow wrote: post #84
93po wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's nothing unethical about a wealth tax. Billionaires made their fortunates on the backs of society and have only maintained that power and wealth through corruption and bribery. They should have never had that money to begin with.

Billionaires skim like .5-2% in margins off the top of the companies and relationships they build. People get paid throughout. This is nonsense.

If we had real wage growth, maybe I'd feel bad for them, too. When people can't afford to live on what they make, taxing them into oblivion is stupid.

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#140

Post by paulmd »

Gunax wrote: post #58
grecy wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It (inflation) is besides the point really isn't it? Rampant inflation or the idea that nobody would go to work are commonly held up as big reasons not to have a UBI (or something similar) so it's important to address those. > Why should the tax payer pay for someone sitting on their behind? There are a host of reasons, here's a few off my head: - We accept there will always be people we will pay to sit on their be…

America is not spending trillions on their military, and even then it's still barely affordable. To give every American 12k per year would cost about 10 times the military budget (7 trillion versus 780 billion). And that's before we even discuss shenanigans like debt jubilees and free healthcare. Even dramatic cuts to the us military barely make a dent to these kinds of spending proposals.

The military budget isn't the entirety of military spending. It doesn't include the VA budget, the DOE budget (maintaining those nukes), the actual cost of wars themselves, etc.

Adding up all the parts, it's pretty close to a trillion a year - about 933 billion.

https://www.thebalance.com/u-s-military-budget-components-ch...

Post reply on HN