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

91–100 of 474 posts

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#91

Post by strken »

93po wrote: post #79
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…

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.

There's some point between "take nothing" and "take everything including your family home, dog, and toothbrush" where most people would believe a wealth tax to be unethical. I think this is what GP was trying to say, without picking a spot on the continuum.

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#92

Post by 3131s »

datashow wrote: post #17
grecy wrote: post #9

We don't have to entirely speculate, we can look at existing evidence. Australia has the most liberal welfare in the world. Anyone over 18 can get $984 per month, and up to another $242 in rent assistance. [1] It has nothing to do with your previous employment history, or being fired, or anything like that. In fact, you can get it if you've never had a job in your life. You need to be "actively looking for work" whic…

OK. Then why not any of those places become the innovation engine of the world? I heard people would become more creative and innovative under those circumstances.

It's literally not a UBI, did you not see the OP spell that out?

Means-tested welfare is misaligned with productivity because the money stops coming once you make more. A UBI is a more pragmatic, efficient approach to reducing wealth inequality.

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#93

Post by Fellshard »

kova12 wrote: post #86

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…

Anything that generates a feedback loop where politicians give you tax money to spend on politicians has an instant smell to me. There may be other ways to accomplish this, but that feedback loop stinks to high heaven on initial examination.

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#94

Post by glaive123 »

Proziam wrote: post #88

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 '…

God forbid people get money to take care of their lives. Because we can afford it.

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#95

Post by droopyEyelids »

Fellshard wrote: post #93
kova12 wrote: post #86

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…

Anything that generates a feedback loop where politicians give you tax money to spend on politicians has an instant smell to me. There may be other ways to accomplish this, but that feedback loop stinks to high heaven on initial examination.

You might want to try a neti pot, because you seem to be missing the smell of the government giving billions to large corporation in a way that accomplishes the same feedback loop you're mentioning.

That is the way the system has been working for decades. For example, airlines have been doing stock buybacks with all their profits for the last several years, and now they don't have the money to weather 2 months of coronavirus, so they'll need a bailout. Then, watch for more stock buybacks and executive bonuses.

You're right it smells, but it's time that graft was extended to the people of this country, who will actually spend it and help the economy a bit, rather than sending it indirectly to the bank accounts of the wealthiest people in the country.

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#96

Post by Proziam »

glaive123 wrote: post #94
Proziam wrote: post #88

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 '…

God forbid people get money to take care of their lives. Because we can afford it.

I assume you misread what I wrote, or implied some opinion that hasn't been stated.

I want people to have enough money to live reasonable and modern lives. What I DO NOT want is for UBI to become a political weapon and for the people who rely on it to have it taken away suddenly.

That is a serious risk to that system that doesn't get enough attention. It could happen due to financial collapse or for political reasons. But no matter why it happens, the damage would be absolutely horrific.

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#97

Post by bavell »

kova12 wrote: post #86

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.

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#98

Post by kuzimoto »

93po wrote: post #79
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…

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...

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#99

Post by monadic2 »

bavell wrote: post #90
beastcoast wrote: post #71

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.

Why would I choose to jump through bureaucratic and degrading welfare programs for vouchers and discounts when I can opt-in to a superior UBI program that gives me cash which I can use for anything? I'm the one who best knows how to effectively allocate those resources in my life. E.g. What good are food stamps when I have no gas (or car) to get to the store? There are some social services that are necessary and bene…

UBI still does not provide health care.

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#100

Post by aeternum »

v64 wrote: post #56
mrfusion wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Surely McDonald’s already knows everyone has an extra two dollars but they don’t raise their prices because of it. The thing is people would still shop around for the lowest price. The vendor with the lowest price gets the business. Even opec can’t raise their prices in unison without someone cheating.

> The thing is people would still shop around for the lowest price. The vendor with the lowest price gets the business. But we know economically this isn't necessarily true. Some industries are more monopolized than others. Some people aren't in areas where they have good alternative shopping choices. Goods like toilet paper have many different price points and it hasn't been a race to the bottom among the brands to…

If there are sectors where UBI gives businesses an opportunity to raise prices, then it follows that there is room for competitors to enter.

Competition will eventually drive prices down and lead to more consumer choice.

Post reply on HN