Here's a look into the future of UBI. Several Wall Street firms come up with idea to buy you out..say offer you $6k now upfront for a years worth of payments ($12K). Since millions of people are treading financial water, they take it. It's like those structured settlement firms, lump sum now and you sign over your life. And that's just the beginning. This is one of the DUMBEST ideas yet.
2
Senator Berzelius Windrip promised $5,000 for each citizen
-Sinclair Lewis, "It Can't Happen Here."
Don’t have an opinion on UBI but I do think that the US Gov ought to fund at $10000 an IRA for every African American baby born this century going forward.
1
What free stuff will Dems promise to give us next?
3
No!
4
I can see no other way to level the playing field, assuming automation continues to shrink away jobs. If globalization is inevitable, and jobs therefore go away, how else do we restore the dignity a job created? Not to mention the standard of living? And freedom to create, knowing your basic needs will be met?
1
Yes it is life saving for people on low wages and don't get a liveable wage. Would also cost the nation less in stress related illnesses. I'm surprised the Health Insurance companies are not promoting this.
Money only doesn't matter to people who have a lot of it; you can't do much without money - in God we trust; everyone else has to pay by check, cash, or credit card.
1
Dang, I like this idea of universal basic income, let me know where to send my address or apply for the free $1,000 per month.
I also want college loan forgiveness, free college for my grandkids, Medicare for all (including illegal immigrants), reparations for blacks and gays, and federal job guarantees—you know, all the free stuff the Democratic candidates are promising.
All of the fabulously wealthy individuals and corporations put together do not have enough money to pay the trillions of dollars required for all of these goodies year after year, and even Bernie Sanders has admitted that taxes will have to be raised on the middle class just to pay for free college, not to mention all of those other freebies.
As Margaret Thatcher aptly noted, the problem with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other people’s money.
Remember, folks, our goal is to elect a Democratic president in 2020, not to make Karl Marx smile in his grave. Free everything for everyone will get Trump re-elected.
59
@Mon Ray
Although some Western Europe Countries get close to it, we don’t want anything to do with those policies.
Note that the UBI is already there for a limited group: the 1%. I don’t understand why we don’t care more about them: I would recommend we make sure they get a job and live off of it. It is for their good, to give them a reason to get out of bed.
And I strongly agree: free everything for everyone will get Trump re-elected. Sad but true.
As per your initial question: you can move to Alaska to get your check, or join the 1% (i’d pick the latter :) )
9
@Mon Ray how about just forcing your mega wealthy companies to a) pay their employees a FAIR wage and b) have them pay their own share of fair taxes. I mean that could be a start.
40
@Mon Ray
Yes, we've heard this whole schtick multiple times over the last 40 years. Thanks for repeating it word for word for the umpteenth time. "Everyone who is not a conservative Republican wants free stuff, and the Democrats can't wait to give it to them!"
Got it!
Now tell us what YOU think is a better idea to deal with the growing inequality in this country, and even more, what to do when potentially millions of jobs disappear due to automation?
51
Injecting money into the economy by simply giving money to every worker would COST them money. Prices would simply go up and take that money away in the form of increased inflation (which government would under report).
We have seen absurd rates of inflation in this country in the last century. Even the last 50 years have shown an absurd decrease in buying power. Worse, wages have not come close to keeping up. At the same time employers have cut benefits providing worse health care coverage and eliminating pensions. We are seeing a reversal of all the progress workers fought so hard for.
The biggest problem is a growing concentration of wealth in fewer and fewer hands.
The Walton family - Walmart heirs - are worth more than 40% of all other Americans. Sharing more of the profits with their workers would do more for the economy than anything they could do. The same total amount - simply 'redistributed' more fairly.
Too often we see BILLIONS earned from companies benefitting a few people while their workers are underpaid. The first few workers at some tech companies may have become millionaires, but the owners are billionaires and most of the workers now are H1B's or independent contractors and they are expected to put in 60-80 hours a week.
Few wealthy people feel any moral imperative to share their profits with workers. Some like the Koch brothers spend millions to fight laws that would benefit their workers in providing safer working conditions.
2
Under Capitalism, planning is a socialistic concept. It reminds one of Stalin’s five year plans. Under this lens, UBI would increase the size of the Federal Government which is one of the worst sins under the State Religion of Neoliberalism.
What Yang is proposing is to cushion the effect of automation. He sees as a technocrat where technology is taking us. Society is modelled by technological advances - like the steam engine and flying shuttle started the Industrial revolution. With this came societal changes and new laws.
The rise of automation and the death of jobs would usher in a new societal changes. It is then the pressure to create a new social contract would rise.
The question is to ask whether (a) we wait till them and work under system shock; OR (b) plan now so as to cushion the effect of automation.
Yang is choosing the latter.
2
NO! This is a either purely political ploy aimed at the greedy ignorant or a seriously defect in Yang's thought process.
Would you give $12,000 to Donald Trump, Ross. Mnuchin, Barr, or any of the many government thieves in D.C.? Not on MY life! Nor would I to myself or those who have excellent incomes and/or savings.
Those who NEED this have food stamps (which need to be re-mastered), Medicaid and many social welfare policies that need adequate modification, not cash mindlessly thrown at them.
A UBI can be measured in many ways, but NATIONAL INEQUALITY is the driver that drives this thinking and that of other social programs. Me MUST help those who cannot help themselves but we must also provide a ladder UP for those who can but don't have the opportunity to do so.
THESE ARE ALL CONCEPTS THAT TRUMPLICANS NEITHER CARE ABOUT NOR UNDERSTANDS!
The concept of Socialism would not be bandied about were those who are uber-rich AT THE EXPENSE OF THEIR WORKERS more equitable in returning their excess and obscene profits to those who actually earned them.
1
No. Its as simply as that, no. Thank you.
2
What do you know about UBI?
Well, for starters:
380,000,000 Americans x $12,000/year = 4,560,000,000 ($4.5T a year).
So .. the next question is: “where is all this new money going to come from?”
7
Fund much of it by taxing Google and Amazon.
1
@wmartin46
Your math is off. Yang's proposal would be $1,000/month (or $12,000/year) per family, not per individual.
What is the purpose of government? Is it business as in former president Calvin Coolidge's famous statement or is it the betterment and welfare of the governed? I for one believe that it is the latter. While a U.B.I. would not erase the increasing income inequality which is preventing a significant portion of our population from enjoying the basic necessities of life that make for a healthy society,( health, food security, a quality education for their children, the opportunity to spend quality time with their families, etc.) a U.B.I. would be a move in the right direction.
When the 40 hour work week was first proposed over 80 years ago some economists predicted that in the future workers might not need to work more than 15 hours per week as technological innovation increasingly performed more of the labor intensive tasks of the past. In the not too distant future we will be forced to confront a real and pressing question,(i.e. what to do about workers who have been displaced by automation and technology who are unable to find gainful employment that affords the opportunity to earn a living wage). The answer is not in demanding that they get second an third low wage jobs that force them to work longer and harder, negatively affects their health and steals more time away from their families. A U.B.I. is a reasonable beginning to making life livable, allowing people time to use for self improvement or volunteer work and also easing rush hour traffic.
1
Yes. Life on minimum wage is stressful. Life is precious. Worrying over money is anxiety producing. $1000. a month is a small thing but a huge boost to those of us living in poverty.
4
Andrew Yang is on the right track. We don't share wealth fairly. The super wealthy over value their own contributions to wealth creation and reward themselves at the expense of everyone else to such a degree it should be considered stealing. It is certainly oppressive.
Technology, which should liberate us from work hasn't created an environment in which we all get a share of greater wealth and enjoy more personal time. Instead people who are under employed or unemployed are called bums, and are seen as a drain on society.
A UBI might not be the answer, but I don't see anyone calling to create a mechanism the fairly distributes wealth. A $15 minimum wage doesn't come close. Unions are under siege, and may no longer be the best mechanism for labor to assert its own value. "Welafare" is meant to demean recipients.
The argument that a UBI devalues work is offensive. Let any one of those pundits go out and get a low wage job and then come back and proclaim how gloriously their work was appreciated and compensated.
4
Alan Greenspan contrived a plot against many Americans with his welfare check to Wall Street. He cut interest rates so low that many folks without pensions can not live on safe investments, (CD's and T-Bills). They have to jump into the Casino.
This act has created the great wealth divide we are experiencing. The cult of the CEO based on cheap money and cheaper labor has devastated millions.
The "in thing" now is contract labor. No benefits. Hire them when you need them then throw them away!
Globalization has contributed to the corporate bottom line and hurt even the most intelligent Americans who lost their jobs to outsourcing.
Our Armed Forces has a minimum IQ requirement of 83. If universally applied it eliminates ~15% of the population from working.
Of course one thousand dollars per month is meaningless to the Hampton's crowd! It can mean life or death to others.
3
The US already has a system in place for basic income, the earned income tax credit (EITC). The credit was expanded in a big way in the 1986 tax reform, championed by Ronald Regan. Expanding the EITC would be a straightforward way to provide a basic income, at least for the large number of working poor.
1
As someone who will be totally reliant on social security and the ability to work until I drop, this would be a lifesaver.
1
Arguments against UBI always philosophical, while arguments for it are evidence based, data driven. I will go with the evidence every time.
1
Decades ago I was a federal worker in DC.
When the government issued its standard cost of living pay increase, workers would notice prices going up in all the local grocery stores.
Can you imagine the inflation that would redound in every sector (housing, autos, apparel, etc.) of this country from a plan that injected $3 trillion annually.
25
@DD Precisely my concern, instead I'd prefer that we stop taxing work-based income. As Wang proposed, we would replace the lost 'gubmit' revenue w/ consumption (especially carbon-based and single-use), generational wealth, financial trading, biopharma investment royalties, Internet ads, etc; tax what you want LESS of vs. work.
At the same time, provide cradle-to-grave universal catastrophic (and preventative) health care, invest in job/career (re)training, adopt European unemployment insurance model etc. to both expand the social safety net and encourage work/innovation.
1
@DD
Which is why it needs to include a highly progressive income tax and a wealth tax. 99% tax rates above 1 million.
1
@DD
Trillions, you say, like the trillions the government and the Fed have handed to the banks in the form of QE corporate welfare?
3
To me, UBI has appeal if it's given to everyone (citizens over, say, 18) AND it replaces other forms of welfare. Thus, we're saving some money that would have been spent, and drastically reducing the administrative overhead. (We can modify the tax code so that it's fully taxed away for higher earners.)
Yes, it'll still be costly. But Yang is recognizing that automation (including AI) will someday be displacing lots of workers. (Lets face it: not everyone can be a star software engineer.) So there will be a lot of chronically un- or under-employed people in the future.
Sure, some will argue that giving people free money will take away their desire to work. I'm willing to accept that because those people will have to live on $12,000 per year.
19
@Rick Weiss
Rich people have plenty of free money because they know every loophole to pay nothing in taxes
It’s about time the little people are given a fair shot and Yang has an idea and maybe we should pay attention because what capitalism is doing is destroying the lives of people in this country
24
@Rick Weiss
I believe that it’s already part of his policy proposal.
Great idea IF it replaces other handouts.
Yangs idea is wacky. But, it makes more sense if you realize that as the article states briefly Alaskan residents get a resources dividend payment.
The Alaska dividend per person per yearusually ranges from $1,000 to $2,000 per person ($4,000 to $8,000 for a family of four), and the majority of Alaska's roughly 740,000 residents receive it.
It's a portion of the revenue from Alaska's resources. Like oil.
In oil states like OK and TX, residents get a lease dividend from the oil reserves below their property. That may be a vast reserve area that has thousands of landowners to pay.
Often you hear of mining companies who lease large US federal land deposits of copper or other valuable resources for pennies. Sometimes they are even foreign companies. I am sure there is some backroom dealing.
And the cattle industry owners that use federal lands for free grazing. The US federal lands that Trump is selling off for cheap to his friends should never happen. You and I are being ripped off. When you realize how much you will lose, Yang's proposal actually makes perfect sense.
Trump inherited hundreds of millions. If he hadn't he would be a used car salesman and bald. When you think of a US citizens resource dividend think of it as Your birthright inheritance.
Yang's framing it wrong and pig's fly.
And in the news today:
"Trump administration opens huge reserve in Alaska to drilling".
I wonder if that means all US citizens will receive a dividend? It's our reserve. Our oil.
(I don't think we get much say either.)
washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/trump-administration-chooses-most-expansive-approach-to-oil-gas-exploration-in-alaska-wildlife-refuge/2019/09/12/
My wife and I love the idea! We’re both teachers in the Houston area making in the mid60s. This would really help us out we would be able to Spend money on getting an RV, go out to dinner more, and help her kids in college, that would be great for us and the economy!
35
In a country where we can't agree to raise the federal minimum wage, currently $7.25 / hour, and there are annual proposals to cut "food stamps" this seems like pure fantasy. Presently, I have no need for this extra income, so let's establish an income threshold. I can think of so many better ways to redistribute wealth: universal health care, improving low income housing, making college or workforce training available.
1
Obviously this is very silly math. if you give everyone $1,000 you could just as well lower their taxes by said amount (and issue credits). is this a good idea? Liberal as I am, I am still not sure about this. There is obviously a moral dilemma, although I believe only very few people would exploit the idea and NOT work at all. Also, i think there are a lot of people who more than $1,000 per month very urgently, and others probably wouldn't even notice.
What sickens me with the whole debate, though, it obviously comes from Yang's misguided idea to give 10 families $1,000 for one year. This brings "buying your vote" to a whole new level. Plus, it is so incredibly arrogant "Look I am rich, let me just give away $120,000, because it means nothing to me".
1
Or he is putting his money where is mouth is. ....creating a test that the media might follow to maybe capture the imagination of the people.
Bottom line there is enough wealth in this country to help raise the happiness GDP for most citizens.
I just want them to tell me when it will be like Star Trek, where basic needs, healthcare, and education are universal, and the only goal is self improvement and personal fulfillment.
Where are the solutions for the real causes of income inequality. Predatory lending (back again), student loan debt, poor wages, cutting budgets for education, the ridiculous cost of child care, the ever evaporating pool of affordable housing? The list can go on and on. This sounds like a solution because we cannot find solutions, and that is such a pathetic quandary.
Not convinced on Yang, but UBI intrigues me. According to Maslow's Heirarchy of Needs, the foundation of human life consists of food, clothing, shelter, health and reproduction. Is it not more efficient to provide these to all citizens? Employers should be out of the business of gatekeeping the bare necessities to live. Their top goal regarding the workforce should be self-actualizing the population through meaningful work. A UBI to provide basic needs would be a win-win for all. Otherwise the thought will persist that we are automatons, working to merely exist.
The first twenty thousand dollars of income should be tax free like it is in Australia; that way the system doesn't discriminate against people who are childless.
3
While UBI may not be the precise answer, we are definitely at a moment when "trickle up" is. After decades of failed trickle down, I should think Americans would seize on the idea of sparking our economy by providing tax breaks and incentives to the people who need them, i.e., the poor and middle class.
The government would give everyone $1000 a month? Who gives the government that money?
@Emily, it is through a 10% VAT tax on consumer purchases and carbon taxes. The more someone consumes, the more they pay. It would help low income people the most.
Also those on welfare would be given a choice between current benefits or $1,000 cash without the means testing.
Check out any number of podcasts or his website. His proposal is worth consideration.
1
What's the point of this? Yang says we need UBI because so many workers will lose their jobs to automation. But UBI isn't enough to live on. So what's the point? Is the assumption that with UBI that low-skilled workers can now accept lower wages and compete with robots? Or that displaced workers can now compete for other, lower-wage jobs? It doesn't add up.
Not to mention the immorality of a policy that pays people for doing nothing.
Yang is running on two things: (1) his intelligence and (2) UBI. Unfortunately, (2) disproves (1).
This idea is being used and perhaps we should look at those trials.
This was written in 2017:
Experiments are in the works in at least a dozen countries, including Spain, the Netherlands, Kenya, Uganda, and India. The city of Glasgow in Scotland has undertaken a feasibility study for the first UBI pilot in the U.K. In January, the Finnish social services agency Kela launched a program that selected 2,000 citizens who were already receiving unemployment benefits and offered them an extra 560 euros monthly. This summer the Canadian province of Ontario will begin a basic income trial involving up to 4,000 families. And Switzerland last year voted on the idea of a national basic income in a referendum. (It lost.)
They give the wealthy a lot more than that.
"Free stuff"? "Devalue work"? Goodness, let me correct some misperceptions.
Imagine a society where half of the people get $10k per year and the other half get $100k per year. Inequality has been getting worse for years, and they decide it's time to do something about it. So they all agree to pay a new 10% tax, which (check my math) is enough to give everyone $5500 per year. After the new tax and UBI, the poorer people now get $14500 per year, and the richer people now get $95500 per year. The rich are still richer and the poor are still poorer, but voila, inequality has been improved from 10:1 to 6.6:1.
All without creating a new bureaucracy to do means-testing, or fraud, or abuse. People still work, the inequality just isn't as bad anymore. Got it?
2
Instead of handing out 1K in cash, what about the gov't contributing a similar amount into an HSA that can only be used for health insurance and medical expenses?
1
For Americans this is like a fairy tale story or a project out of crazy minds.
It is actually a theory that is developed by several serious economists in Europe .
To remind readers here, economists are not those people who make money .
1
Why not put back the luxury tax?? Why not bring up truly progressive tax rates?? Why not bring back a real estate tax?
So interesting that the idea goes back to the 18th C.... as dos the notion that people need to stop reproducing in great numbers because there might be OVERPOPULATION -- and concurrently famine, people dying because there isn't enough food.
My sense is we haven't seen anything yet vis a vis "barbarians at the gates" given the huge birth rates in certain countries in Africa, Latin America, Asia..
Why not the 12K per year (is that with or w/out Single Payer Universal Healthcare?? (One still could not afford much and not in any major American city.)
The elegance of Yang's UBI proposal is its simplicity. $1000/month for every U.S. citizen 18 years of age and older. Period. It doesn't have loopholes or qualification requirements or phase outs or exemptions. There's no potential for abuse or corruption. Accordingly, the cost to implement/administer the program will be extremely low. In the process, this may do away with other entitlements like food stamps, unemployment, etc., which are inefficient, bureaucratic programs that are extremely costly to administer and rife with fraud and abuse. Sure, a national value-added tax (VAT) may need to be added to all goods and services (like pretty much every other first world country), which will result in higher costs for everyone. Still, I think if people really think about it, paying a few extra pennies on the dollar will likely be more than offset by $1,000/month while giving the less privileged a much-needed hand-up. It will bring many thousands of families out of poverty and will be a net positive for the economy. Rather than a society of haves and have nots, we would have haves and have less.
3
I'm a big fan of Yang so I'm obviously biased but I really like the tone of this article.
This seems like one of the least editorialized pieces about UBI and Yang that I've read in NYT and it's even in the Opinion section.
I am not wed to the idea of UBI but it looks to me like Yang is correct that automation (and the resulting wealth inequality and powerlessness of most of America) is the largest, directly addressable problem this country is facing right now.
Healthcare is one facet of this, which most of the democrat candidates seem to have a decent plan for.
The other facet is expendable income.
I don't see any other policies being proposed that would come close to addressing the problem of income loss due to automation on the scale that seems to be needed.
Yang's most recent, attention-seeking debate performance does not do justice to how serious Yang is about policy.
www.yang2020.com/policies/
2
UBI is a necessary policy to consider in a world that will soon face increasing worker redundancy due to AI and automation. However Yang's plan is too simplistic and also fails to account for providing a logical philosophical underpinning to it that will allow it to survive varying political winds.
Here's what I would propose. First, UBI should be funded by levying a tax specifically on corporate profits and financial transactions in excess of a certain threshold. Practically and philosophically, the educated and entrepreneurial workforce and ingenuity of our nation are a natural resource that is being tapped by the corporations and elites of our country, and as such a percentage of that profit should go back to We the People in much the same way that oil rich countries often issue a stipend to their people from the profits derived selling oil.
This UBI amount should also be variable based on a few factors. First, it should be indexed to GDP so when the economy is booming workers get more and should a lot of people choose not to work, UBI rates will fall. Second UBI should be tied to volume (but not value) of work done by the recipient. So someone who isn't disabled or retirement age who doesn't work gets say $800 while someone working part time gets say $1000 and someone working more than 30 hrs/wk gets say $1200.
1
Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos and Warren Buffett are wealthier than poorest half of US
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/nov/08/bill-gates-jeff-bezos-warren-buffett-wealthier-than-poorest-half-of-us
3
If you're interested in this issue, two Cornell students will be debating both sides tomorrow in New York City:
https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2019/09/students-debate-universal-basic-income-sept-14-nyc.
Cheers.
1
Google is giving 1 billion euro, more in dollar, to France to stop an investigation about its fiscal fraud in France .
https://www.lemonde.fr/police-justice/article/2019/09/12/fraude-fiscale-google-va-verser-pres-d-un-milliard-d-euros-pour-clore-les-poursuites-en-france_5509646_1653578.html
1
This is noise, get Universal health care established and provided.
UBI takes a second seat to progress in health care access and education/training.
1
No!
No
THE MATH DOES NOT WORK! What sense does it make to give everyone $1,000 per month regardless of their income and wealth? The fact is that in the US the top 1% of the very rich own 90% of the value of the country, much of it earned by tax cuts and other financial mechanisms, that some would refer to as schemes, to minimize their taxes, etc. I agree with Oliver Wendell Holmes who said that taxes are the price that we pay for a civilized society. The notion that the 1% can claim to be participating in a civilized society is untrue! Perceptions are strange, though. If someone of 1% decides to give away some money it's greeted with lots of hoopla and proclamations of philanthropic intent. While is the government distributes its revenues to run the country is vilified as the root of all evil. But common sense does not apply in this analysis. Because common sense, of all commodities, is the rarest. Still, I believe that there is some logic in the idea that the rich get richer and the poor get children.
Putting aside a $3 trillion price tag that will be paid by a carbon tax and a VAT that I assume will push prices up by 50% or so, you will create communities of millions of people who focus on how to live on $1,000 a month and will contribute nothing to society. A terrible, terrible idea.
@Sparky
Would they not contribute by teaching us how to live on less and in community?
The Federal reserve already does this. By inflating ( devaluing the value of money) it becomes every easier to pay off debt. This is done at the expense of savers. The system has been in place for a hundred years now.
Giving an additional 1000$ is a way of creating even more inflation unless it is coordinated with the Federal Reserve.
Once you get runaway inflation, you become Venezuela, Argentina, Zimbabwe.
Is that what we want for ourselves.
Enough of the crazy shenanigans. Focus on booting Trump out of office!!!
2
There's an old saying about an unlikely rise to power:
First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then you win.
They ignored Yang at the first debate and laughed at him at the third. Keep laughing . . . . We will see what happens.
3
The problem I see is that landlords, banks, etc., would immediately think that that thousand bucks is up for grabs. I think bank fees and credit card fees would skyrocket. Rents would shoot up. Hospital and pharmaceutical costs would rise. All the greed pushing capitalism now would be aimed at milking that money away from people and our current zero would be reset at one thousand.
3
Anyone who thinks this gimmick won't be eaten up by higher rents, food and transportation costs needs to seriously understand market economics.
When the kleptocrats know you've got an extra K in your pocket they will find a way to take it.
So you want the government to steal money from Spencer to give to Nicholas?
1
First of all, let's not think about "the government" as a separate entity from those of us who live here. "We the People" are the government. With that in mind, every discussion like this should be phrased "Should We the People give ourselves $1000 per month?" The oddity of this plan becomes immediately apparent.
1
Should the government give everyone $1000 a month?
This is the people's government and this is the people's money. The government wouldn't be giving the people anything. The people would be telling their government what they want to do with their money.
Why is that so hard to understand?
6
Mr. Yang is on to something, here. I don't think that UBI can pass in the current political climate, but he makes an extremely valid point:
Automation has been implemented before, but we have never before seen automation like what is coming. Previous forms of automation still needed humans- human operators, human technicians, human supplements.
It may be ten years, it may be fifty, or it might be two. Widespread elimination of low-skill jobs is coming, and that's going to be a quiet genocide for small businesses. Corporations that can afford the investment into an automated workforce will see that it's cheaper than paying workers, and they will pursue profits to the exclusion of all else. Without labor costs, these giants will be able to undercut all competition. Nobody will be able to compete. And all the while there will be millions of people who, not for lack of motivation, or laziness, or any fault of their own but for lack of actual jobs that can pay them- will be unemployed.
In a few years, UBI will not be a pipe dream- it will be a necessity to prevent widespread illness or death. And we need to think about this now- it's too late to start picking wood to build your ark when it's already starting to pour.
1
People with kids who work probably already get that plus more. In NZ people who earn up to approximately $100,000 a year can get government child support payments weekly plus lot of other government paid add ons even though they work. There are also tax credits they get where all the tax they pay gets refunded back to them if they have children.
Childless people get nothing from the government if they work in NZ, except for an accommodation supplement if they apply for it and qualify.
1
If we had an equitable taxation system that was more progressive, if government wasn't owned by big business, then it could be a good idea. Every person in the US must give their consent to be governed. A universal income is a simple, easy to implement and easy to enforce system of recognizing the fundamental equality of all citizens.
But we don't have such a situation. People would rail on about how rich people shouldn't be given that money. If on the other hand, the taxes that the wealthy pay is substantially reduced by corruption, it's a big "Meh". The republicans have created a focus on finding one inequitable situation and casting it as repudiating the entire system. The bigger picture says that this is a potentially good idea.
1
UBI needs to come with strong protections against predatory payday loans. I can easily foresee the ads: "get $40,000 cash now, and pay back in easy installments of $1K per month for the rest of your life!"
1
We've seen this story before time and time again. Saudi is a country where every Saudi citizen is paid to not work and viola they are a wealthy welfare state that has trained its citizens not to work or innovate. Nauru is an island nation where no on has to work resulting in an overweight population that has a life expectancy in the low 60's. More practically at home, both Social Security and Medicare are supposed to have been self funding benefits programs. Because both systems payout more than contributors contributed, the are facing fiscal crisis. The recipients dont want to hear that they only should get what they paid in and are happy to take more without having earned it. Warren and other candidates are happy to make this entitlement a benefit that is unaccountable. Welcome to UBI
1
"Profit is just wages stolen from workers". If you're not already conditioned per Pavlov to wince at that observation, you might have an open minded interpretation of it, otherwise you're successfully or hopelessly Kool Aided. How do you determine how much more the quarterback should earn than the proportion of the owners' take and have it be anything but theoretical, driven not by rationality but by leverage which isn't the same thing as Good Faith. Nobody hires out of the kindness of their hearts, but it seems that notion is assumed in how some people want us conditioned to believe. Obama declared, "you didn't earn that" which is easy to throw vegetables at if you have no intention of understanding its meaning. Is it even possible to be "overpaid" ? Union busting is historically the evidence of that. Does a union ask for more than they're members are worth or do they understand the pressures of the business before making demands? It is nothing but an Adversarial relationship when the pie sharing resembles a hostage situation. You can think of Slavery as on a sliding scale, mind you one that does flow in both directions. Ultimately what we're after is Civilization. "The irresistible force and the immovable object" aren't even at the table yet on this one. They may never find common ground as this question will resist unpacking for some time to come. Spare change anyone? "Throw the bums a dime in yer prime."
Would it cost that much after you consider the trillions it would pump into the economy? All of it taxable? Isn't this what tax cuts do to stimulate the economy after a recession?
3
Yes, we should try at UBI, as Finland has, and see what the results show in the US. People were able to open businesses in Finland etc. Stockton, CA is considering a UBI to see what the results are.
Instead the Republican plan, if Trump gets a 2nd term, is to cut Medicare and privatize Social Security like Joni Ernst has been telling folks in town halls in Iowa and she says all behind closed doors so they won't be disturbed.
4
Americans need to learn about this policy approach rather than immediately resorting to knee-jerk aversion. In this respect, this is an excellent article. It is the kind of piece that will help us all grow past the simplistic counter arguments many of these comments to this article trumpet.
In the spirit of debate, here is one example: "In its current incarnation, the American welfare system uses means-tested benefits that tie receiving financial assistance to looking for a job, a connection the U.B.I. would sever. " I would argue that these same means-tested benefits also incentivize never getting a job. The UBI does not fall into this trap. We need to argue over these sorts of subtleties not dismiss the UBI because it is a departure of what some call "American values".
3
To live in a country with Trump as president, the government should pay us a lot more than $1000 per month.
3
The consequences can be debated forever, but nobody really knows what would happen.
Why not give UBI a trial run? Randomly select a sample of the US population and monitor the effects for a year. Sure, you might not see all the macro effects, such as potential inflation, but a study might clear up some of the debate and tell us if a UBI is worth considering.
1
Let's see. There are approximately 360 million (or so) people in the United States. If each was "given" $1000, it would still amount to approximately what POTUS requested the "defense" budget increased by (and was done). It went from $1 Trillion to $1.3 Trillion. I think this could easily be done , and no "fangs" would be pulled from our miltary might. $1 Trillion annually is obscene. For me it is simple. Does a small town in (for example) Kansas really need a tank (plus a "Swat" team) on their police force? No.
4
Universal income is at least worthy of thought and debate because it exposes just how far we've come to date on technology replacing or reducing the general earning power of human labor. However, universal income avoids the real issue which is that there are just too many people on Earth. Reduce human population and the need for universal income becomes a moot point. Why is no one talking of financial incentives for those that decide not to have children?
4
@JeffB
Why is no one talking of financial incentives for those that decide not to have children?
Because the concept behind that only looks at children as 'takers" and not "makers." Human beings can be both a "liability" and an "asset."
I love how just the headline is enough to reveal the misguided stupidity of this idea.
The "government" wouldn't be giving everyone $1,000 a month.
Those of us who actually produce something and make money would have it taken from us, and we'd be giving it to whoever the government designated to get it. The government would act as an incompetent transfer agent -- as it does, say, in Medicare where a dime of every dollar in that $680 million program is lost to waste and fraud.
Only people who live in an academic bubble, those dependent on hand-outs, New York Times copy editors and Democratic politicians think the Government is the entity producing anything to be given away.
7
@Philboyd, have you checked out how he advocates UBI will be funded? It's through a VAT tax and carbon tax, not an income tax. Big spenders/consumers will pay the most.
3
Universal income is the proof that capitalism does not work.
It is the gov. helping business owners with their payroll, rather than making business owners pay fair wages---no wonder the GOP hasn't slammed the idea.
Yes, it seems like a humane policy, but it is also a huge gift to the so-called "job creators." --yet another trickle down.
1
The philosophy underpinning UBI and universal health care is the idea that basic human needs--shelter, food, health care--are human rights, not something to be competed for in a capitalist system.
These programs do not promote free handouts but insist upon more equitable wealth and income redistribution through taxation--as it always has been.
Biden's and Sanders's estimates of the costs of health care are incommensurate because Biden's incorporates the costs of selective private insurance while Sanders's distributes the costs over the entire population. The money is going to come out of people's pockets differently, but Sanders's version is far cheaper overall, with higher income earners subsidizing the less fortunate.
"Opting in and out of health care" is not viable. An unemployed person is least able to cover $1000/month premiums. Universal health care will allay anxieties over job loss, which is an increasing likelihood for many.
Trained economists can readily calculate what kind of taxation is necessary to distribute a Freedom Dividend. Why not tax Google, Amazon, and Facebook for every click and search, especially as they are profiting by collecting and disseminating personal data?
UBI and universal health care is about creating and sustaining a more enlightened and egalitarian society, as has been achieved in many industrialized nations.
Cynics who oppose these programs are guilty of greed and selfish narcissism--and probably more than a modicum of racism.
3
I'm against UI: instead it should be UI (remove the "basic" part): everyone should receive MORE than a mere $1,000/month. Place a federal cap on CEO salaries and PIN them to a ratio of the average salary at a company. Remove the absurd American notion that "corporations are people" along with all the corporate tax benefits that entails, and suddenly paying every citizen a real living income will suddenly become more feasible.
2
@Betty
Betty, if you were running today, you'd have my vote!
1
Governments around the world through their monetary agents, including in the U.S. through the Federal Reserve, have been lavasihing trillons upon trillions of dollars on the banking sector in the form of thinly-veiled corporate welfare through QE shady asset purchases. Perhaps, it's time to ignore the inflation fear-mongers for a change and lavsih some 'sugar' on the people.
1
Creation of a National Service Agency makes more sense. The New Deal agencies of the Great Depression offered a variety of work options for skilled and unskilled individuals. Something similar could be set up - with a variety of opportunities including the arts. Newly minted high school graduates would be the target population. There could be 1 or 2 year enlistments with a salary component or money towards college. Twenty first century careers would be prioritized. Bringing together a diversity of talent from around the nation to learn how to accomplish real world tasks and get to know each other in a format that would otherwise not be possible is a better alternative to handing out money.
3
Marx was 100% correct when he said:
“A society with a basic income has no pressure to pay employees a good wage"
It is not a coincidence that "universal basic income" started infiltrating public dialogue after Bernie Sanders shook up the Establishment in 2106 with his focus on income inequality and raising the minimum wage.
Yang is simply a tool of the wealthy and a perfect example of the idiom...."a wolf in sheep's clothing".
1
"Instead, Annie Lowrey, the author of “Give People Money,” argues in The Globe and Mail that a U.B.I. would give workers, particularly low-income ones, more power to structure what their working lives look like."
For the poor, it is often being able to obtain transportation, training, quality and necessary clothing, and child care that greatly interferes with job success. This concept flows into the working class with a lesser impact, but still vital. If we look at a U.B.I as the foundation for obtaining these necessities, then I see this as a win, win for all adults.
Of course, with anything new and having a great goal, it's the details of a plan and the foundational requirements that determine if it will be successful or not. Putting money into the hands of people who don't possess the skills necessary to use it wisely wouldn't see good results. I'd like to see solid and consistent educational programs and classes in public education that give this knowledge to all citizens. And, this isn't pointing to the poor, because people of all economic levels struggle when they don't have the financial basics.
Replacing our myriad welfare programs with one cash payment makes sense for everyone involved. It would be administratively cheaper and it would be simpler for beneficiaries to understand without having to worry about losing one benefit by qualifying for another.
However, it makes no sense to make this a universal benefit.
1
Biden's claim about ANY job providing a sense of personal "dignity" made me laugh.
I'm reasonably supportive of Biden, but pretty tired of these types of statements - from ANY candidate. It's an unreasonable and uninformed generalization.
(Sarcastically) Many rich kids don't really have "jobs". Perhaps we should require them to get jobs at fast food joints, washing dishes, as home care workers or as janitors to boost THEIR sense of self-dignity. Let's show the same level of concern that express for those at the lower end of the income scale.
I wonder how much all those new those robots will spend on goods and services, how much they put into social security, save in banks, contribute to the treasury, etc. Who will the manufacturers sell their robot-made products to if no humans are employed?
Should be great for the economy.
Rather than replacing welfare directly, why not redistribute income to reduce
(a) the growing nation-wide gaps in wealth & income, &
(b) the proportion of the population that otherwise need income support as welfare?
If everyone received monthly benefits, say, to start, $600 per month (this might be indexed to inflation & increased later once the economy adjusted to this major new program) taxed as personal income, then
(a) welfare programs could focus on serving the residual needs for services & welfare income for a much-reduced clientele,
(b) the administrative costs of the program could be subsumed under the income tax administrative scheme already in place,
(c) there would be little temptation for recipients to avoid employment or from reporting income received from all sources,
(d) people in the working & lower middle classes would lead better lives through enhanced income on a steady basis by right & without stigma, &
(e) the economy & society generally would benefit from a reduction of current trends for income and wealth gaps to grow or from the loss of purchasing power when unemployment or underemployment rise.
Corporate & personal income rates should become more progressive (& 90% of net revenue from a Federal carbon tax included?) to ensure that additional tax revenue offset the net new cost of this program.
@bob adamson
A program along these lines will be especially relevant over the coming decades.
With the growing displacement by robotics & IT of the human labour force at all skill & income levels & the resulting suppression of income opportunities for humans from their work, both economic stability & social equity & cohesion will increasingly need such a broadly based income redistribution program.
@bob adamson, Then why do we need immigration?
@Ryan Bingham
If I understand your question, you're suggesting that with robots & IT taking over tasks previously performed by human employees, we'd have a human labour surplus & therefore would not want further surplus labour immigrating.
Immigrants provide ongoing links to the people of other countries & this provides & facilitates better foreign trade & commerce opportunities. Foreign-trained workers & entrepreneurs brink skills & experience that may not otherwise be easily attained locally. A diverse country is a more interesting one.
Another business executive with a simplistic solution to complex problems. Why should the Democrats nominate Trump Lite to run against Trump? Granted that Andrew Yang doesn't have Donald Trump's special level of awfulness, and I'd be much more likely to approve Mr. Yang for a loan.
No. The Government should protect and expand Medicare Healthcare. The Government needs to protect SS and increase benefits to realistic cost of living. Thats it. If they want to spend money wisely start with the basics of protecting their citizens when they reach an age where they are vulnerable. Unable to compete with younger citizens.
1
I think it's misleading to say MLK and Friedrich Hayek were in favor of universal basic income. They promoted a guaranteed minimum income (sometimes referred to as a negative income tax by Milton Freedman). This is a much more realistic idea than UBI simply because UBI would basically double the federal budget. It's a real solution that gives much more choice to poor people than our current litany of welfare systems. I think it's a good idea to give people money rather than stuff because they can prioritize. For instance, why give people housing in a place like Manhattan when you could give them money that would offer them the freedom to move to cheaper places? That's just an example but this is very much a serious policy proposal. Much more serious than proposals by more "serious" candidates in my opinion.
4
What’s to stop politicians from buying votes by promising bigger and bigger payouts? In Alaska, a voters elected a right-wing governor who is trying his best to slash state budgets to what experts agree are disastrous levels, but he promised a $6,700 dividend, so it’s evidently OK. A dangerous side to UBI.
6
@Who
Exactly. The NYT should really do an article on what is happening in our state. Including the Recall the Governor movement. In the early days of the Permanent Fund Dividend, residents understood that it was a 'dividend', not a guaranteed payout. Now, it has taken on the status of an Entitlement to many people. And Entitlements are very difficult to take away . . .
2
@Who
The answer to the threat that cynical populist or monomaniac politicians will try to corrupt public programs for partisan or idiosyncratic purposes is always present whether or not one of those programs is the one under discussion.
The remedy to this threat is always an informed & engaged voting public. Without this, all sorts of misgovernment are possible.
Why not just return to a progressive income and estate tax system where the most fortunate pay a lot and the least fortunate pay nothing? Simpler, no?
3
I love how wealthy people malign the idea of guaranteed income for others yet when it comes to their families, or the estate tax, there’s no worry about the negative consequences of inherited, ‘unearned’ wealth.
3
Wow. So much debate over one of the kookiest of ideas coming out of the crop of Democrat candidates. All this commentary from academia and the hundreds of posts give it the air of respectability. All the while this discussion provides a boost to President Trump's 2020 reelection effort.
19
@johnlo Yeah, keep living under that rock of yours. There are extremely valid reasons why Universal Basic Income is the future. One of the most important reasons, as he has stated time and time again, is that it recognizes the work of mothers or of someone who's taking care of their elderly parent or grandparent, etc.
It connects with a whole lot of people and that is why Yang, as he has also pointed out in the debate, is one of the very few candidates that has consistently continued to BUILD momentum. Yes, the bar for him was much lower compared to someone like Kamala Harris, but still, it's something that should also be recognized.
Last, the problems that UBI addresses are the very same problems that got Donald Trump elected. It's no coincidence that Yang often uses the example of Truckers when speaking about his signature policy.
Maybe look into the matter for a little longer instead of outright dismissing it. UBI will come. Maybe not in 2020 or 2021, but in around 10 years, people that share your opinion will come across like Dinosaurs.
15
@Oliver Gehrmann
It has been a 'decade' away now for many decades - don't hold your breath - people don't want their fairly earned income 'transferred' to those who choose not to work.
4
@johnlo Wow. In a country that worships the absurd notion that "corporations are people" it's amusing to hear someone label universal income as 'kooky."
13
The casual dismissal of the capacity for AI to displace workers is a mistake. The emergence of AI has such dire impact as to warrant the open letter from Hawking, Gates..etal to warn against the dangers of its implementation. I have read many assessments of how it will eventually replace attorneys and doctors. So, if UBI is such a non-starter for so many, then what is the solution for the eventual masses of unemployed replaced by cheaper and more effective AI? ....(crickets)
5
I recently realized that capitalist arguments about work are totally ridiculous. Work is fulfilling and dignifying, but at the same time, nobody will do work unless they are threatened by homelessness and destitution. So which is it? And have these people ever been on the Internet?
The Internet is full of people spending hundreds of hours doing work for free just because they like it. Minecraft players built a huge replica of Hogwarts Castle. Engineers debug open-source software and answer newbie questions on Stack Overflow, work for which you could professionally charge hundreds of dollars an hour.
But oh no, we can't let single moms spend time with their kids instead of looking for a job flipping burgers, because humans are inherently lazy and need to be forced into working, and also working is dignified and makes you feel good. What is going on here???
5
UBI is one of the most lunatic ideas ever proposed. Inflation will be sky-high, there will be a tsunami of immigrants rushing to our borders and it will be impossible to maintain a competent labor force, especially at the entry level. We already have too many idle people in this country and UBI will only exacerbate that problem.
3
The UBI has been tested in real life for decades now [Indiana, Seattle, Denver, Manitoba, Ontario, Uganda, and the list goes on] - every place that it has been tested it has be terminated.
Inductively, if it was a solution to be discovered then it would have stuck at least somewhere.
2
Part of the problem with these “tests” is that they’re limited in scope and—obviously—duration. A larger sample of people needs to be provided a meaningful amount of money for a longer period of time.
Of course, the question remains: what do we do with/for the growing number of unemployed people as A.I. and automation proliferate? It’s easy to “shoot down” UBI as a concept, but what alternatives can you offer?
$12,000.00 a year for everyone would soon be a worthless floor because of inflation...yes?
4
Yang is the ultimate expression of liberalism. The gov't takes peoples' money and redistributes it to other people however it sees fit to do so. No pretext or pretending.
3
T. Boone Pickens died this week (of old age).
He died wealthy.
He never needed a $1,000 a month stipend.
But I live on $850 a month, SS, no pension, no food stamps, no guns, but one astonishing library.
Yes, doubling my income would be lovely.
But I'd likely only buy more books.
So why don't you give my thou to the WIC program, which is for women, infants and children who have nothing.
I don't mean "as little as me" ---- I mean NOTHING.
And the program gets cut every budget.
Republicans gave ONE TRILLION DOLLARS in a TAX CUT, 80% of which went to the top 1%.
The thought that anyone would want to give them a thousand dollars a month more from the common kitty, makes me feel ill.
No vote.
3
The government should allow an additional $1000 in tax deferred investment towards rretirement.
3
First, I would like to give credit where it's due. Which is to the New York Times for acknowledging that Andrew Yang is a presidential contender and that Universal Basic Income is a thing.
I hope that in terms of stages of grief, it marks the end of "let's ignore them" stage and transition to.. well that's a tricky one. Is it "let's laugh at them" or straight to "no more Mr. Nice Guy"?
It's hard to tell from the article. Following the careful examination of the pros and cons, it has concluded that the "issue with U.B.I. ... [is] not who is served but who’s best served.”
Whaaaa... what the... OK, I don't know if it qualifies as a joke, but it seems to suggest that the issue with UBI is figuring out who will pay for it.
If that's the case, I let me resolve that "issue" for anyone experiencing it, 'cause it's easy.
Andrew Yang's Freedom Dividend is $12,000/year, financed mostly through 10% VAT. Therefore, its break-even point is an individual *spending* $120,000 in that year.* Only folks spending more than that will be in the red.
That's it! That's your #MATH ;)
Oh, and BTW:
https://twitter.com/LadyAce127/status/1171581985195577344?s=20
* excluding staples, such as groceries and clothing, as they're excluded from VAT
2
More "free" stuff with no clue how to pay for it.
2
I don't know about other cities, but here in Philadelphia, a lot of landlords would jack up the rent by $1,000. Because, you know, they heard the tenants have an extra $1,000 laying around.
I am amazed that no one in the debates brought this simple matter up, or that Mr. Yang did not couple his idea with mandatory price and rent controls. Without that, his UBI remains the sort of stupid idea that is only taken seriously in Silicon Valley.
4
Jobs are being automated faster than most people realize and that's including more professional jobs like accounting and legal. Of course UBI or what is called the Freedom Dividend is radical but these are problems we've never faced before and we need to look at bold solutions. Part of this issue is that Amazon is our new store and they are sucking up all of the retail jobs that used to be in most towns.
It's time that a "moon shot" goal is set forth for our country. The system now rewards too small of group of people leaving most of stressed out trying to make ends meet. A thousand dollars isn't enough to live lavishly but it is enough to make rent or car care less burdensome.
This would also inject money into the economies of rural towns to resurrect restaurants, auto shops and other small businesses when there is more cash flow available. Many complain that people will be lazy with their monthly stipend. Research from test runs of this model show that people in general do something productive with their new financial freedom, they go back to school, start businesses, even take on a lower paying job since essentially a $1,000 a month is a $6 an hour raise creating a living wage.
The Freedom Dividend model should at least be rolled out to a larger sample size to prove one way or another if it can be the "moon shot" that pulls our country back together.
6
I want my money! Yang 2020!
1
...and, given that the Republicans are going to get rid og both birth control AND abortion and turn every poor woman (because none of that applies to rich women) into a full-time breeder, then, yes: A thousand dollars a month for her and another thou for every infant she is forced to breed out, which means that after 20 years of popping one a year out, comes to.....21 times $12,000 a year = $252,000 a year. (Check my math).
And that is just ONE woman.
The Republicans are denying, already, MILLIONS of poor women full access to clinics.
That's your future, America, because it's all about controlling uteri.
It's all about denying CHOICE to any female.
Has Mr. Yang considered any of this?
Doubt it.
Anyone thinking that a 1%er needs a thou a month extra -- so they can buy ONE BOTTLE of wine (which at a Thou is cheap!) has no experience with the reality of being poor in this nation.
Shame on him.
1
I discredit the idea that a UBI could disincentivize work. Who would give up working and living in a better neighborhood to live on that amount?
33
@Bob Cook Contrary to this NY Times article that said no country had tried UBI, Finland has already tried UBI and some were able to open businesses. Italy is planning a citizens wage. Stockton, CA is also trying a UBI currently.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/09/world/europe/finland-basic-income.html
5
@Bob Cook, Millions of people.
2
I wouldn't advocate for a UBI, instead I would propose a floor earning below which we would not allow people to fall and above which there would be no help. Just as an example, let pick $15 per hour or roughly $30,000 per year. If a person earned less than $2,500 per month in any month they would be supplemented to bring them up to that level. If they earned $0, they would get the entire $2,500. This would be much less expensive than a UBI of $1,000 per month.
Let's think about what a society would look like with a system such as this. Would some people quit entirely, yes, but I don't think many and even then, not forever. Most people like to work, they don't like to work for abusive bosses or companies.
Companies would get the religion of employee empowerment and good treatment, or they would cease to exist. If someone could quit a bad job without starving, why continue to work for these jerks?
I think the arts, education, entrepreneurship, would explode. People could chase their dream again without fear of starving.
The idea of seniors living in a flop house, having to eat cat food, would come to an end.
There would of course be some hard decisions, if we wish to pay for this, we could not for instance, engage in useless 18 year wars. Come to think of it, that might be a feature.
I would encourage you to think about a world, unlike today, were people could earn $1 Billion, but no one would starve.
82
@Bruce1253 Creating a cliff where benefits disappear is exactly what keeps many welfare recipients poor. Earning more on one hand only to lose that amount in benefits on the other hand forces people to have to work harder for a long time before seeing any net improvement in their situation.
19
@Bruce1253
Most people like to work? On what planet? If there were a UBI I could live comfortably off of and free health care, why would I work vs having hobbies?
9
@Bruce1253 Strongly no.
Milton Friedman and Thomas Sowell talked 40 years ago about the advantage of UBI vs. welfare.
UBI gives people freedom to improve their lives. Welfare, with means testing, enslaves people and keeps them poor.
14
Of course this is getting attacked as welfare that incentivizes not working. Predictable conservative response. Perhaps Yang's idea isn't foolproof, but it's an issue that needs to be addressed sooner than later. If one wants to try to live off of 12K a year and not work, good luck. For most, this will merely supplement the meager wages for what jobs will remain. As for the massive expense, consider the atmospheric rise in corporate profits once they can shed their payroll/benefits costs -- which certainly exceed $12K per worker now -- in favor of robots that can work round the clock with no paid vacation, sick leave, expectation of a raise, etc. They may consider UBI a bargain.
1
I have more issues with Warren's plan to give everyone an extra $200 / month in Social Security by taxing income (earned and capital gains, combined) above $250k for individuals and $400k for families. Families making that amount, yes, are doing more than fine. But most of them likely live in high COL areas like NY and San Francisco, where a 14.5% tax on income above that makes a real dent.
And, for what? Yes, plenty of elderly people need more assistance. But this giveaway would also go to retired people who have earned and invested enough over a lifetime to get as much as $400k in passive income themselves (if they have substantially more than that, they would likely end up paying more in extra tax than what they get... but why are we giving $200/mo. to people on a $400k annual budget??)
It's taking money out of the pockets of families trying to raise children and putting it in the pockets of people who often (a) are already comfortably retired; and (b) had a chance to fix this, and didn't -- and are probably voting for Trump anyway.
More basically, why do all the big-dollar benefit ideas have to go to the elderly? We have a student debt crisis in this country that's crushing the next generation. Universal basic income is a far better idea.
1
We claim to be "the greatest country on Earth" yet 1 in 5 of our children live in poverty, and more than 13 million children are food insecure.
Enough with the "rising tide" nonsense -- it's time for direct action. Mr. Yang is on to something.
201
The Government gives Billions of dollars in tax breaks to Oligarchs and Corporations. But has no money for the poor.
Where is Max Robespierre when we need him most?
14
@Scott
Don't drink the kool-aid!
The UBI is a disaster.
It is buying votes and as the article correctly points out a mollification.
Where it has had some effect is on a small scale with a partial offset of the poverty level (PL).
If everyone got it, it would be factored in to all aspects of everyday life.
Child support, payday loans, rent, civil judgements (scofflaw much?), PT work over FT work, SS, college costs, credit card offers, IRS, car payment, etc.
Now when a person’s $1K /mo has been decimated by civil judgements for child support, parking tickets, etc., maybe the rest goes to a car payment and gas.
Will they then qualify for public assistance for food, shelter and clothing? After all the car is a necessity for working the PT job bringing in $300/wk gross (taxed at a higher rate because it is on top of the 12K).
Or will society say no, no food or shelter for you, you should have covered it with the UBI?
No, we will wind up giving public assistance in addition to the UBI.
Predators and businesses with savvy lawyers will soak up all the UBI for a big chunk of society. Life Insurance purchasers and J. G. Wentworth ads will ask you if you need all that money NOW (after all it’s YOURS isn’t it?)?
Here’s $50K NOW for the next 10 years of payments, Ms. 20-something.
There is no good in UBI.
8
@Scott 7% of senior citizens living in Iowa are food insecure and many regular folks that are not senior citizens.
Many more people are becoming homeless daily.
Contrary to this NY Times article that said no country had tried UBI, Finland has already tried UBI and some were able to open businesses. Italy is planning a citizens wage. Stockton, CA is also trying a UBI currently.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/09/world/europe/finland-basic-income.html
10
This idea gets my vote. I think the phenomenon of the Internet dispels the myth that people potential is idleness. There are downsides, of course! But I think that anything that loosens the bondage of working to survive, and that undermines the survival ideology that typically underpins 'work', is positive.
3
Mr. Yang simply wants to start a conversation about who the system works for, and who it doesn't, and why. Everybody, including Mr. Yang, knows the government isn't going to give everybody $1,000/month, just like everybody knows there will never be "free" healthcare in the United States. And by the way, mediocre private health insurance costs more than $1,000/month. Look at little closer at Mr. Yang's arguments and you will see what he is getting at.
4
In Belgium, where I've lived for a long time, there are unemployment benefits unlimited in time. This is ~ UBI, at least, assuming people in a universal income system are still encouraged to work (e.g. with government sponsored job retraining) as it's harder to be happy feeling useless.
So does it work? It depends.
In the more dynamic Dutch speaking part of the country unemployment sits at 3.5% i.e. full employment.
The Southern half of the country, to which a lot of the North's wealth is redistributed, still has over 8% unemployment. The cost of living and housing is lower in the Southern part, more people choose to stay at home on unemployment. There is also less pressure from the regional government on able people to take a job or retrain to skills in high demand like welding or nursing. Recently a local Walloon government refused a permit to a Flemish entrepreneur who wanted to create a French fries factory, with 500 new jobs due to concerns over "noise". It shows the audacity of the Parti Socialiste. The booming region of West Flanders attracts more workers from France than from Wallonia.
My suspicion is that the UBI would worsen the problems of rural America who would be the primary takers, creating more drug related problems for one. It would also increase the tension between rural and urban America, as the latter part would start feeling like their money is being wasted. This is the reality today in Flanders, where the biggest party campaigns on more independence.
2
My state, NY, annually sends me a rebate check for property taxes instead of just reducing my tax bill. This way, I have to declare the rebate as income and get doubly taxed and NY State rakes in some more money.
So, if I gained more income from the Federal Government, I have to declare it. Does it put me in a higher tax bracket, so I end up paying a large percentage back to the Government?
I'm retired and always hearing threats concerning Social Security and Medicare cuts or abolishment. How does this UBI really fly?
Finally, as far as the example of the stock clerk's position becoming extinct, I don't believe Corporate America cares until its own managerial positions are threatened.
Oh brave New World?
1
Rather than handing out $1,000 a month cash, much better to give everyone "free" Medicare.
That way the money will not be wasted on supporting a bloated and inefficient health care system. Society as a whole will benefit from better and more certain healthcare , companies will be saved the costs of administering healthcare plans, and single payer healthcare would have the power to negotiate on equal terms with Big Healthcare. Private healthcare can sit on top of medicare for all - no problem - companies will have a choice. Opt in or opt out and do your own thing. Rich people will be able to buy whatever care they want - but poor people will have a Medicare safety net. This would be the biggest economic boost possible to most small companies. Mine included.
There would be economic fallout. No more fat commissions for insurance brokers, no more jobs for medical billing clerks and insurance claims adjusters. Get rid of all the non patient care costs that currently dominate US healthcare. No more health care bankruptcies and collections agencies. Do it now whilst unemployment is low. The economy is always saying we are short of skilled workers - take all these skilled billing clerks, loss adjusters, and insurance brokers and employ them in productive industries. Hey Presto 3% GDP growth.
3
If everyone got $1K per month, the value of $1K per month would diminish.
Also, note that Yang would pay for this with a Value Added Tax (One wonders what the "value added" really is). So, what you would get in ubi, you would pay out (at least partially) in a new VAT. For middle class families that spend $4-$5K per month, that means any $1K received would be completely wiped out by the VAT.
2
The best way to argue this one way or the other is to examine places where such policies have been instituted. A great example is Alaska, which "shares" its oil royalties with every Alaskan residents in the form of a yearly check. From the statistics you would think Alaskans are pretty well off since they have one of the highest per capita incomes in the US. On the contrary the opposite is true Alaska has one of the highest levels of alcoholism, drug addiction, homelessness, etc. of anywhere in the country. social services are almost inexistent, the university of Alaska is on the verge of extinction, its schools are among the worst in the country. Anchorage, its largest population center by a long shot is an urban desert as bad as any inner city in the lower 48. On the other hand take Norway a country whose wealth also derives predominantly from oil, instead of simply giving people a check they use their "oil fund" to provide public services like funding schools, medical services, etc. While Norway ranks as one of the most developed an best places to live, Alaska would rank near the bottom of any of those listings. If you find an alcoholic on the street and give him a thousand bucks what do you think will happen? However, if you take the same thousand bucks to pay for his rehabilitation services, housing and employment needs you will invariably get a much more satisfying result. Guaranteed minimum income is a placebo for rich people's conscience it doesn't tackle inequality.
3
@Ed
For most residents, Alaska is a good place to live. And very few of us would be happy in Norway, where the land is manicured and blue tarps are forbidden. Yes we have problems, recently compounded in spades by our Koch-backed governor Mike Dunleavy. But an evening walk through downtown Seattle, with the homeless bedding down in the doorways of the glittering high-rise business buildings of that 'booming city' makes Anchorage look pretty tame, makes me very sad for the city of Seattle, where I grew up in the 1960's, and happy to settled in the wonderful, eclectic, friendly city of Fairbanks.
Oh and by the way, we are well on the way to recalling our completely incompetent governor, who bought his way into office by promising a Yuge Permanent Fund Dividend.
1
"Should the Government Give Everyone $1,000 a Month?"
First, I don't think Mr. Yang is suggesting to give every US citizen $1000 a month. He has been talking about paying $12000 annually to each US family.
Secondly, that is not an outrageous proposal. Just look at the US military budget this year, roughly $700 billion. Assuming a US population of 350 million (which is an over-estimation), that amounts to $2000 per person. Note that the US military budget excludes the cost of the US on-going wars, which are in trillions/year.
Now look at the US foreign aids. The largest recipient of the US foreign aid is Israel. This year, the United States is providing $38 billion to Israel alone. Given that the population of that country is made up of approximately 2 million families (roughly 9 million individuals), that amounts to $19000 per family, which is 58% larger than Andrew Yang's suggested $12000 for each US family.
@Eddie B. The $38 billion is a commitment over 10 years ($3.8 billion per year). The US should have started to phase out foreign aid to Israel when Bill Clinton declared the era of big government over (1996?). There are plenty plenty of members of the Forbes 400 who could have picked up the slack. But members of both parties in Washington have been bought off by these billionaires via campaign contributions. It is cheaper for the billionaires.
I don't think I'm alone in the feeling that if I started receiving a UBI of $1,000 per month tomorrow, I absolutely would not quit my job. I, like most people, like the things that money can do: paying bills on time, being able to afford vacations again, being able to save money for the future/ retirement again, not having to settle for owning a 13 year old automobile.
Maybe I would change jobs to something I enjoy doing more, but that pays a little less, but quit altogether? Not a chance.
On top of that, do the math - $12,000 a year all by itself is nowhere near enough to actually live on, especially in higher cost of living cities.
6
Only if we cut the defense budget in half, substantially raise taxes on the rich including payroll tax, lower taxes on the working poor and lower middle class, eliminating loopholes, and permanently safeguard Social Security and Medicare. I can get along on what I have, for now, and I wouldn't mind receiving an extra $12,000, but there are plenty of people who need it more than I do.
2
Why not take that $3 trillion and use it to give everyone a fair shot at a good education and decent healthcare? Seems like a no-brainer to reward creativity and initiative rather than idleness.
Why would U.B.I discourage work? Not many people can get by on only $1,000/month. A salary is still needed to provide a reasonable standard of living. More likely, it would provide workers with options to leave jobs they dislike without stressing, and we all might be happier and more fulfilled if we can work at something we truly enjoy, instead of just to pay the bills. It would help young people just getting started in the job market who make lower salaries. Most especially, it would provide an income for stay-at-home moms, which would enrich their families immensely and finally pay them for all that they do. Finally, it would improve the lives of the poor elderly, some of whom can barely subsist on their small pensions. I doubt this will ever happen, but it's a thought provoking idea.
8
@Ms. Pea
You're point about stay at home Moms, and to expand on that, any caregivers, is a *huge* argument in favor of a UBI.
1
Childcare for an infant in my city costs about 12,000 a year. How about free childcare and/or eldercare for all instead, allowing women to stay in their jobs, contributing to taxation, and thus being better for the overall economy. In addition, it may not cost as much as you are not giving everyone a 1000 dollars a month and therefore perhaps eldercare and childcare workers could be paid more.
If Mr. Yang seriously thinks that giving everyone a thousand dollars a month 'no questions asked' will usher in ' a new era of "human capitalism" ' (whatever that means) then I would love to know how this transformation will work. The $3 trillion a year it would cost would be financed in part by value added and carbon taxes! Taxes are very unpopular and that is probably why no one has ever succeeded in implementing such an idea.
1
You should all read "Utopia for Realists" by Rutger Bregman. In it he spends a great deal of time discussing the advantages of a UBI. Also, he spends quite a bit of time debunking of all the notions that UBI is a disincentive for work. The facts tell a very different story. In a number of studies, people who are given a UBI tended to know exactly how to allocate those monies to their advantage. The injection of capital allowed them to invest in things that ultimately benefited them and, in many cases, those who were poor were able to pull themselves up out of poverty. Another point he makes is that it would be far more cost effective if the government gave families the UCI and totally eliminated the "welfare bureaucracy" which does nothing but add cost with no value added. Our current system spends huge money to ensure that welfare checks are "administrated" and that those collecting welfare are shamed and denigrated. They're not even allowed to have money in the bank lest they lose their "benefits." Of course, there are those, like Paul Ryan (a man who never worked an honest day in his life) who would lecture us about "the dignity of work," but if people can't obtain capital and kick start their budgets, there isn't dignity in work.
3
The answer is no unless we can offset this with reductions in other social programs (and some military funding). $1000/month for 300 million people x 12 months = $3,600,000,000,000/year ($3.6 trillion/year). I believe this is untenable from an economic PoV. I really like Yang. However, his thought s that this money would pour back into the economy is wrong. GDP would dive and I believe GDP is the viable measurement of economic health, unlike Yang. How many young, hipster, highly talented folks would opt for #vanlife knowing that they can score a good job at anytime? Lots to think about here. But the answer is no for now, but it might be somewhere in between.
The most important element of the UBI is that it trusts the individual recipient to spend the money more efficiently than a government bureaucracy can spend it for them.
Milton Friedman advocated a negative income tax system that provided a UBI, but avoided the adverse work incentive problem.
3
It's highly unlikely that a home health-care worker would quit her job in order to subsist on $12,000 a year.
We already have a minimum wage and a graduated income tax. We have a highly egalitarian ethos . We have a much worse gap in income than ever in our history. Yang's idea is to address that gap and fuel our Economy with the massive consumer spending and investing of Freedom Fund income.
Yes, Jeff Bezos has to pay a lot more in taxes--but he'll capture 10% of that $3trillion Freedom Fund. If I'm him or Mary Barra, or Goldman Sachs -- I take that trade-off every day of the week.
$300 billion in sales increases for Amazon in exchange for an additional tax bill of $100 billion? Bernie, Elizabeth and Andrew Are the Capitalists best friends. They provide paying customers to those who provide goods and services (albeit at a higher cost of sales.)
I wish I could post a photo of the eight foot tall robot I encountered in my local Stop and Shop. I hope Mr. Continetti does some supermarket shopping one day and notices...it's hard to miss.
I was chuckling at the googly-eyed rolling job killer as I snapped my photo. Nearby, a middle-aged man was stocking the dairy aisle and breaking down cardboard boxes. I asked him what the robot did. He explained that it rolled down the aisles taking stock. Eventually, the computer behind the googly eyes would be automatically placing orders.
I noticed the Gumby-shaped smiling job destroyer had no arms. Then, I looked at the middle aged man. He was still talking--I don't know what we're going to do, he said. Eventually, this thing will do everything I do.
"Discourage and devalue work," Mr. Continetti says. "The dignity of work would be undermined," Mr. Continetti says.
Yes, there is dignity in getting up in the morning, going to a job, even if it's just to stack cartons of eggs...but the robots are still coming.
The man stocking the dairy aisle stopped smiling, as did I. I told him to pay attention to Andrew Yang and vote for Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders.
8
To the assertion that UBI would devalue work, I think the opposite is true. I think it would finally reveal what work people actually value, as opposed to what they do simply to earn the right to exist. Ideally, we want to live in a society where as many people as possible truly value the work they perform, instead of toiling away like modern day slaves because they have no other choice.
6
Only someone with great wealth or no economic sense would propose a $1000 UBI.
Sadly, we use money to pay for most things, freely or not.
But money is only an accounting system. And it works only when most of us produce something of value in exchange for the money that we earn.
As soon as production of goods and services is taken out of the equation, there is nothing that money can buy.
Try buying a house from someone who does not have a house to sell. Or a car, or milk or anything.
Money has no value unless there is something to buy and someone willing to sell that something to you.
2
@Andrew B
Your logic is faulty. More and more of the production of goods and services has been automated. It is capital investment in technology and machinery that produces an ever increasing percentage of the goods and services we buy with money.
Example: 150 years ago it took the manual labor of over half our population to produce enough food to feed ourselves. Today the farming and food production sectors account for 10% of total employment, which means less than 5% of the total population, and produces magnitudes more food per worker than prior to the mechanization of farming and food production.
1
@Andrew B
And you actually think people will stop "producing" when they receive 12k a year? Really? Quite the opposite is true. Just see the comment above yours from DA. And then go on youtube, search any Yang video, and actually LISTEN.
1
I think eventually we will have something like the UBI or we will have chaos. Steady, stable, reliable, good-paying employment is something that is steadily disappearing in the modern economy. People are going to have to change jobs much more frequently in the future, and their income is going to be even more variable and insecure. This will make our economy more efficient actually—but it will increase financial insecurity unless we provide some guaranteed baseline income to all.
6
This is a continuation from a previous post.
On the upside: UBI can provide startup capital for small businesses, pad economic insecurity, compensate unpaid labor, finance deferred maintenance or home improvements and so on. That's all good.
There's a very big problem with Andrew Yang's $1,000 a month idea though. His number is pegged. There's no built-in adjustment mechanism. Prices don't work that way. They move around. If you peg UBI to $12,000 a year today, 10 years from now the UBI will have no impact on quality of life. Prices, wages, and benefits will all adjust to find a new equilibrium with the base income.
Like minimum wage, politicians will use UBI as a political foil to keep fighting the same battle over and over again. The obvious solution is a payment pegged to cost of living and inflation. Yang is intentionally ignoring this approach. That's the first problem.
The second problem with direct government transfers is they are a substitute more than a compliment. Meaning: UBI easily supplants other government services. We can image a future where social security is cut using UBI as an offset. You're receiving the same benefit. We're just paying you the cash in a different way.
Except that almost no American saves for retirement. That's why social security exists. The average person can't be trusted to handle public health decision making individually.
To which point, $3 trillion a year is a lot of money. Isn't their a better way to spend that money than UBI?
3
@Andy
Who says that the Dividend is pegged at 12k, or that it has to be pegged to that amount? I have seen dozens of interviews with him and he has never said that. He is about solving problems, so if the 12k number becomes a problem he can adjust it, or some other president can adjust it. What I do NOT understand from all the nay-sayers in this comments thread is that they all seem to be happy to just do nothing or to say the Dividend won't work. I say that nothing I have seen out of Washington has impacted my life in any significant way except negatively, and I am willing to take a chance on someone like Yang who has genuine ideas with peoples' well-being at their core.
1
@Daniel Castelaz
No. He can't. See the analogy to minimum wage. Only Congress can adjust the figure assuming the bill gets passed at all. If you don't peg the amount as a percentage of income, prices or housing costs, you're going to end up in the same argument we're having with minimum wages. Is $15 an hour too much or too little? Only legislatures can decide.
A point which came up just this morning. My mayor and city refuse to increase the automobile sales tax. A tax will hurt automobile sales. In real terms, that means city revenue has decreased 30% in real terms since the tax was originally introduced. That means the city cuts services. People lose jobs. The entire system performs anemically.
Do I need to explain public economics?
Why stop at a 1000? Maybe 5, 10. Let's make everyone millionaires while we are at it.
10
@MiguelM
Very thoughtful reply, Miguel. You have obviously done a lot of research on the topic. Instead of being snide, why don't you open your mind and think about what Yang is trying to do with the Freedom Dividend. And the first thing you should realize is that this is not an attempt to make everyone rich. It is an effort to take the "economic boot" off of our necks. No one is going to quit their job if they get this dividend. But it will free them up to consider other options for their life. Even you would benefit, Miguel, if you could only get past the mindset you are stuck with.
2
@MiguelM
I wants some of Bernie Sanders' money.
1
@Daniel Castelaz
The only way the boot will be off is if folks don't have to work.
YES! A $1,000. a month, and take it out of the Trump family trust fund!
Yang clearly read the book “Stories from 2045” edited by Calum Chace.
Many commenters have never given UBI a careful thought. This idea has proven successes. For more on this I reccomend this book: Utopia for Realists: And How We Can Get There by Rutger Bregman
4
As long as it was truly Universal - meaning I get mine - AND it replaces the corrupt panoply of Welfare agencies, I'm 100% for this. Pretty sure the Liberals (and probably Conservatives) will screw it up though. Figure the Liberals at some point will push for "means testing" and the GOP will attach no-abortion strings to the UBI, effectively rendering support for a wholy decent idea DOA
What a ridiculous idea !!!
7
$1000 a month will NOT end poverty. Everyone will be getting the thousand dollars a month. The poor people will still be poor.
7
@esp
Yes, but they can eat and not have to beg on street corners.
This would make no difference for net payers. They'd have to pay far more in to sustain the system. It would also make no difference to some people on welfare already getting approximate amt of money. The only difference would be between total welfare queens that can make even more now as they are considered super helpless and super wanting. They get on 15 programs and milk it all. Against the working poor who now get nothing or very little, as they are not considered helpless, just a little wanting.
It would also smoothen transition up or down. If I loose a badly paying job from which taxes took 40% of my UBI but it paid 80% UBI I'm down from 140% to 100% UBI, way safer lower fall. If I get a raise of 10% UBI it will never push me off some program where I'd loose more than that in assistance/benefits, it will just push my taxes up a little bit say by 2% UBI for +8%. This would hopefully remove poisonous incentives of welfare without removing welfare.
The only problem is, for it to make sense and be possible to fund all other welfare programs have to go. The loosers will be people all-in on welfare. Those people are specializing in looking and/or truly being very helpless and very wanting. And government would have to say "no" to them. I don't think that's possible.
1
@Piotr - After this sentence, " The only difference would be between total welfare queens that can make even more now as they are considered super helpless and super wanting." I couldn't read anymore of your comment. Get informed on the so called, "welfare queens." They never existed except as a way to demonize African American women.
UBI is idiotic. Not everyone needs welfare, which should be limited to a certain fixed fraction of the public. Even if UBI doesn't prevent people from working, it would Shirley affect how much they work. What would make up for all the lost production? We already have shortages for many skilled positions.
4
So 1000 bucks a month is going to level the playing field, and make up for being forced into the gig economy or worse, out of a job altogether (and forever)? In what universe is that amount of money supposed to make a real difference to any but the poorest, at which point it becomes welfare. It’s a ploy to buy votes, plain and simple. The proof of that was clearly revealed tonight, when Yang’s first words were that he would give money from his campaign to 10 people. What a total sham.
5
When you consider what you watch on Financial TV with millionaires, billionaires, and occasional trilionaires coming near to weeping that they might lose a dollar on a deal, and we are bleeding over a paltry $1,000 a month to those who keep this country moving! Make it $2,000.
6
Our Democracy is simply the least bloody way to decide who gets what. But, we are a young country. Hopefully we'll wake up one day and recognize that the Scandanavian countries do a better job of citizens serving one another that we do. I am not holding my breath.
2
No, the government should not give everyone $1,000 per month.
3
Hard for me to comment , don't know enough about it , I came back last night from a Europeen country where the system of welfare and medical work well , be diabetic won't cost you to go bankrupt , their medicine doesn't them a dime , since diabetes Is view as a national crisis , the conversation on how to assist the needy in this capitalist system is not the conversation we should have, our moral compass and the affection we show to politicians and the pharmaceutical company is the real problem , our politicians have nothing against the socialist system , they benefit from it , their medical insurance is all pay for by the government , next time you go to a town hall meeting , ask him or her why they are so against medical insurance for us ?
3
Sure, if your goal is the destruction of capitalism, progress, and America and the creation of a depression
3
The Freedom Dividend is a sound policy for multiple reasons. One being it is shifting away from means testing welfare. One of the biggest issues with welfare, is that it cuts off at a certain point, punishing people for being more successful, making it a bad financial decision to get out of poverty or to do better.
Second, it would not encourage laziness or waste. 12,000 dollars a year is enough to make sure families have some money to feed their children, pay rent, etc. but it just below the poverty line, not enough to live much of a life on. Furthermore, studies have been done on this, and a UBI of this sort was found to have little to no effect on labor force participation. The only groups that worked less were young adults who went further and did better in school, and mothers who spent more time raising children, both outcomes that will lead to greater economic and social improvements in the future.
Finally, in many ways the Freedom Dividend is really about everything but the money. It gives a measure of financial freedom to people, so that they can engage in activities that give value to their lives and the ones around them, not just certain activities that the market values highly. Parents spending time with their kids creates enormous long term economic and social value, yet the market does value it whatsoever.
PLEASE check out Andrew Yang's webpage yang2020.com and look at its section on UBI. It has answers to FAQs and common misconceptions.
Humanity First.
2
Yes for a UBI.
For one thing, people can only spend money if they have it.
Secondly, in a country as rich as ours, why should people go hungry?
Like it or not, some people are not capable of working. They should not be destitute .
When one thinks of the trillions wasted on the pentagon, we could all have UBIs and healthcare , education.
3
You don't give people money. You give them basic services.
Sure, some people might use that money to pay their rent and bills, and others might use it on big screen tvs and lotto tickets.
If you give people what they need to survive, you have the intent of what Yang wants and the proper way to dispense it.
@Joe
Excellent point. Free or nearly free healthcare as a right, and once again affordable tuition at our state university systems, would be two great places to start.
"U.B.I. would be costly and devalue work"
You guys go for the great punchline!
Subtle, wry, a sly ironic twist on lies gushing out of Washington these days.
Because, as every one with half a brain, or a job, knows full well, work has already been devalued to the absolute max.
Who did this dour deed?
Why, the very same people - Conservatives/Republicans, mean-spirited greed mongers of the corporate persuasion, angry members of The Base - who crushed any thought of job security, reliable schedules, benefits, survivable pay.
Work at the middle-to-lower levels of the US economy is a dog's dinner. Workers are abused, despised, cheated, underpaid, brought on and let go like cheap wrenches.
The evidence is everywhere, but especially evident in these priggish commenters' front yards.
Go ahead, post a reasonably attractive, decent paying (meaning just above "Scrooge" on the Cash-o-Meter), imply security (knowing you can back out at the drop of hat), mention benefits, and you'll have candidates lined up around the block, begging to be let in.
The problem is not, has never been, that people don't want to work.
The problem is that employers have made work an ugly, un-rewarding, humiliating, risky deal.
The problem is that these same piggish people (Conservatives/Republicans, etc.) will be the first to realize there is more government money floating around Poorville, and immediately raise prices to cancel out the puny $1,000 a month bandied about here.
4
Yang’s “freedom dividend” idea makes him sound like a game show host. We already have one of those in the Oval Office.
1
@M Lindsay
Please stop with the shallow one-liners that you think are clever, and investigate before you speak. If you had read about any of Yang's ideas in depth, or seen any of the many many interviews he has done with a wide range of media, you would know that the freedom Dividend is not a gimmick. You are dismissing a radical and positive attempt to turn around the mindset of this country, which is sadly that the system "is the way it is" and nothing can be done. That's exactly what the system wants you to do: keep your mind closed.
UBI might work.
It encourages families to stay together.
It makes minimum wage a living wage.
It will give people power to choose not the government.
It will solve the illegal immigration debate.
Sure. I'll take it, especially when robots and AI will soon put us all out of work. :(
1
The UBI is a disaster.
It is buying votes and as the article correctly points out a mollification.
Where it has had some effect is on a small scale with a partial offset of the poverty level (PL).
If everyone got it, it would be factored in to all aspects of everyday life.
Child support, payday loans, rent, civil judgements (scofflaw much?), PT work over FT work, SS, college costs, credit card offers, IRS, car payment, etc.
Now when a person’s $1K /mo has been decimated by civil judgements for child support, parking tickets, etc., maybe the rest goes to a car payment and gas.
Will they then qualify for public assistance for food, shelter and clothing? After all the car is a necessity for working the PT job bringing in $300/wk gross (taxed at a higher rate because it is on top of the 12K).
Or will society say no, no food or shelter for you, you should have covered it with the UBI?
No, we will wind up giving public assistance in addition to the UBI.
Predators and businesses with savvy lawyers will soak up all the UBI for a big chunk of society. Life Insurance purchasers and J. G. Wentworth ads will ask you if you need all that money NOW (after all it’s YOURS isn’t it?)?
Here’s $50K NOW for the next 10 years of payments, Ms. 20-something.
There is no good in UBI.
5
@WorkingGuy
This. The scams practically write themselves. And yes, it's buying votes, with the most votes going to whoever promises the Biggest UBI (whether or not they can deliver).
It's unfortunate that the author did not look a bit deeper into Alaska's PFD program. Our current governor promised a 'Full PFD Payment' (based on
a funding formula crafted in 1982 when funds earnings were bonds based, rather than stock market based as they are now). In order to reach that amount, his imported Budget Whisperer (who apparently channels Ayn Rand) Donna Arduin has made Draconian Cuts to the state budget, all in the name of the Fully Funded PFD and at the expense of needed state services.
We used to see the PFD for what it was, a Dividend when things were going well, but now it's become an Entitlement for many residents. (Also an incentive to have more kids which people cannot afford, as for example the testimony of one 'pioneer wannabe' who stated that he Had To Have his Fully Funded PFD because his large family was living in a wall tent and surviving on 'Top Ramen and Squirrel'.)
@WorkingGuy
Yang has already stated on his website, which you obviously have not visited, that it will be against the law to lend money against the Dividend. Please do your research before bashing something that has so much positive potential.
I would vote for ANYONE who opposes Trump...or anyone who could do so in the future...or anyone who could be made up in a fictional fantasy. This country, and the world, needs to be rid of him.
Even then, his awful legacy will live on. The crucial question is...for how long?
And I used to be a Republican.
1
Better to do that then the money is circulated amongst local businesses and entertainment and it would create more jobs in the USA instead of putting tax cuts into 2% of the richest peoples pockets and foreign speculators and carpetbaggers. It would also help towards taking financial stress out of peoples lives and save the government money in hospital drugs and bills and crime and prison etc etc
3
I kind of get it but it’s kind of a blunt instrument to make employers pay a higher wage. But with the right wing controlling pretty much everything in America there is not much chance for anything that makes average Americans lives better. And as we will see again in 2020 how working class whites will run to the polls to vote for right wingers whose economic policies hurt them and their children. All because they fear those brown people getting something for nothing.
@Chris
But this time they will be getting money too. And the irony is that there are MANY more white people receiving government handouts than people of color.
In August, 1969, President Richard Nixon proposed the replacement of AFDC with a program that would benefit “the working poor, as well as the nonworking; to families with dependent children headed by a father, as well as those headed by a mother.” “What I am proposing is that the Federal Government build a foundation under the income of every American family with dependent children that cannot care for itself — and wherever in America that family may live.” Richard Nixon, 1969
“I have always said that I am in favor of a minimum income for every person in the country.” Hayek on Hayek: An Autobiographical Dialogue by F. A. Hayek, edited by Stephen Kresge and Leif Wenar (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994)
An alternative is soma...
1
Sorry, but I am with classical socialists on this one. "In the USSR work is a duty and a matter of honor for every able-bodied citizen, in accordance with the principle: He who does not work, neither shall he eat.” - Constitution of the USSR, 1936.
3
@AT
Yours is the most ridiculous comment of all the ones I have read. The Freedom Dividend would NOT get rid of work. The opposite is true. It would create jobs, incentivize people to do jobs they actually want to do, create entrepreneurs, improve education, and shift funds that are now being wasted by government into the hands of the people. Please do some basic research.
1
Andrew Yang's tag line is "Humanity First." In this he is pointing out that, ideally, our most important objective MUST be the goal of improving our lives -- all aspects. And that is not necessarily consistent with the GDP or Wallstreet - so, you choice is, do you agree? Is your life better when the GDP improves or Wallstreet suceeds, or would your life improve if you had a small safety net that allowed you to navigate life in a way that made the most sense to you? Would your life improve with a 12k/ year buffer? Would it help?
The USA has the money - we blink billions in military bombing the results in nothing but dead bodies. The question is: What is the point? What is the end game? Has anything improved from the 18 years of war in Afghanistan? Are you enriched? Did we end terrorism?
Yang has a better plan -- a human/ community first plan. Check it out.
Choose your path in 2020. Vote!
1
"No country has yet implemented a U.B.I. like Mr. Yang’s, but precedents of a kind do exist: Alaska draws on a state-owned investment fund, created by its oil wealth, to cut its residents a check every year ($1,600 in 2018). More robust programs are now being tested in smaller communities across the world, from villages in rural Kenya to Stockton, Calif."
Saudi Arabia, Citizen's Account Program. Through the program, citizens in Saudi Arabia get monthly payments from the state.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen%E2%80%99s_Account_Program_(Saudi_Arabia)
Mr. Yang and Saudi Arabia.
2
Given the progress we are making in genetics, my modest proposal, and for all we know, it might already be coming to fruition, is for the plutocrats to develop a pathogen that attacks everyone, but for which only they can afford the cure. Those humming robots they are filling the factories with will continue to produce everything they'll need and if a few poor do happen to survive, their wages will increase dramatically, as happened in the Middle Ages after the Black Death.
Why not simply increase the minimum wage? Yes, this could result in some inflation, but so could a UBI. Would it push the loss of jobs to AI and automation, yes, but it would tie the benefit to work. Work increases engagement and purpose.
Technology and not social agendas will ultimately drive UBI. Consider that eventually utility payments (and also appliance servicing) will be made automatically by the household AI system (IoT) from a household pool of money set aside for that purpose. Most likely these payments will be some combination of IoT-based, block-chain based and cloud-based payment system to optimize security. Utility companies (and appliance companies) will not be able to implement the system unless a sufficiently large pool of consumers can comfortably set this money aside for the automatic payments to go through. At present, low income and even middle income households choose each month when to pay these bills due to cash flow concerns. Until those cash flow concerns are ameliorated, such a technology can not be deployed. It is a question of scale and of course full deployment of 5G. UBI is turnkey is enabling full scale launch of certain block-chain/IoT/cloud based systems. Technology will drive the implementation of many "social" programs. Social policy and tech policy will become much more aligned.
Another reason to begin regulating tech now. STEM majors who also double major in philosophy/humanities will be in demand as we require a much high standard of public policy initiatives. Kids who leave college to create start-ups will finally be recognized as poorly educated and harmful to society's interests.
1
If adopted, Universal Basic Income would inevitably be used as a cudgel to eliminate social security payments, housing vouchers, and any other form of government assistance under the false pretext that people should be able to subsist on UBI alone.
2
Honestly, I first thought UBI was a political gimmick for Yang to get some media attention. A political unknown is promising $12,000 a year if you vote for him. Plenty of people will stop to listen. Apparently, the gimmick is working.
Let's treat the idea seriously for a moment though. What is the economic impact of direct benefit transfers?
First of all, let's get rid of Matthew Continetti. Small cash transfers don't obliviate the need or desire to work. $12,000 a year is roughly $5.50 an hour. Moreover, outside the severely depressed, most people enjoy having something to do. Many retirees work and volunteer not for money. They enjoy the social environment and mental/physical activity work provides.
Doing nothing is depressing. If you want to punish someone, give them nothing to do. That's the principle behind both incarceration and children's timeout. The dignity of work is not derived from financial compensation but from social and self perception. You can feel good getting paid nothing. Conversely, you can get paid well to do a job you feel lousy about. UBI isn't going to change this relationship.
In short, both Matthew Continetti's conviction and Joe Biden's reservation are dead wrong. There's no way around it. People are going to work and they will find dignity in the work that they do. So what might a UBI actually impact?
4
I was surprised when my college-age friends didn’t like the idea of free college tuition. They had gotten scholarships they felt they earned through their own hard work. I know people who qualify for Food Stamps who won’t take them because they don’t want to accept handouts. Poor people benefit from the dignity of work.
I don’t dispute that the contributions of citizens are being rewarded unfairly. But work has a social meaning and purpose beyond making money. I would rather see a return to a Civilian Conservation Corps model, where a wide variety of community service projects are valued and rewarded. In particular, community-building projects could clean up neighborhoods, develop recreation trails and neighborhood gardens, assist the elderly, teach skills to young people and offer greater access to the arts.
I can't figure out why the value of a UBI payment to a consumer would not be soon inflated away by producers raising prices in response... especially in areas where there is little competition (e.g phone svc, healthcare). If so, then the consumers would not be better off ... or at least not as much better off as $1000 would suggest.
1
Predicting human nature has always been difficult. While UBI can be a wonderful idea to address poverty, poor education, racial inequality, joblessness, and homelessness, it seems equally important to understand the not so wonderful. Free money in the hands of our more selfish and destructive side is trouble. People need rules whether we like it or not.
The first kind of Basic Income we need is a minimum wage that will sustain the cost of living. Businesses can't have fuel or steel or plastic for less than it costs to make them, why are they allowed to exploit the labor of workers whose costs are partly subsidized by food stamps, medicaid, and other forms of public assistance?
2
I would rather have functional mass transit, safe food and drugs, and certainty in my medical care. I cannot buy that with $1,000.
6
@Poslug: you don’t have to chose between both. The UBI allows people to make better personal choices; efficient mass transit, hassle free health care and safe food will require long term changes in the way we allocate money. This has to be built. Europe has a 50 year advantage on us. In the meantime UBI can help fix some serious consequences of a deepening inequality fast.
6
@poslug
Uh, Yang is also for Medicare for All, and streamlined government spending on military needs, as well as providing safe water and a clean environment. Your statement shows you have not read his policies or heard him speak about the issues.
2
One really great aspect of giving away money is that so much is now wasted on administrative and bureaucratic costs. We are spending hundreds of billions of dollars to operate a system that isn't working, a system that does not generally help lift people out of poverty. Instead, it sends them scurrying around like lab rats filling out forms and answering questions about their lives.
Suppose someone manages to lift their head, ever so slightly, above dire poverty. Their benefits are cut as soon as the bureaucracy finds out, so, in the mind of the person getting the benefit, they are punished financially for doing better. This is a perverse system whereby someone doing better is punished, pushed back down. The "rules" are counterproductive, helping to lock people in poverty rather than helping them lift themselves.
Still, the idea of unearned money runs against the grain of fundamental beliefs in America. A better idea, coupled with some form of direct support, would be a national savings account for all citizens that could be accessed at the age of 34. We the people own the natural resources that are leased to mining and oil companies but the money goes to the government. This savings account could also include a slice of ownership in publicly traded companies, giving everyone a chance to benefit.
We have to change. We have to do better. We have thrown trillions of dollars at poverty and instead of a solution we have a poverty sustaining system.
10
@Doug Terry, Do you think people will continue to work? I don't. They'll spend it on drugs, cheetos, and porn. Come on. There is no free lunch. Besides it will cause inflation. When a slum costs $1900 a month, who do you think will benefit?
2
We actually use the concept of UBI already and people would never want to end it: social security. It ended poverty of the elderly and allowed a dignified life in retirement.
The UBI really has to be seen as a dividend on all the wealth a nation has built over decades or centuries. Most of the wealth has gone to a small portion of society but we all and generations before of us have built it.
There is a pesky misconception that rich people somehow deserve their wealth and that poor people somehow are to blame for the poverty.
The stereotypes go on and on, such as calling poor people lazy and believe that rich people work hard. The opposite is often true because poor people work extremely hard to survive and rich people are often overpaid for the what they do.
The UBI is a serious and well studied method to fix the injustice of a rigged capitalistic system.
It will allow many people to escape the vicious cycle of poverty and offer them opportunities that in the end will benefit all of us.
15
@Oliver Herfort
We actually use the concept of UBI already and people would never want to end it: social security. It ended poverty of the elderly and allowed a dignified life in retirement.
really? we paid in for years. ss isn't free. and as far as ending the poverty of the elderly, have you tried living on $1250. a month?
3
@linh: “we pay for years”, that is exactly the concept the UBI is built on, except it accounts for the invisible payments we do over decades by letting the rich take a disproportionate amount of money. Social security is nothing but a wealth dividend. Step back and take a a big picture look.
1
@Oliver Herfort: LOL -- except I PAID INTO that SS system for FIFTY YEARS!!!!
So did my employers.
If you call SS welfare….you are going to destroy a thriving, effective system. IT IS NOT WELFARE because YOU PAY FOR IT.
It is more like a mandatory pension savings plan that you cannot opt out of, nor spend early (like cashing in your 401Ks).
1
A UBI is like a pacifier. It's a way for the wealthy to shut up progressives complaining about income inequality.
Consider a two parent family, and those who have an
in law or grandparent living with them that could have an income of $3000 a month. That's quite a considerable amount for someone living on the outskirts of Mobile Alabama. What inflationary impact would that have if families suddenly had that kind of increased buying power.
How would a single mother living in Brooklyn with two kids do with an extra $1000 a month. Would her income become too high for her to continue qualifying to live in a subsidized or rent controlled apartment. Would her children be pushed off of the free breakfast and lunch program at school.
Would she be able to just use the money any way she pleases.
What would happen with the hundred of thousands of intransigent homeless people. Would they use that money for liquor and drugs. Would they become attrative targets for thieves. Would they use the money for shelter. Would motels price gouge.
What would politicians do with social security.
Would they be tempted to do abolish or radically alter the system.
Would recent high school graduates put off going to college because now they have a guaranteed income and can do whatever they want until they make up their mind. How many more young people would while away the time living at home.
A UBI would probably create a multitude of problems we can't even imagine.
4
@A P
And it would create an even greater multitude of BENEFITS that we cannot even imagine.
3
@Daniel Castelaz Really? He posted a thoughtful, well-organized, reasonable response to this article. Not even disagreeing, just pointing out flaws that must be addressed, and all you have to say in response is "I know you are but what am I?"
1
@Daniel Castelaz Really? He posted a thoughtful, well-organized, reasonable response to this article. Not even disagreeing, just pointing out flaws that must be addressed, and all you have to say in response is "I know you are but what am I?"
Use the Alaska model instead.
Alaska has its natural resources being depleted. Theory is all Alaskans own those resources, thus should be compensated.
All Americans own our natural resources and we should be compensated. All Americans pay the externalities that businesses don’t pay for, like pollution, traffic, climate change, jobs being shipped overseas, etc. and we should be compensated. How much longer will we socialize the losses but privatize the gains?
5
@SXM. No, Alaskans get an oil dividend because they are selling oil. And businesses do pay for pollution - it’s called EPA regulations. What compensation do you think you are entitled to?
3
@Jackson
Actually, we ALL "own" our country's natural resources, and yet the profit extracted from them all goes to the rich and the corporations. Our government "leases" these corporations OUR lands, containing OUR resources, and the corporations sell OUR resources back to us at their profit.
12
@Jackson
Here on The Great North Coast, where oil is in short supply and we tend to deceive ourselves a bit less, we still know your argument is foolish, not to say stupid.
Corporations, "Capitalists" as they insist on styling themselves, steal, destroy, profit from virtually free use of natural resources.
This is not Capitalism, as you know, because Capitalists know they must pay for what they use fairly, promptly, without complaint.
Capitalists also know their first responsibility, even before profit, is to secure the good health of the economic system which grants them life.
This is decidedly not us.
If someone is profiting from, well...anything, they must pay a fair price for it. Otherwise the system becomes warped (like ours), less productive and innovative (like ours), class-ridden (very much like ours) and, ultimately, unsustainable (as ours is proving to be).
Your jaunty toss-off about about "the cost of EPA regulations" is hilarious, by the way, unless you're including immense budgets for lobbying and occasional impulse buys as politicians come on the market).
You live in Alaska...you know what I'm talking about.
In deference to rugged self-reliance, though, I think we could manage to eliminate all Federal funds flowing, gushing, into Alaska, as a first step toward rescuing your obviously declining self-esteem.
You're welcome.
1
Although it sounds like a good anti poverty measure, it may not work as intended. if everyone gets the same amount, UBI will be a cost driver on the economy. Look to Ewe Rheinhardt, Princeton Economist research on medical costs. If insurance pays $100 for a $300 procedures, there price will eventually rise to $400 for the same procedure. In essence, the payments might just reset the prices in the economy, and the $1000 per month ends up with no true impact.
4
@Andy
Your idea has already been rebutted countless times by economists. The Freedom Dividend is not inflationary. Please do your research.
2
Why not? Already the government pays do nothing congressional leaders, a current president and administration that seems by all news accounts to be dealing in corruption and graft on a daily basis. Over the last 40 years wages for workers have stagnated and haven't kept pace with inflation. Only those at the top have benefited. Seriously doubt whether a U. B. I. scheme could be employed because in a capitalistic economy there is no free ride.
2
Mr. Yang is the only candidate who has voiced an informed and empirically supported position on the advent of automation and the impact it will have on jobs. Biden, De Blasio, and others have subsequently stolen Yang's ideas and claimed them as their own, delivering them with half the charisma and knowledge. MSNBC, CNN, and others have deliberately blocked Mr. Yang from gaining exposures by omitting him from polls and graphics. And despite all of this, Mr. Yang has the highest grassroots support. This should tell you something. The American people are speaking.
7
@Sarah Johnson maybe Big Government should have banned cars to save the buggy industry/workers and banned electricity to save candle makers. Every technological advance in world history has benefited mankind and grown the economy, automation will be no different
3
@Larry
We are approaching 8 billion people in this world. Not everyone will be able to be an Uber driver.
Look around you. Ask recent graduates or workers over 45 looking for a job.
We aren't Luddites, we love progress and technology. But we need to address the consequences.
2
@Larry
Yang is NOT saying we should ban robots or AI! Please look into what he is saying before saying things like that Larry! Yang is saying that the automation of jobs is happening and it's going to get even worse, and we are not prepared for it. He is trying to get across that this "fourth industrial revolution" will be way different and way more impactful. Besides, you could go back to Chicago if you had that extra grand a month to help with taxes!
2
All that will happen with the “windfall” is that landlords will raise rents to absorb the new found money. It’s a windfall for them and other providers
5
@Steve Gauthier
This is not a "windfall" but just a relabeling.
If your paycheck previously said $3000, it may in the future say $2000(salary)+$1000(UBI). Basically just adding a tax on your salary and giving it back immediately.
The benefit is that acts as a buffer against bad times. If you currently have a a minimum wage job with bad conditions, you can't complain for fear of being fired. With UBI you probably won't earn more in total (see above), but you actually can bargain because you will not be completely destitute if you get fired.
You will still want/need to have a job because just UBI is very little to live on. It won't matter much if you are upper/upper middle class and won't "devalue" good jobs. It will however change the bargaining for badly paid jobs.
7
@Chris Yang has stated that it will not be subject to taxes, so it's unlikely that it would be disbursed on your paycheck.
Replacement by automation is a grim reality, which only Andrew Yang is willing to address. Even Sanders and Warren are unwilling to face the truth that cold calculation will require most industries to take this route. I agree that a UBI amounts to pacification, but it will have to be paid for out of the pockets of the plutocrats, and really, what is the alternative?
We have been sold a bill of goods for decades now by our capitalists, who place the entire onus for failure upon the worker: they lack the skills; they lack the education; and they lack the drive.Remarkably, they've been able to find workers in foreign countries with the same deficiencies, but who are willing to work for peanuts. Suddenly, those precious skills don't matter anymore. We are told that a college degree is a passport to a middle class life, but millions have mired themselves in debt in yet another way to transfer wealth upwards. And then we have corporate toadies like Thomas Friedman, with his favorite trope, exhorting us all to "lifelong learning", so we can remain useful widgets until we finally collapse from exhaustion. Most people are simply not built for "lifelong learning", much less in areas in which they actually have no interest - such as their lousy, unremunerative job. If people were so eager to learn, they would not be spending half their lives looking at screens of one sort or another, but this is just one more way of blaming the worker for their fate: they just refuse to learn.
22
@stan continople
"We must be very wary of the advance of technology. 95% of our workforce is in employed in agriculture. When these new farm machines take over everyone will be unemployed except for a lucky few."
-The Stan Continoples of the early 1900's
2
@FreddyB
You know, this ill-fitting analogy is constantly trotted out but this time it's different, and if it not different, then you - or someone - should be able to tell us all what the "jobs of tomorrow" will be. Everyone is strangely silent on this matter, yet our corporate masters should be the first to at least direct us in how best to allocate our educational resources. They know better than anyone however that it's all a waste of time.
3
We are approaching 8 billion people in this world. Not everyone will be able to be an Uber driver.
Look around you. Ask recent graduates or workers over 45 looking for a job.
We aren't Luddites, we love progress and technology. But we need to address the consequences.
4
UBI should simplify the safety net to the maximum. SS, unemployment benefits and all other social services should be replaced to gain enormous gains in fiscal taxation simplification, government administrative cost and other potential saving.
With all the gains from simplification, cost is not that high.
I'm with Robert Reich. The number of "good jobs" in the future---in fact, that future is already largely here---will diminish. In a growing 'gig' economy, the average two-thirds of Americans are going to need extra financial help, period.
Sure, there will be those for whom $1,000.00 per month will be the motherlode. So what if they want to live in their parents basement the rest of their lives, eat mac 'n' cheese, and play video games morning and night, their absence from the labor pool will only enhance the prospects of others with greater ambitions.
For most people, which is to say the bottom two-thirds of the American population, a universal basic income will never be enough. Rather than "robbing them of their ambition", as one detractor states, it will invest them with a needed sense of optimism. Now, they can afford a better place to live---and afford groceries too! Now they can take a vacation, or see a dentist. Maybe now they can at least pretend to share in the American dream.
The good that that last one does for my heart is enough to sell me on UBI all by itself.
21
Government has only the money that it takes from its citizens. You cannot return to everyone more than they contribute. Someone has to pay in more than they receive in return. Proponents of these plans want us all to believe that only some nefarious group, "the rich", will be made to pay the bill. I believe the plan will require increased taxing well into what is considered middle class, and a lot of people who now cheer for the concept will be surprised to see their own living standards diminished. People have an insatiable appetite for spending other people's money. A thousand/month is a great starting point, but when it does not produce utopia, expect demands for more.
6
@Robert Basically incorrect. Governments can create money to pay for any expenses. The only issue attached is the risk of inflation. Your logic isn't even applicable to businesses or families who can always borrow. The ability to service loans depends on future earnings.
2
@Craig Freedman
If the government funds this by printing money there is not a "risk of inflation", there will be inflation, which has the effect of a tax on the very group that the basic income is supposed to help most.
@Robert If you read the article it tells you how Yang intends to pay for the plan. Though he goes into deeper detail in some of his interviews. Essentially this, for those who opt in, would replace many of the current welfare benefits offered in the U.S., helping to offset the cost, while a V.A.T. and a carbon tax would work together to fund the program in its entirety. The actual impact on the middle class is still net positive.
2
Universal Basic Income can be designed to never devalue the work ethic & we know there is plenty of valuable family, community and planetary work to do. In addition, it can be a stepping stone towards more innovation, rather than less, as this concept may be extended to provide downside insurance for productive workers that move the applied technology-business ball, working in startups that never get acquired or go-public (lots of meaningful yards enjoyed by millions of fans; but never wining a National Championship). What UBI does, with technology potentials, is change the role of Government in the economy - not necessarily a one size fits all social democratic role.
2
There's no question that the income gap in the US has grown too wide. Traditionally, large income gaps lead to unrest, revolution, and the adoption of Marxist ideologies. Bernie has observed that three people in the US have as much wealth as the lower half of the population. Yang's proposal seems like one reasonable way to address the disparity. I'm not hearing proposals from other democrats on how to reduce the wealth gap except for vague suggestions to tax the wealthy. Yang has put a stake in the ground... it deserves consideration.
2
Ask people what they would do with $1000 a month and invariably you will get an answer similar to, id keep working, or start my own business and i would have more time for my family, or id take up some sport or painting or woodwork or some other beneficial activity, ask people what other people would do if you gave them $1000 a month and invariably they will say that they will spend it on drugs and booze. isnt it wonderful the view we invariably have of our fellow human beings? This experiment has been run a few times already, and it produces better health outcomes, less violence, less crime and better productivity at work, but ask others what they believe will happen and...............
5
You can bet that at $1000 per month I will have all the children I possibly can. They can easily cost less than $1000/mth to take care of, so as a family we'll be in clover.
4
@David Appell
Uh, David, the Freedom Dividend starts at age 18....
1
Somehow money has to be redistributed. Whether through basic income or larger social welfare expenditures, there needs to be some sort of release valve.
2
One can certainly make an OT Biblical point - the land in biblical Israel was shared out between the clans and would return to the families every seven or fifty years. This was an important leveller. Andrew Yang could frame it in these terms for the Bible Belt.
This could be seen in terms of a right to the means of production, which could be built up or subcontracted away for a period (hence the $1,000).
Give a man/woman a fish and you feed them for a day. Teach a man/woman to fish and you feed them for a lifetime.
Some members of society will need to be supported by the whole because of medical conditions, etc. Giving everyone a $1000 a month is simply a nice thought, but a very bad idea. Let's put the money in education, healthcare, job training, etc.
There is no magic bullet in a world where the bottom line is survival of the fittest. But one filled with compassionate capitalism will have the best chance of reaching the most people. But don't expect to hear this from a politician. I doubt you would clear a $1000 with a "Compassionate Capitalism for The Few and The Many" bumper sticker.
@Joe
Stop having children is a better solution. In 10-20 years there will be fewer jobs to have. The Lower Level ones will be service jobs, mechanic jobs, some farming jobs and that is it.
Nobody needs a typist any longer and that was long a job. Now I talk to my computer and it types for me. It does a pretty good job also. There are even machines to fold your clothes. Think about it.
1
@Joe, 'Let's put the money in education, healthcare, job training, etc' where this has been already done with a living living income, they have found that, this is exactly what the people spent the money on.
1
The bottom line is we can sit in a room with no windows and postulate "what if" until we are blue in the face. We'll never know unless we try a UBI. Those that experience less meaning in their lives will probably go out and get jobs or create their own means of income. Life is increasingly an out of control hamster wheel and not having to work as many hours would be a blessing for some.
1
@Peter, its already been tried in Canada and was found to be a massive success for health, family, well-being and productivity, you maybe haven't heard because it worked, if it hadn't you would have.
I think a UBI is needed and is a unconditional cash transfer which has been proven to work in randomised controlled trials
BUT, I think Yang is ahead of his time as the pain and job losses of AI and automation is coming but has not hit hard yet...so it will. it resonant with voters as they would classify this as another liberal attempt to have big government
maybe in ten years time, we will be having this issue as centre stage in elections
nevertheless structural transformation of our economy and society is taking place and it will be ugly
1
Capitalism is focused on the individual, so we hand out money for people to spend. Why not provide a guaranty of housing, food, and medical care, without handing money to people? Housing does not have to be anything more than a shipping container, food is a hot meal in a local eatery or a sandwich at home, and medical care is dental, vision, mental, and health.
Instead of trying to establish a dollar amount that represents the worth of a person, why don't we provide the things that a person needs to survive? People are the most valuable resource there is, because people working together can create things which individuals cannot. Capitalism wants to keep us as consumers, even if we have nothing to consume with. Society needs us to survive so that it will continue. We need to be people first, then consumers.
Merely handing out money will not insure that everyone has a place to live, or food to eat. Taking care of the people is like taking care of your plant and equipment, your vehicles, or any other asset. People are not a resource to be used up and discarded. Without people, there would be no one to consume the goods, nor would there be anyone to produce the goods, or to transport them, warehouse them, and sell them.
4
@Scott Holman
Scott, please go on youtube and search for any Andrew Yang video. You will see that his Freedom Dividend is all about the individual and making things better for everyone. The Freedom Dividend is NOT a "handout"!! It is a DIVIDEND that each American earns, just the way shareholders in a corporation earn dividends. Yang's central point is the SAME as yours: human worth.
No NYT columnist will write in actual support of UBI. Many comments will point out whatever negatives they can think of. It sounds too left wing in our politics. No prestige to identify too much with the 'needy' that our society keeps creating.
It's obvious our political culture creates great imbalances of wealth. America may have overthrown King George, but who calls the shots in our politics? They're just not called dukes and earls today.
With tax laws and weak regulations, our govt protects and supports the privileges of the wealthy---corporate or individual---and gladly takes their donations. In our system, politicians need to compete in election campaigns, and must pay for the expensive ads that swamp voters and bring big profits to the media.
Per wikipedia, many countries ban those political ads on their media. They also solved their health care for all several generations ago, which we still are fighting about.
2
If I was giving out monthly thousand dollar prizes, I’d require all the lucky winners to splurge all of it every 30 days on things like big-screen TV’s, new cars and box seats for the opera.
Anything that is fun and keeps the economic pot boiling.
We already have far too many people who win the Powerball Lottery who end up buying their mother a house and saving all the rest of it, which is no fun and ruins it for the rest of us.
This UBI prize money should not be used to pay hospital bills or college tuition. Those places already send out an excess of bills and should simply be required to wait for their money.
1
"Should the Government Give Everyone $1,000 a Month?"
If this is coming from a politician, it is all about politics. Where will this money come from? If it is tax payer money, it is from one pocket to the other. Does it make sense?
There will always be the have and have-nots. UBI will help in the short run, but in the long run the bell curve returns. None of this matters. Yawn
1
@Mike What is this "bell curve" for economic outcomes, of which you speak?
percentage of total US Net Wealth, by household income bracket: 1983//2010
top 1%------- 33.8%//35.4%
next 19%---- 47.5%//53.5%
other 80%--- 18.7%//11.1%
percentage of Financial Wealth (i.e, minus home equity)1983//2010
top 1%------- 42.9%//42.1%
next 19%---- 48.4%//53.5%
other 80%--- 08.7%//04.7%
Where is the natural re-balancing of fortunes that your comment implied?
https://whorulesamerica.ucsc.edu/power/wealth.html
At his first rally in San Francisco, with about 30 people in attendance and a lot of empty chairs, I asked Andrew Yang about a possible inflationary element in his UBI proposal. Let's say you are a landlord, or the purveyor of any essential commodity, and you know that without rent or price controls, there is nothing stopping you from raising your rates. The only effective price control is the income of the consumer. Suddenly, the consumer has $1,000 more a month to spend. What's going to happen to prices, and where is that money going to end up? You can't simply move down the street to a cheaper apartment, because, guess what, all the landlords know you have a thousand bucks more in your pocket every month, and they've all raised the rent. And so on.
Mr Yang didn't give me a complete answer, but to my mind, the only solution to this would be a concomitant set of rent and price controls to prevent this. Which amounts to pretty much full-blown socialism. Otherwise, that UBI ends up largely in the pockets of the few. What good is a thousand dollars a month if your rent went up $900? And so on.
There are an enormous number of questions surrounding UBI. In spite of this, I'm a Yang supporter and donor, because I believe he's bringing up an economic issue that is so clearly germane to an increasing automated society. None of the other candidates are doing that.
14
@GP
So you support a candidate whose main idea won't work, according to your own conclusions?
I guess you just like the fact that Yang brought up the idea of robots replacing human workers.
But what else does he have? Relevant government experience? No. A proven record of working across the aisle? No. Great ideas on how to fund the military? No. Suggestions for our opioid crisis? Not that I know of.
Yang seems a one-trick pony, and you claim the pony is lame.
1
U.B.I. proposed by Mr. Yang is not to every citizen. It is to the adult citizens, people over 18 years old.
3
I'm not an economist, but will someone please explain to me why the creation of a UBI wouldn't just lead to massive inflation?
Wouldn't we just have more dollars chasing the same amount of basic goods? I fear a "Red Queen" type scenario where we run faster and faster but stay in the same place in terms of real purchasing power.
I'm a progressive, but I suspect there may be some truth in the right-wing explanation for the explosive growth in college tuition. They claim that government grants have allowed more people to pay for college, and that colleges respond to this inflationary pressure by charging higher tuition. In the end, we all pay a lot more money to attend college. (I don't actually believe this is the full story, but I do think it may be one important factor driving the insane inflation in tuition costs.)
So my potential objection to the UBI is not philosophical one (about giving money to the poor). My worry is that it wouldn't ultimately do much practical good because overall prices would just go up to match the general public's newfound ability to pay.
5
@Allan You are correct. See my comment above. I think price and rent controls would have to follow to prevent this from happening. In turn, this raises a lot of other questions about how we want to run our economy. But Andrew Yang is the only candidate bringing up the question of how we deal with an economy that eventually may need no one at all to produce and distribute commodities. Who does get the profit? UBI takes this into account.
1
I wish people could see that this proposal as an original and interesting solution to ever growing uncertainty and vulnerability in our economy and environment , rather than some crazy scheme that "will never work" because it runs counter to some unchanging and unchangeable American values.
10
@abearson Kuwait has this system in place for decades now and it doesn't work.
@Yolandi, Abu Dhabi has it, the entire Emirates actually, but not equally. The further you get from royal lineage the less you get.
I am a proud Yang supporter. I was very skeptical about UBI until I listened to Yang's explanation. After reading this article, I do wonder if the program should allow people to "opt-out." It is critical that the program stays universal so it doesn't carry the stigma of a welfare program, but allowing "opt-out" might help keep the cost down. Or maybe make it semi-universal: You get it if your household income on your tax return is under $1 million, perhaps. All consumer protection measures such as anti-price-gauging should accompany the program.
3
@Sunny Vegas The program does allow for an opt out.
People who object to ideas like the Basic Income always come out against them with tried and true cliches like "there's no such thing as a free lunch", or "Liberals always want to spend someone else's money".
But the fact is economics is NOT some simple science that always works the way cliches say it should. If it was, Ronald Reagan would be hailed today as the greatest genius of all time, and we would again have a growing middle class and widely shared prosperity like we did before the 1970s.
So, here's an idea: why not have the people who really understand the complexities of economics study the matter and then let's consider what THEY think, rather than just assuming our "common sense" reaction against this idea is all we need to know.
13
While I don’t like the idea of a universal basic income, I do think we should take a fresh look at how the federal reserve produces and distributes money.
As I understand it the Fed decides how much money they will create and then puts this money into the banking reserve, the banks then lend it out which drives the economy.
The question I have to ask is that in these days of electronics and vast computer networks, do we have to use banks in the first place? In the old days when ledgers were paper or even low end computers , a central bank made sense.
But we have progressed significantly further technologically than this, and it should be possible for the Fed to target specific areas for cash infusions completely bypassing the banking loan system. A universal credit could be one of these possibilities.
Of course the Federal Reserve is made up of some of the biggest banking interests in this country, so they have a vested interest in the status quo. I mean not only do they charge the government interest on the money it gives them, but then they lend it out and charge interest to the consumer.
Every single public school student should have the same amount of money spent for their education as every other. There is no location where the children are worth less than anywhere else. In a few decades it will help our national security, too. Any extra money should go to equality for the kids.
6
How would it do anything? The inflation from that much money being put into that many different consumers hands would evaporate any gains. This does what to capitalist? Creates demand that allows them to increase prices long before their cost do. This is why I don't really go along with tax cuts for the middle class. They have a small stimulative window. After that it does nothing.
2
Although perhaps a $1000 a month is a bit generous, IT SURE MAKES MORE SENSE THAN A WALL.
85
We are at a point where we can produce all the goods and services that we need with only 50% or less of the human resources available. And this is not the same as before. This time it's real and only going to get worse.
What are we going to do with 50 percent unemployment? Idleness is not an option.
UBI is one promising solution.
Imagine working for fulfillment and not for survival...
43
The Republican government already has a similar plan, except you have to add nine more zeros and multiply by two and be a multi-millionaire or billionaire to get the lump sum - the rest of us have to pay for it over generations, plus interest from our taxes.
Indeed, the $100 Democracy Dollars that Yang also proposes to give all voting Americans is similar to the current Anti-Democracy Dollars Republicans give corporations and billionaires that they then turn around and use to buy the government out from under unsuspecting voters who end up paying for that giveaway the rich too.
12
Yes, it is income redistribution. And we need it dearly because all else has failed to stop severe inequality.
Anything that nurtures all talent, not just that of rich kids, benefits us all.
38
I think this would just cause prices go up.
9
Maybe it would keep some businesses open
1
It should go to those needed it most, not just to citizens but also new immigrants.
The best way for anyone to reduce their carbon footprint is to have less kids. UBI is a terrible idea in our time of climate crisis because it would give people even less reason than ever to have less children.
3
@Former Republican I agree that everyone should have fewer or no kids, but I doubt anyone would jump on the bandwagon to have kids just to get more UBI. It will take 18 years for the first $1,000 check to arrive in the mail. People who want to game the system to get rich can't wait that long.
8
People in America are we having less kids. Only immigrants are having more kids. The UBI would not be given to immigrants.
I would need UBI explained more before I yea or nay it.
But one thing I do like about the news coverage and subsequent discussions is it has people actively thinking in a constructive manner what the implications of this could be.
Says a lot about Yang's character.
27
@Teresa, I was a skeptic until listening to him on various Podcasts. I encourage you to do some YouTube searches for his interviews.
There is so much simplicity, fairness and compassion to UBI.
1
My gut reaction to &1000 for every adult with no strings attached or no questions asked is simply no.
If this is ever implemented, why not impose a means test to determine who needs this extra income?
There are plenty of people doing quite well that do not need an additional $1000 per month per adult.
Let’s start with universal healthcare for all and make sure everyone is covered.
That is the priority before anything else.
10
@marian, I agree universal healthcare should be at the top of the list. The collective relief of society will be profound.
It's worth listening to Yang's rationale against means testing for UBI. Youtube has quite a few interviews and he makes a compelling case.
@marian When you give things to some people but not others, you create resentment. That's why many people have resentment to food stamps but not public K-12 education. If you give $1,000/month to everyone, regardless of income, it will create less resentment. As to your second question, regarding means testing, once you impose means testing the cost of the program increases quite a bit. And you also create incentives for people to either not work, work less, or lie about their income.
1
Yang's idea might have some merit, but so do many of the other social programs mentioned. Regardless of who is in office, with the ridiculous amount of debt we have, even with cuts to defense spending and a lot of financial engineering we aren't going to be able to run the table and do all of them. If the Democrats win in 2020, at some point these programs are going to all have to be studied further, accurately priced, and ranked against each other to determine which go forward first and which ones we can't afford at all. I doubt if we get rid of Trump, the next President operates via a tweeting enactment, so I would suspect that Yang's idea or any other major change isn't showing up until 2022.
1
UBI is the pay day loan company of federal policy. Once you set the number, all costs rise to meet it. Stupid.
3
Today a friend of mine who was a GOP card carrying member was told today that he no longer has a position in the organization. He now is concerned about his mortgage and health care.
Before today he was self righteous tonight he is dealing with the realities that thousands of Americans deal with the list of health care and making ends meet
A small check to Americans will feed children fix a car put money in the community and reduce overall stress
We all need financial help and the comments demonstrate how ignorant we are about the suffering going on in this country in plain sight.
42
UBI is a surrender. Implicitly it says we have too many surplus people than productive work available. That is not true. We have shortages in several fields ranging from fields requiring advanced degrees, trade school or entrepreneurship. Give away $12k while we have job openings.
The problem is Americans are cheap, selfish and unimaginative. How about truly fixing the K-12 school systems? How about ensuring that low income and poor can attend college or trade schools. How about promoting good academics in pop culture. Fix the health care so smaller business can hire more.
All of that costs money, so better to just give away $12k and let people stagnate than spending the cash to modernize our school systems and teaching capabilities.
9
I'm 35. I work in tech as a regular employee and have saved a decent amount of money, although I'm far from rich.
If you give me and my partner each $1000/month, we will quit our jobs the next day and move to Thailand, and let the rest of my savings accrue interest. That's great for me, but not sure it's great for America.
4
@Claudia Gold He has said he would structure it so that the money would not be given overseas, it would wait in America while you are away. This is because a large part of the economics of paying for the dividend involves the money people earn spending the money back into the economy, creating jobs and producing more tax receipts.
10
@Will That's fine, maybe it's slightly less good for me but I don't need the money given to me while I'm overseas. I'm happy to have it wait for me in America. I can spend my savings and know that I'll be essentially reimbursed later.
Either way it just makes more sense to tax me and redistribute that money to people who actually need it.
@Claudia Gold I would also like to know how this applies if I am essentially on permanent vacation but still technically living in America. Since I can't get a permanent visa easily, this is how I tend to lived abroad long term in the past anyway (moving between countries, visa runs, going home for a month here and there, etc).
It was tried a lot more recently than Thomas Paine.
http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/03/yangs-usd12-000-ubi-was-pioneered-by-george-mcgovern.html
A good way for another 49 state Democratic blow out.
4
$3.5 trillion a year, with no pilot program to serve as a functional proof-of-concept.
Sounds like the quintessential American promise.
2
@ubique Look up "Alaska oil dividend."
1
Yes.
2
On the exact day that a $12,000/year UBI goes into effect, all rents in the US will rise by $1000/month.
Even a very stable genius can see that.
29
@Troglotia DuBoeuf This is simply not true. Prices of things like rent are still governed by supply and demand. People will move to more inexpensive housing if rent increases, and other landlords will be willing to undercut the competition to get business till the point rent does not cover costs, just like normally happens. As demand increases, prices will increase slightly, but people will be better off in general.
15
@Will
Maybe in places with plenty of supply, but that is not the reality in many areas of the country. Much of the current housing problem is caused by a lack of supply with huge demand.
5
@Troglotia DuBoeuf
No. Economics is not that linear.
6
If A.I. (think robots) take away all the jobs, who's going to buy all the stuff they produce?
That's the not-so-obvious reason why a guaranteed minimum income is necessary; so people can still buy the production output.
Capitalism of the future.
27
Why not make it $10,000 a month? If you are going to do, go big!
2
@Thomas Smithz
The conservative's favorite bad argument, deployed against any and all efforts to ever try and help people.
But no one is saying "make everyone a millionaire". They're just saying no one should be destitute.
11
@Thomas Smith, see you and raise to $100,000/year for every man, woman, child, and dog. (Tough luck cat people, gotta draw the line somewhere.)
Just try being disabled and getting a U.B.I. from the government. Good luck with that. Instead of being endowed with minimal power to contribute to society, you are thrown out with the trash, assumed you are gone.
Maybe Mr. Yang is on to something...
12
@db2
Mr. Yang, are you listening?
No.
1
To me, the point of a Universal Basic Income is to guarantee people have enough to live on, instead of the needy needing to cobble together housing vouchers, SSDI, SNAP and other benefits to make ends meet. Each program, of course, with its own definition of handicap and need and its own forms.
$1,000 a month will do little to end the bureacratic hell of getting benefits for the handicapped and it won't do much for the better off. In the end, it will be one more way that helps the underpaid make ends meet. We'd be far better off raising the minimum wage so Walmart workers and Uber drivers can earn a decent living.
8
Artificial intelligence may cause a net loss of jobs, but it isn't clear whether to what extent or when this will in fact occur. However, giving every adult $1,000 monthly seems a bit vapid. First, why give it to those doing quite well? Second, who actually pays for this? Yang proposes a VAT to cover 70% or so of the cost. This tax will cause consumer products to rise substantially. Not only do the less well off pay a higher proportion of their total income to purchase essential products than do the well to do, but where dose the money come for the remaining 30%?
To me, this sounds like regressive taxation: give the well off money they do not need and have the rest of society subsidize these payments. Without an offset (income based tax code or some other system) this policy would seem to worsen income inequality, not solve it.
1
@Lawrence Barr
The reason you have to give it to people doing well is that the people of this country have never been willing to accept any kind of government benefit the favors any one group of people over others.
I don't know if its human nature, or some particular failing of the democratic system, or of our own national character, but that's seemingly how its always been.
I personally have no problem with people in need receiving food stamps and not receiving them myself.
But I think most people simply don't see government assistance that way.
14
@Lawrence Barr
Have you made a phone call recently to any corporation. It’s all AI and if you lose your position it is a big deal
We are not ready for all of our good paying jobs disappearing
Once again the elites will get over and the rest of us will be road kill
3
I have moved radically to the left from a lifetime of far right of center fiscal conservatism since GWBush admin disillusioned me while I expanded my business and world view throughout Asia and the sub-continent.
A national subsidy is the worst policy a communist country could support. There is nothing more unamerican than returning tax dollars to everyone, regardless of need.
The second most unamerican proposal is to give every American a free college education.
Is there one American of any means that supports either of these nuclear national debt triggers? These are policy proposals that offend the sensibilities of every former Republican ready to lay across the railroad tracks to get Trump out of office
2
@Edward Gray
I think I missed the part where where you moved more radically left.
1
From FDR forward the middle class grew, then Reagan came along and the middle class has been shrinking ever since. Unions, strong labor and wage laws and sustained public investment. The real answer to a better society isn’t at all difficult to figure out, it’s simply history.
30
How can one take something from the people, process it thru the government, and have it return more “economic benefit”
Than just leaving it in the first place?
4
@George
I don't know the answers to that, but if it doesn't work, what ARE we going to about inequality?
6
UBI comes at the problem backwards.
We already have an economy that appears artificially strong because capital velocity - the speed and amount of capital moving through the economy - is kept high due to a large percentage of people having to spend nearly every dollar they make every month. Meanwhile, wealth is accumulated by a smaller and smaller percentage of Americans who can put their money into low-yield, low-risk investments that serve to take capital out of the economy by reducing its velocity to near zero.
UBI simply contributes to an already defective system. Just giving everyone 1k more per month to bolster a broken trend hurts the very people it's mean to help because it bolsters a system that hurts them more.
What we need is more capitalism, not less, by getting more capital into the economy, supported by a tax system that rewards risk. Investment tax credits, higher tax rates on high-income earners who don't make direct investments in the economy and so forth.
This is why trickle-down tax policies never work. They increase capital accumulation while diminishing capital velocity.
7
@Jonathan Baron I don't know what data you're looking at, but every chart I've seen recently says that our capital velocity is in the toilet--at near Great Depression levels--even while measurements like GDP and M2 skyrocket, precisely because money has been collecting and stagnating at the top while less and less of it trickles down to the people who would actually spend it.
What's being proposed is the opposite of those failed supply-side policies, and it isn't meant as a cure-all. It's a basic economic floor to make sure all of our people can at least survive the current and immediately imminent economic challenges while the long and arduous process of fixing the problem's root gets underway. I don't think Yang disagrees with the battles being fought by the likes of Sanders or Warren, he just recognizes that the problems on the ground can't wait the kind of time it takes for those changes to happen.
5
If there is one common thought that unites people is that there is no such thing as a 'freebie'. Another one is 'money does not grow on trees', good for a natural chuckle.
"The aim is pacification, not liberation" sounds eerie and eventually some of us will continue greedy.
You have the good fortunate to donate to a cause of your choice, and soon you receive an acknowledgement with a check made out to $1 in your name, as a token of appreciation. It is accompanied with 'I hope you will not cash this', and into the bin it goes, leaving one feeling slightly culpable.
Mr. Andrew Yang has an original idea to offer to the Public, and this is all to the good if these Governments funds are allocated to the neediest in our Nation.
Already there is buzzing in our midst about the rising cost of living and you might hear this at your local supermarket.
American Capitalism is not an illness but it is not Our Constitution either. An ongoing refrain is how the Government subsidizes a bunch of 'Free-Loaders', the cause of mistrust. and even bitterness for some voters.
Since working for a financial tycoon does not make one an economist, an opinion here for what it is worth, is that Mr. Yang's proposal should be given some thought by The Treasury and The Federal Reserve, with the return that it merits.
3
In the early 1970s, President Nixon proposed the Family Assistance Plan - a cash payment monthly of $1,600. In today’s term, that would be worth about $108,000 annually or $9000 monthly. Assuming my math (actually Google answer) is correct, is that mind blowing or not? Wish I could ask President Nixon.
6
@ken schlossberg / On 19 April, 1970, the New York Times published a report on Nixon's welfare reform plan stating the following:
"At the core of the bill is a provision that would fix an income floor of roughly $2,400 a year in cash and food stamps for the average family of four. In effect, this recognizes the right of every American family to at least a bare minimum subsistence income, a guarantee that must apply both to the working poor and to those without any income at all."
https://www.nytimes.com/1970/04/19/archives/toward-an-income-floor.html?searchResultPosition=1
@ken schlossberg Close, the $1,600 was per year, which would be almost $10,000/year today, so not incredibly far off from what Yang is proposing now.
2
If U.B.I. is supposedly going to be structured as a dividend, wouldn't every recipient need to be a shareholder? Are U.B.I. proponents suggesting that America go through an Initial Public Offering? Turn the U.S. into a stock company? It sounds far fetched.
@Juh CLU
How about we just confiscate some of these enormous illegitimate fortunes, and use that as the founding shares?
Any corporation broken up in anti-trust, or guilty of illegal activity, should give some (significant) fraction of it equity (shares --) to the government trust, 20% would be a good place to start. And 20% of the value of every stinking hedge fund and trust valued over $250 million? There are details to be worked out hwre, but I am tired of hearing the crocodile tears for those shilling for the have too much.
The Republican-Reptilians do not want to help ANYONE, see the stories about the Mississippi "correctional" system, and realize that the Prisons and Welfare systems in ALL the "red" states are onliy slightly less vile.
2
Democratic candidates, in desperation, finally go public with a plan to buy votes for cash money! Democrats represent the unmotivated against the hard-working, they want hard-workers to work even harder to pay the way for unproductives. Government mandated income re-distribution is their modus operandi; productive people become slaves to layabouts. America's greatness starts with openness to opportunity, not a free ride or sameness of outcome in the name of 'fairness'. Equal outcome is a particular characteristic of communistic regimes which eventually all result national poverty and despotism wherever tried. This is perfectly well known, but that doesn't stop the Democrats from proposing it if they think it'll buy them votes.
3
@Ronald B. Duke I think the richest people in the world are among the least hard working. Do you really think any human being is capable of performing labour that is worth millions or billions of dollars a year? No.
It's all a huge ponzi scheme. I've taken advantage of it also but I recognise it for what it is.
11
@Ronald B. Duke
Yes, the candidate who has basically no chance of winning has endorsed this. Very astute of you to point that out!
(A lot of us who vote Democratic ARE hardworking, NOT unmotivated, but the cost of living is too high, and our pay is too low, for us to have any confidence in a secure retirement, or health care bills not bankrupting us no matter how hard we work. We've heard your "shining city upon a hill" rhetoric for 40 years now, and it hasn't translated to reality for enough us).
13
The Old Age Security and Guaranteed Income Supplement program in Canada pays every resident 65 years of age or older with over 40 years residency in Canada a minimum income of approximately $18,000 for an individual and about $32,000 for a couple. There is an income-test but this is simply part of the regular income tax system. Consequently there is very little poverty among the elderly in Canada. This program has been in operation for over 50 years. For some reason no one mentions this program when discussing a guaranteed annual income.
122
@Michael Mendelson
Nice contrast with our minimum $10.000 (approximately, SSI); Minus the mandatory Medicare premium when you turn 65.
5
America has had SS since the 30’s
1
@George America has SS and has it before Canada but the OAS/GIS I describe above is not a contributory social insurance like SS; Canada's OAS/GIS goes to every elderly resident as a minimum guaranteed income, regardless of what they have earned in the past. We also have the Canada Pension Plan which is a contributory social insurance like SS.
14
It is amazing how much traction this "idea" has gotten. Mr. Yang could not even defend it adequately on a short NYT podcast today.
A once a year payment so you can move away from a bad situation or clear a debt like Alaska has? Sounds like a decent idea, maybe it could be tied to filing taxes to improve data collection on low income people. This is not a UBI or anything close.
Anyone selling something that has a mostly fixed supply - including housing, real estate and college education - will siphon off a huge share of any UBI. If you own a place to live and already have a college degree, it might be great. If you own multiple housing units it would be really great. These groups are not people who tend to need much more help.
The cultural damage from a UBI is likely to be immense. It is designed to favor citizens, who will in turn shrink public resources and programs and raise prices on everything. It would make live very hard for anyone excluded from it. It would be a financial wall that makes a physical wall look like a joke in comparison. It would likely signal to the world that we have given up on being America.
Unemployment is below 4%. Some people already opt out of the work force. Someone sees these facts and says we need to add a UBI to deal with some future possible job apocalypse that may not arrive for decades if at all? It will flop with both voters and Congress.
No one gets points for a policy that might be good in a generation but is a disaster today.
2
This really seems like a windfall for red states and rural areas, though people in cities might see less competition for housing if you don’t have everyone crowding in for work.
If it lets new families stay close to relatives who can help with childcare, might be helpful on that front too. Easy to imagine a healthier society overall if people have more freedom to decide what is best for their own lives.
65
Sign me up.
5
Are they joking? It's got to be $2,400/month at least!
1
A bad thought, tried and having failed.
3
@Richard Frauenglass
Where did it fail?
2
It may surprise many people but conservative think tanks are talking about the guaranteed minimum income.
The idea stems from the very real prospects for technology to begin replacing jobs by the thousands, maybe even more. So what do you do when the private sector can meet its productivity needs with fewer and fewer workers?
If we expand welfare that increases government costs and basically shows up as subsidies for food, shelter and health care. In essence the government pays itself for providing you with a very minimal standard of living.
But if you give people cash, they will spend it in the private sector, supporting landlords, stores and local businesses of all sorts.
This will serve two functions. First, it will allow struggling employees in the gig economy to make ends meet while still working low wage jobs.
More importantly, those dollars will circulate in the local economy anywhere from five to seven times. This simply makes more economic sense than welfare programs and more social sense than allowing technology to replace workers and do nothing.
98
You can have wealth in the hands of a few or a Democracy. You cannot have both.
106
Totally agree. However, the receivership of these the funds in the system would not stop with property owners. 1000$ for each American across some 330mn means more than higher rent. That’s a lot more that could and I think would trickle upwards the economic latter, granting the economy as whole and especially big corporations that are currently experiencing saturated markets a huge boost in revenue. As long as people who’re currently suffering are not educated on the possibilities of what to do with that income, it would just be consumed. That would keep the wheel turning but not help fundamentally.
1
@Michael W. Espy, astonishing ignorance of the founding of our American republic. It took a bunch of determined rich guys, not yeomen, to pledge their lives and their fortunes to dispossess an even richer foreigner of the lands that would become America. Without them we'd all be subjects of the crown, speaking English.
@Chilawyer
And those rich (white Christian) guys who "pledged their lives and their fortunes" wrote slavery into the fabric of the founding of the American republic.
Slaves were not even "subjects" of this republic, they were property - specifically assets to be counted in the fortunes of the rich white Christian guys.
(Speaking of ignorance.)
It is a good idea to give everyone $1k a month and cut government programs like food stamps and Sec 8 housing. Well-to-do people could defer payment and put that into a federal tax account to pay federal tax if they want. This would cut the federal work force. I don't know how much it would cost against how much it would save, but I think it is a plan worth studying. People can make consumer choices with this additional and hopefully have more satisfying lives.
7
@Steve Shepard
The IRS is already dangerously lacking in personnel. There is no dearth of money available in our nations made from our resources. There is only propaganda and corrupt pols doing their level best to make sure no one with large amounts of money has to pay their fair share for getting rich off of our resources.
1
If it is untaxable. Otherwise there is no point, the burden of tracking it and paying tax on it would make the misery worse for folks trapped in the poverty trauma cycle the 1% make their money from.
9
People who are well educated are unable to find jobs. In many cases it's because they are over the age of 45. Employers don't want to pay for the experience they're asking for. Or they don't want to pay the benefits.
Whether it's a UBI or something else, things have to change in America (and probably throughout the developed countries as technology takes over more and more jobs) in order for people to survive and have decent lives. I would think that at least some of our elder "statesmen" would understand this having seen the effects of the Great Depression on society.
We cannot and should not have a country where 95% of the people of working age (up to and including 67 year-old men and women) cannot find jobs and are forced into poverty. That is not a just society or a viable one. We should not have a country where most people cannot find jobs that pay enough to live. Yet we are headed that way because of how much we allow rich entities to influence tax policy rather than an understanding of what it takes to keep our country as a worthwhile place to live. I know too many people who are squeaking by. I know too many people who, if they lost their jobs (well paying or not) would lose everything in two weeks.
It's either a better social safety net or a decent guaranteed income. And yes, we should have to do something to get that income and it should be something that is appropriate for our talents.
9/12/2019 7:23pm first submit
29
Ideally one would like to see exactly the opposite of dependence on Government for anything beyond keeping the peace locally and national security. Put the $3 trillion toward rebuilding infrastructure and get a few of these laggards up off the sofa or barstool to do some meaningful work.
5
@Frunobulax
I think the libertarian government you desire here is completely impossible and unworkable in the modern world.
But having said that, $3 trillion toward rebuilding infrastructure sounds like an excellent idea. I couldn't agree more with that part!
2
“A Universal Basic Income at this level would permanently grow the economy by 12.56 to 13.10 percent—or about $2.5 trillion by 2025—and it would increase the labor force by 4.5 to 4.7 million people. Putting money into people’s hands and keeping it there would be a perpetual boost and support to job growth and the economy.”
https://www.yang2020.com/policies/the-freedom-dividend/
#ISupportYang !
30
#yang2020 Capitalism where income doesn't start at $0
6
Wow, I sure like this idea of universal basic income, just let me know where to send my address or apply for the free $1,000 per month.
I also want college loan forgiveness, free college for my grandkids, Medicare for all (including illegal immigrants), reparations for blacks and gays, and federal job guarantees—you know, all the free stuff the Democratic Presidential candidates are promising.
All of the fabulously wealthy individuals and corporations put together do not have enough money to pay the trillions of dollars required for all of these goodies year after year, and even Bernie Sanders has admitted that taxes will have to be raised on the middle class just to pay for free college, not to mention all of those other freebies.
As Margaret Thatcher aptly noted, the problem with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other people’s money.
Remember, folks, our goal is to elect a Democratic president in 2020, not to make Karl Marx smile in his grave. Free everything for everyone will get Trump re-elected.
4
UBI would be something I could support only if it was tied to annual income with additional consideration of an individual's assets. In that mode, a basic minimum income level would be set. Those below it would be given enough to bring them up to the minimum. Those above the minimum in income would not receive government funds.
I am not wealthy by any means, but am an older adult who has enough. I am not much into "stuff" and live comfortably. I see no reason for the government/taxpayers to be handing people like me money (much less folks who truly are affluent or wealthy).
5
The UBI would have be taxable income. To pay for the UBI tax rate would need to be more progressive than they currently are such that somewhere around $100k a year in household income the net between the UBI and higher taxes would be zero. Below this level after tax income would higher than it was and above this level after tax income would be lower than it was before the UBI. So for me my after tax income would be less than it is now. But like you, I am quite comfortable and not into stuff so I can easily “scrape” by.
If this would allow one parent to stay home when their children are little while being able to stay out of poverty, that would be a huge social win. If some one could quit a job with an abusive boss without the risk of becoming homeless, that could force bosses to be at least mindful that their employees are not indentured servants. And speaking of the homeless, most don’t start out with mental illness issues or substance abuse issues. Rather these are conditions that often develop as a maladaptive response to the incredible stress of living on the street. $12k a year would afford most people enough for a room and some food as a base to climb back out of the hole they have fallen into.
7
In the Republican primary of 1860 Lincoln was the least well known of major candidates. However, he won the nomination partially because he was a "moderate" abolitionist who did not propose ending slavery in the foreseeable future, only stopping its spread to new territories.
The only ethical and moral position on slavery was held by the radical left of the party- that slavery should be immediately banished from every state and all territories in the union with no reparations to the people who were currently engaged in this obviously evil institution.
Lincoln was nominated because he was the "safer" choice whose views coincided more with the general public.
I'm not sure if there is a lesson in this for democrats this round, but it is political suicide to try to lead the people where they are not yet ready to be led.
Maybe now is the time to begin the discussion with the American people about a guaranteed annual income, but if we push for such policies before they are generally accepted by the people of this country, the reins of power will remain in Trump's hands.
I'm not sure we will survive 4 more years of that.
4
Giving everyone one thousand dollars is not new. Back in the 1960 or 70s a Democratic candidate wanted to do the same, we never heard from him again because it went nowhere.
4
Automation and AI are well along in displacing low-skilled workers and working their way up the food chain. We see this every day on "chats" with "bots," displacement of bank tellers and cashiers in grocery stores, and soon those who drive cars and trucks for a wage.
My question is economic in nature. If all US citizens (I presume) receive $1000/month, won't the effects ripple up through the economy raising prices on virtually all products, goods and services?
3
@Rick Spanier
Exactly what I've been thinking. As soon as everyone gets $1,000/mo, the cost of everything will jump up to meet it, starting with housing (as if you could still find something to rent for $1,000 in the US). In short, a fixed low income is destroyed by inflation. Take it from someone who survived on slightly less than the stated amount...and still does. Social Security isn't a monthly windfall.
6
@Rick Spanieru
What people don’t understand is that the $1000 that certain people receive is offset by the $1000 that is taken from others. The money has to come from somewhere, so there is no gain to society.
3
@SJW51
When you consider that $1000 is being taken from people who have more than everyone else, then fair is fair is a huge benefit to society in pure social equity.
8