Why not let them? If that means that they live with the choices they make, then sure. If that means that we will have expensive welfare on top of the super expensive UBI, then that is a good reason not to support UBI. Again, what about the children who are negatively affected by these poor choices?
A guardian? Nobody who is, for example, an alcoholic or drug addict or a compulsive gambler would ever be appointed a guardian. It is just not appropriate in those circumstances as this is a free country and unless you are an imminent danger to yourself or others, you can live as destructive of a lifestyle as you want. That puts off the question of what do we do when the money is pissed away? Do we keep the welfare system? If we do, then UBI has not solved anything. If we don’t, then what do we do about the news and internet stories of compulsive gamblers and their children dying from starvation? Nothing?
And if the answer is that we keep a “reduced” welfare system around for these people, and assuming that it will defy the track record of every other government program and stay reduced, why can’t that system weed out the Bill Gates and Warren Buffetts to save some money?
I did a poor job of explaining my position, because I do understand and agree with this principle.
It’s the details that get troublesome. And any “unfairness” will be amplified by the huge size of the program.
Just for starters, it seems the program may actually HURT America’s neediest. Is that part of the “beauty” of the idea?
Ouch! I didn’t study Yang’s program in detail() but if Food Stamps are gone then, Yes, Yang’s program may HURT, not HELP, America’s neediest. ( - But the details of Yang’s plan are irrelevant. It ain’t being enacted any time soon. If/when it is enacted, zillions of man-hours will be spent reviewing the details.)
What about Unemployment Insurance payments? What about Workman’s Comp? These aren’t “welfare” programs; they’re insurances. Will these be eliminated?
Color me Marxist, but “Each should receive according to his needs.” Handicapped people need more than others.
Why does an 18-year old get $1000 and a 17-year old get Zero? Does a widow/widower with 3 children really need no more money than one who is childless?
In my system, some of these inequities disappear automatically! Free childcare! Proponents of Yang’s plan call it “beautiful” that the single mother has to pay for childcare out of her $1000, but the person with no children gets just as much. Agreed? Is that “beautiful”?
What I find beautiful is the self-regulation in my approach. Wealthy people will have access to the subsidized childcare, but are unlikely to use it.
It’s an FAQ, not an “entire website.” If you don’t even know what the plan is, then that makes it mighty hard for you to make a non-zero contribution to a discussion about it. You’ve spent more time asking to be spoon-fed than it would have taken to fight your own ignorance.
I don’t like the plan, but at least I have actual reasons that I’m capable of articulating.
Clearly you thought wrong. I’ll also point out that this isn’t my plan, it’s Yang’s, and his plan suggests a choice be given to people on public assistance (and everyone else I suppose) , either continue in their current welfare program, or receive UBI.
It appears this is to cover the hole in the UBI program mentioned before, where kids don’t get anything. A single parent may get more than $1,000 of assistance through means-tested programs, due to the scope of their needs. Giving a choice means this person doesn’t get screwed by a switch to UBI. I kind of like this better than the idea of adding kids to UBI, since it limits the perverse incentive of having a kid for the purpose of getting another check each month.
What would a person do if they pissed away their UBI and had their hand out for more? The same thing a person does if they piss away their food stamps. It’s tough shit, buddy, you have to wait for your next check. They may get help from someone else, but it’s not coming from a Federal Government program, if only because the rules forbid it.
“stamps” shows up 11 times on this page, so no clue what you are referring to. Cheesesteak and septimus seem to be correct as it does appear to be an either/or proposition.
I would assume no because they are insurances and are paid into by employers and employees, rather than directly funded by tax dollars.
I believe this is why Yang is offering a choice to recipients to remain on the current program or switch to UBI. Your widow with 3 children would see no reduction in her benefits.
I don’t see this as a replacement for universal health care or childcare. It’s a broader initiative to just take some of the pressure off of the less wealthy.
Ah, this might be the point that Ruken was making. If so, then it’s true that Yang’s site claims no reduction in benefits, but I’m not seeing that as lasting. I’ve always understood one of the arguments for UBI to be the reduction in government bureaucracy surrounding welfare and the like. If people can remain on their current programs, then the bureaucracy would also have to remain.
You seem to have sorted it out, but what were you were you even thinking with this post. septimus writes that he hasn’t carefully studied the plan. I write that you don’t have to study it, just ctrl-f. You somehow think that refers to searching this thread. And then quote the part of the plan that shows I was correct.
We have highlighted a key problem with the proposed plan. The only way to not make some individuals worse off is to keep existing programs intact OR to make the payment ludicrously large. There is no maximum income to receive SNAP, assuming clowncar vagina scenarios.
So subtracting the current under-$1k benefits from the total will still reduce the overall cost of the program to something less than $260B/mo. But I don’t see his math where it shows by how much.
Yang plans a 10% value-added tax to help pay for his plan. The $1 diaper now costs $1.10. In addition, some expect an inflation hiccup when TrillionS (note the T. And the S) in new spending is injected annually.
So the widow with three children will get to keep the dollars she gets now, but her spending power will be reduced.
Meanwhile the happy childless couple will be able to fly first class on their frequent vacations instead of economy class.
You can call this “fair” and “beautiful” if you like! But calling a pig a unicorn doesn’t make it a unicorn.
Everyone’s paying for it. So for many people, their true benefit is going to be less than $1,000 a month. You’d have to deduct their Value Added Tax from that thousand-dollar check.
Mainly, it is redistribution from the wealthy to the non-wealthy.
Except staples like groceries and clothing are exempt from the tax. The $1 diaper costs $1. The $3 gallon of milk costs $3 The $5 bag of potatoes costs $5. The $30 pair of shoes costs… $30. You get the idea.
This is why I hate the Republican take on so many issues. It focuses on whether or not a certain someone (whom they already dislike) deserves something.
Does a low income single parent deserve money for the kids she can’t afford? Does this drug dealer deserve compassion and an opportunity to re-enter society? Does a dysfunctional parent deserve to have their child fed a “free” breakfast and lunch at the expense of everyone else?
You’re asking if this childless couple deserves to fly first class. Like Bill Munny said “Deserves ain’t got nothing to do with it.” Does society work better, do we have a society with fewer people in crisis if we implement UBI? That’s what I’m interested in, not being the arbiter of who deserves what.
The problem is that those exemptions make his revenue expectations from the tax wildly unrealistic. We went over this in his campaign thread. The numbers he gives suggest a rather universal application.
I totally agree with the principle you espouse here. “Deserve” has nothing to do with it.
I don’t want to transfer part of the extra $2000 from the childless couple to the single mother because she “deserves” it more. I think she needs it more. More importantly, her kids need it.
In particular, note that, if she’s already getting $1000 in food stamps and other welfare benefits, she gets nothing extra from Yang’s plan, while the childless couple get an extra $2000. Does that really seem right?
Yes, if I fiddled Yang’s plan, e.g. perhaps giving $X to each Y-year old (for same (x,y) table) I might address my objections … while making the plan unfair in other ways. ***That’s why my solution involves government-subsidized childcare, government-subsidized job training, etc. rather than relying on purely cash payments. ***
( - But the details of Yang’s plan are irrelevant. It ain’t being enacted any time soon. If/when it is enacted, zillions of man-hours will be spent reviewing the details.)