Sign in to follow this  
smokes

Andrew Yang's $1000/month UBI

Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, Baer. said:

I wasn't talking about people who were incarcerated.

 

Nor was I criticizing how or why somebody has an addiction.

You alluded to both those things

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wouldn't affect me at all, I live in Canada.

We did have a pilot UBI program in Ontario that was actually supposed to reduce costs as it got rid of a lot of the other poverty program requirements.  Was a business promoter and education promoter.  Ford killed it quick because, you know, Ford.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, LordCanuck said:

reduce peoples debts, causes people to spend more money and more money in the economy = more tax money. happier people also means healthier people, which reduces healthcare spending

As far as reducing healthcare spending, it depends what they spend their money on.  The increased spending on stuff like drugs and booze, not so much.  Even increased restaurant spending can to the waistline.

 

Reducing peoples' debts is temporary... they'll just be able to afford more payments with that extra grand in their pocket.  If people want to narrow the wealth gap, there needs to be more focus on saving/investing than spending.

 

Don't get me wrong... there's a lot of people that could be helped by this, assuming they've got the self-discipline to make the benefits stick.  But don't forget that there's plenty more that will piss it away just as easily.  So many people were concerned about spending $5B on some walls.  How much of the 400X that amount, yearly, will be wasted?

 

And, let's not forget about inflation.  Increased demand on, well, everything is gonna lead to some noticeable price increases, so soon that money won't go as far as it is supposed to.

Edited by Kragar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Kragar said:

I wasn't looking to you to answer for it, but I'm interested in your thoughts on that view.

 

If his plan is to give every US adult a grand a month, but to help pay for it, he is going to take away from some welfare programs, then that means that people who presumably need those welfare programs are going to be worse off in comparison to those who don't need them, once his UBI program is implemented.

 

I object to the plan on a variety of levels, but I cannot see how the oft-race-card-playing Dems can support this when it benefits the rich and middle-class more than the poor (who are disproportionately black).  Sure, it's a drop in the bucket for the rich (who shouldn't get this anyhow, IMO).  But those who are lower middle class, or, poor but not needing welfare will benefit more from this than the poorest in our society. 

There are a ton of poor people who are not on income assistance though. Those who have two jobs to make ends meet for instance. It would also get people to try to get a job as well. I've been poor but never on income assistance. Had a decent paying job but rent took away all my disposable income. I am not understanding why everything must boil down to race though? There are poor people in every race. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Baer. said:

$1000 into the pocket of every drug junkie, alchy, criminal and the likes in america. Great plan. Universal welfare state.

Theoretically, if what Yang is talking about were to come to pass you'd be right. A chunk of that money would end up in the hands of people you'd rather it not.

 

The problem I have with this post is the that it oversimplifies the "drug junkie", "alchy", "criminal", ect. A lot of people, especially those living in poverty, don't reach for drugs and alcohol because they're fun (though they can be) but to use them to escape things in their lives or numb pain. To escape the realities of poverty, mental illness (those who are homeless and living in poverty often suffer from mental illness and it's a contributing factor to their remaining homeless unless the get the appropriate help), trauma and a long list of other potential things. I encounter a lot of homeless people through my work, and I understand why a lot of them might reach for things to escape the realities of being homeless (stigma, people treating you as less than human, weather factors, safety factors, financial/medical/food factors). Those living with addiction often have underlying traumas, there are many contributing factors. 

 

Some of those things can likely be attributed to criminal behavior as well. Lot of people would steal food, ect to feed their families or themselves. Some people will do things to feed their families or pay bills. I realize it's a complex issue and there are all sorts of criminals with all sorts of motivations, but all not criminals and criminal acts are equal.

 

Theoretically, having more money each month could act as a buffer for some against some of those things (alcohol, drugs, crime). Sure, there'd be many who would blow that money on drugs and whatnot, but what about those who'd use that money to try and get out of dark places? Having an extra grand as a buffer against extreme poverty would help a lot of folks, the vast majority of folks I know live paycheck to paycheck.

 

One could argue prices would just rise, but prices are continually rising anyway. It's a complex, convoluted subject. 

 

As for "universal welfare state", if I were American I'd be for it. The US pisses away trillions each year via it's military budget, taking better care of their citizens as a country that could afford to do so seems like a no brainer. I often hear the "Why should I have to be for x, y and z for someone else" argument from people and my response usually runs along the lines of my caring about more than myself and my own. If I needed help I'd certainly want access to it, the same goes for others. 

 

Hell, I wish Canada would invest more in it's social programs. Mind you, this is all coming from a social services student and I've got a solid idea of what people think of social workers. 

Edited by Coconuts
  • Hydration 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Kragar said:

However, I do struggle to see why it is racist to (for instance) require ID for voting but not racist to take benefits away from poor people to go ahead and give everyone a larger benefit.

Being poor is not a problem only afflicting one race. It affects all races. 

  • Hydration 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, smokes said:

There are a ton of poor people who are not on income assistance though. Those who have two jobs to make ends meet for instance. It would also get people to try to get a job as well. I've been poor but never on income assistance. Had a decent paying job but rent took away all my disposable income. I am not understanding why everything must boil down to race though? There are poor people in every race. 

I understand what you are saying.  I've been there (working two jobs, not taking assistance), too.

 

The race argument is not one I espouse, it is one I foresee someone on the left making, at some point.  Because looking closely at Yang's plan, those who do need assistance would be getting less help than those who don't need/take welfare, and at some level, that is not fair.  Race is a factor in that argument because black people are proportionately more likely to be on assistance here.  When you consider how often race and proportionality come into various policy discussions in the US, why would the Freedom Dividend be exempt from that analysis?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, smokes said:

Being poor is not a problem only afflicting one race. It affects all races. 

Agreed... but does it affect all races equally?  I'm just applying the Dem lens against their own idea here, that's all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Kragar said:

Agreed... but does it affect all races equally?  I'm just applying the Dem lens against their own idea here, that's all.

I grew up in a poor Asian neighborhood and I can tell you that there are an abundant of poor Asians, when you drive through the small town around the country you will see swaths of poor white neighborhoods as well. So that's why I refuse to see being poor as a racial issue. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, smokes said:

I grew up in a poor Asian neighborhood and I can tell you that there are an abundant of poor Asians, when you drive through the small town around the country you will see swaths of poor white neighborhoods as well. So that's why I refuse to see being poor as a racial issue. 

Absolutely.  Skin color is no guarantee, one way or the other.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Baer. said:

$1000 into the pocket of every drug junkie, alchy, criminal and the likes in america. Great plan. Universal welfare state.

add a stipulation that you have to be employed in order to qualify for your monthly cheque? that should eliminate some of the freeloaders.

 

edit: should add that those who are legitimately disabled and unable to work would be exempt from that stipulation.

Edited by Nucksfollower1983
  • Burr 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Baer. said:

 

You are correct, decriminalization and proper rehabilitation is something that needs to be funded and supported.

 

I'm not going to entirely dismiss the idea of a universal dividend. I can't help but be concerned about the small minority of people who are going to abuse their money.

 

Perhaps, one of the requirements for people with past drug offences, must enroll themselves into rehabilitation to be eligible for the dividend. But that is a very grey area for people who have a problem but maybe not "come out" about it yet.

 

I'm not sure it would increase crime. I'm really only talking about vulnerable people who, even if they were good people, can't help but feed their addiction.

 

I don't know much about Yang and I would have to read more into his policies. I'm probably not the first person to think of this.

But there will always be that minority. They abuse the system as is, so why penalize what would be an improvement for others? So implement the thing that helps the majority, and work on ways to help the minority as well to give them an alternative to abusing the system.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've read that it's been implemented in small pockets to some success but I'm still iffy on it. America for sure is not equipped to handle it before we see how more stable countries do with it. I think it's an eventuality with automation coming to steal yer jobzz.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why not use that $1000/person per month to actually provide Health Care, infrastructure, Reduce the cost of post education, Battling homelessness/poverty... etc.

 

afaik, Bilionnaires and Millionaires will receive the same benefit as the rest. How does this benefit the people who would need it most: homeless people, people displaced by a failure of the mental health system, people who’s votes are suppressed by the republican machine.

 

Never took this seriously, especially as a primary platform for a bid for the presidency. Sure he’s witty, smart and successful but his proposal doesn’t not  come close to feasibility.

 

I also don’t like how he uses his kids autism to score political points. Nor his justification as to why his millionaire wife deserves an extra $12, 000 year.

 

This is not a serious candidate, in any stretch, IMO. Likeable, definitely. Better than Trump, definitely.
 

But President? Not on that platform.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ChuckNORRIS4Cup said:

Cory Booker imo is the only one who shows real passion for his country, so if I had to pick I'd be leaning towards him.

Really?  Him?

 

He is running out of money and steam fast.  Better donate to his campaign if you want to keep seeing him.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ChuckNORRIS4Cup said:

Cory Booker imo is the only one who shows real passion for his country, so if I had to pick I'd be leaning towards him.

Buttigieg is by far the smartest kid in the class. Only thing against him is his age and probably that gay thing.

 

Imagine seeing a young, brilliant war veteran going toe to toe with a cognitively impaired, draft dodger.... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have a stipend, make the individual pass a drug test. There's a really basic idea that could be improved upon.

 

Don't demonize the poor, many of them are still reeling from horrible upbringings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.