Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Andrew Yang's $1000/month UBI


smokes
 Share

Recommended Posts

So Andrew Yang who has seemingly come out of nowhere and is still hanging on the the Democratic primary is basically running on taxing the big internet giants and use tat money to give every adult $1000/per month regardless of how much you make. If that happened where you are, would it affect your situation much?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, goalie13 said:

If my math is right, that would be roughly $2.5 Trillion per year.  That might be a hard promise to keep.

Yang, coincidentally, happens to come from a math background. Haha. I'm not saying he is infallible though. You could be right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, smokes said:

So Andrew Yang who has seemingly come out of nowhere and is still hanging on the the Democratic primary is basically running on taxing the big internet giants and use tat money to give every adult $1000/per month regardless of how much you make. If that happened where you are, would it affect your situation much?

He is also proposing the following as part of the funding:

To fund the Freedom Dividends, Yang proposes consolidating some welfare programs and implementing a value added tax of 10% on businesses. The VAT alone will generate $800 billion in new revenue, according to Yang’s campaign.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

its an interesting idea, it would sure help kids get out of student loan debt which would be a great thing for the US economy. 

 

He personally funds 10 people with a $1000 per month based on an application system (over 500,000 applications) that gives him some idea of how people project using the money. Yang believes the money would be utilized as follows:

it can better equip Americans who face numerous financial challenges: stagnant wagesrising health-care costs and overwhelming student and personal loan debt.

 

It is also interesting to note that a similar system has been in place in Alaska for years and this is a report on the use of these funds.

 

Here in the U.S., residents of Alaska receive a form of basic income from the Alaska Permanent Fund. Launched in 1982 to pass along oil profits, Alaskans each received $1,600 from the fund last year. A 2018 study found that while the income does not help unemployment rates, it does help residents with day-to-day costs with 72% of Alaskans reporting they use income from the fund to pay off debt, cover daily expenses such as groceries and utility bills, as well as save for emergencies, retirement or education.

 

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Rick Blight said:

He is also proposing the following as part of the funding:

To fund the Freedom Dividends, Yang proposes consolidating some welfare programs and implementing a value added tax of 10% on businesses. The VAT alone will generate $800 billion in new revenue, according to Yang’s campaign.

Here is where it can fail, from the left's perspective.

 

If someone who is on one or more welfare programs that would be part of this consolidation receives, say, $300/month, that $300/month goes away, replaced by $1000/month.  Ok, fine.

 

The person living down the block, who doesn't need help from those programs, also gets $1000/month.

 

Is this really a fair program to poorer folks?  And what racial demographics tend to make up these poorer folks?  How is this not a racist policy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Baer. said:

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

Good point.  Why not just reduce the hard working families tax burden by 12,000 dollars a years, and implement his tax plans to pay for that?  Then the monies go to those who are earning it, right?  Giving away money to those who aren't really earning it is a bad idea.  

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

nah. I just don't believe in throwing people away. Not even conservatives when they run into addiction problems. 

It's not about throwing people away, it's about those people giving that money to drugs dealers, where it usually ends up going overseas. It's the unfortunate reality.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Baer. said:

It's not about throwing people away, it's about those people giving that money to drugs dealers, where it usually ends up going overseas. It's the unfortunate reality.

Exactly.  The money is a great idea, but to whom it goes needs to be better thought out.  No way the wealthy, the criminals, and those who choose not to work (but are capable) should be getting money.  The working folk deserve that money, and perhaps more.  Maybe the working class, who have serious trouble making ends meet, could even get more?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting idea if it works. Wouldn't mind it being some sort of credit that can only be used for things like clothes or groceries or debt or rent etc. Sometimes giving (some) people cold hard cash to spend freely isn't what is best for them. I would think that it would be more fiscally viable if it only applied to a certain net income range or for those holding debt from student loans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Alflives said:

Exactly.  The money is a great idea, but to whom it goes needs to be better thought out.  No way the wealthy, the criminals, and those who choose not to work (but are capable) should be getting money.  The working folk deserve that money, and perhaps more.  Maybe the working class, who have serious trouble making ends meet, could even get more?

I'm not going to pretend like I know Yang's entire platform or what his plan is for giving out the money. But this seems like a bad idea on the surface. And I haven't read anything about if he has and discretion on who the money goes to. He just says "every adult".

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Kragar said:

Here is where it can fail, from the left's perspective.

 

If someone who is on one or more welfare programs that would be part of this consolidation receives, say, $300/month, that $300/month goes away, replaced by $1000/month.  Ok, fine.

 

The person living down the block, who doesn't need help from those programs, also gets $1000/month.

 

Is this really a fair program to poorer folks?  And what racial demographics tend to make up these poorer folks?  How is this not a racist policy?

Geez, I hope this is a rhetorical question and you are not looking to me for answers on this.:huh:  I don't know the details behind the implementation of this proposal so I doubt I could offer a comment on whether this is a racist policy or not.

Generally speaking though I would see giving $1000 per month as more beneficial to the poor as percentage wise it would be a bigger lift to their income. I am sure you folks in America are far more up to date on Yang's position than us folks North of the border and know if his proposal makes sense or not.

Good luck with your next election by the way.

Link to comment
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...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...