[manfredo]

I don't see how he's portraying it differently. He's still essentially banking on some utopian vision actually coming true. Replacing welfare? Sure we may be able to decrease it, but what are we gonna do with the minority of people that squander their UBI check? Let them starve? His VAT proposal isn't even on the same order of magnitude of what it would take to pay for the program. Heck, even if you add up the proposed VAT tax and all the purported savings it doesn't even add up to the cost of the UBI checks let alone the administrative overhead:

(5-6bn in welfare cuts) +

(8bn in vat) +

(5-6bn in magic economic growth) +

(1-2bn in cutting stuff he doesn't really elaborate on) =

(1.8-2.1trn).

So even if all his fantastic predictions come true we're still short of the 3.1 trillion to give 1k UBI checks to all ~260m adult Americans.

[nailer]

He broke down the 3tn a year on his Rogan interview. And yes, if you squander your UBI you squander it. Like if your squander your welfare now.

[manfredo]

And you really think society is just going to let people starve in the streets? Yeah, no. We're going to end up paying die both UBI and welfare.

Regardless of his purported numbers he's still banking on massive economic growth happening at the same time as a massive tax increase. This is next-level voodoo economics.

[dragonwriter]

> And you really think society is just going to let people starve in the streets?

We (at least, public direct aid programs; food banks etc., may pick up some of the slack) do now if people squander welfare, why would UBI change that?

[manfredo]

My point exactly. Yang's assumption that we'll be able to scrap welfare program if we give people UBI is a fantasy. Because UBI won't change the fact that many people are still going to need welfare, UBI or not.

[dragonwriter]

> My point exactly.

Well, exactly the opposite, but sure.

> Yang's assumption that we'll be able to scrap welfare program if we give people UBI is a fantasy. Because UBI won't change the fact that many people are still going to need welfare, UBI or not.

No, your idea that we will be compelled to double cover against because some people might not use their first-line benefits ideally is fantasy, because people not doing that happens now and we are fine not double covering.

[manfredo]

So we're just going to let people starve in the streets if they waste UBI? Again, you're not seeing the fact that welfare often comes in the form of services, which the welfare receipts can't waste. I guess someone could try to seell soup they get at a soup kitchen but I doubt it's a effective or common.

Replacing welfare with UBI isn't going to happen, we will end up paying for both.

[nailer]

OK but why? People need money. Why does it matter whether it's called 'welfare' or 'freedom dividend'?

[manfredo]

Welfare comes with strings attached, or is spent on services (e.g. a soup kitchen). These are much less likely to be squandered, as the funds' applications are not determined by the recipients. UBI is not subject to such restrictions. There's nothing stopping people from wasting UBI. As the previous comment pointed out, people will waste their UBI so we'll end up paying for both UBI and traditional welfare. This is bad for UBI proponents, who usually depend on scrapping nearly all welfare spending too afford UBI.