[throwaway07Ju19]

In the U.S. there is one presidential candidate championing a UBI of $1000/mo. It would be paid for by a VAT tax.

Typically VAT tax is unpopular because it is regressive. But the UBI more than compensates for the extra tax burden.

[Miner49er]

Yang's implementation is very regressive. You have the regressive VAT tax, but then you also have the fact that you are cutting government benefits then giving everyone $1000. So the poor just end up net poorer.

Example:

Now:

$12,000 a year + $12,000 in benefits = $24,000

$50,000 a year + $0 in benefits = $50,000

UBI:

$12,000 a year + $12,000 in UBI = $24,000

$50,000 a year + $12,000 in UBI = $62,000

The poorer person receiving benefits is actually poorer then before, relatively.

Someone let me know if I'm missing something.

[ameister14]

You're missing a couple of things - first, it isn't zero sum. I don't care if I'm poor relatively as long as I'm not poor absolutely.

Second, the average benefit isn't $1,000 a month and in almost all cases the $1k per month is an increase on existing benefit numbers.

Third, since it doesn't come with strings, you don't have to worry about losing your benefits when you get a job or a kid leaves the home, when you relapse or when you get sick and can't manage the tangled web of government red tape.

[jfk13]

> I don't care if I'm poor relatively as long as I'm not poor absolutely.

This might be true for you personally, but it is not true in general; whether people are dissatisfied with their level of wealth/poverty has a great deal to do with how it compares to others.

[badpun]

These people need to grow up? Or, more realistically, we need to start promoting some healthy values, instead of harmful ones. This should start with: banning advertising, teaching practical philosophy (how to think about your life, how to be content with your life etc.) in schools, discouraging competition for its own sake.

[iamvfl]

We're not talking about dissatisfaction here. We're talking about meeting basic needs like food, housing, and health services. Wanting to be satisfied of these things is absolutely true in general.

[jfk13]

> meeting basic needs like food

It's perfectly possible to get by with rice and lentils and a few vegetables, and if that's the common lifestyle of everyone in the community/country, many people are well satisfied with it. I've lived in such places.

But if you see the people around you enjoying an endless variety of steak and sushi and lobster and so on, and you're working all hours yet still only able to stretch to rice & lentils, your satisfaction may be less.

An illogical reaction? Maybe. A human one? I think so.

[Miner49er]

> You're missing a couple of things - first, it isn't zero sum. I don't care if I'm poor relatively as long as I'm not poor absolutely.

Sure, but even people with benefits are struggling to get by. To not be poor absolutely we should be giving them $1000 a month on top of current benefits. Just $1000 a month will leave many absolutely poor. Also, I'm not an economist, but I don't think we can really predict what will happen with inflation, rent prices, etc, when the vast majority of people become $1000 richer. I find it hard to believe it won't cause increases in prices in at least some things. If that happens you aren't just poorer relatively.

> Second, the average benefit isn't $1,000 a month and in almost all cases the $1k per month is an increase on existing benefit numbers.

It doesn't really matter just changes the amounts a bit. Even if you assume benefits are $100 a month only, you still only gain $900 a month from the UBI(because you lose the $100). Everyone else is gaining $100 more then you.

> Third, since it doesn't come with strings, you don't have to worry about losing your benefits when you get a job or a kid leaves the home, when you relapse or when you get sick and can't manage the tangled web of government red tape.

Yeah fair enough, I'm not against UBI. I'm only against Yang's implementation. I think we should add it on top of existing benefits. I also think it is only a band-aid or should be a small part of the overall solution.

[tartoran]

Or you can simply move somewhere else where life is cheaper, a place that nowadays isn't sustainable because currently the local job market is nonexistent. UBI can solve that!

[matz1]

$12,000 of benefits does not equal to $12,000 of UBI. UBI doesn't limit you on what you want to buy. UBI doesn't require paperwork or lengthy approval process. UBI doesn't go away as you make more money.

[dba7dba]

Your assumption is that Govt benefit starts coming your way the moment you need or ask for it. From limited personal experience AND from what I read, applying for and getting any kind of government benefit is very time labor intensive and involves long waits.

And many don't get it because they don't meet a threshold. And those who get it, have to not work (aka not make money), in order to keep getting it.

[analyst74]

You picked a perfect example where it seems bad, but consider an opposite one:

Now:

$12,000 a year + $12,000 in benefits = $24,000

$24,000 a year + $0 in benefits = $24,000

$50,000 a year + $0 in benefits = $50,000

UBI:

$12,000 a year + $12,000 in UBI = $24,000

$24,000 a year + $12,000 in benefits = $36,000

$50,000 a year + $12,000 in UBI = $62,000

Also keep in mind that the more well off people will end up paying more VAT because they spend more. VAT can also be tweaked to not tax on necessities like basic groceries/etc.

[lukifer]

Many currently receiving benefits might gladly give them up in exchange for $1k/mo, cash in hand, with no risk of losing benefits due to higher income or filling out a form incorrectly.

But even if not, I think there's a case that giving everyone else UBI has ancillary benefits:

- More cash in the hand of your neighbors means more customers, which means more economic activity, which potentially means better employment prospects, in a virtuous cycle [0].

- Strain on existing benefit-granting institutions is greatly reduced, as those who opt for cash exit the system, meaning faster response times and more assistance with forms/approvals/etc.

- The working class tend to be more economically interdependent by necessity; someone who declines UBI still comes ahead from a spouse, relative, grown child, etc. who requires less economic support.

- Yang has spoken at length about the effects of economic anxiety; even someone who declines UBI may experience less anxiety (and therefore greater executive function and capacity for long-term planning), simply from knowing they have a "Plan B" for basic necessities.

In addition to offsetting costs, I think one of the motivations for the "either/or" strategy is political viability with libertarians and moderate Republicans, whose exaggerated fears of "socialism" can be assuaged by the opportunity to shrink bloated federal bureaucracies. (I'm somewhat sympathetic here: the most efficient charity is usually to write a check to the poor [1], and I suspect UBI or negative income tax has greater efficacy than most means-tested federal programs, with possibly the exception of health care.)

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demand-side_economics

[1] https://www.givewell.org/charities/give-directly

[hisnameismanuel]

Yep - the key thing you're missing is that Yang is going to allow people to choose whether they want to keep their benefits or switch to UBI.

[Miner49er]

How does that change my point though? Either way they end up net poorer. If you're poor and don't take the $1000, you are the same and everyone else is $1000 richer. This makes you effectively $1000 poorer. Yang actually says UBI will save money compared to benefits. So if you pick UBI you're even more than $1000 poorer, if he's right.

[matz1]

>If you're poor and don't take the $1000, you are the same and everyone else is $1000 richer. This makes you effectively $1000 poorer

$1000 poorer relative to other person but not actually poorer in terms of my purchasing power.

[jonnycoder]

What do you think purchasing power for common goods will do once millions of people are on UBI? My bet is that prices will go up.

[matz1]

Could be stay the same or even go down. Producer still have to compete with each other and they even might lower their price to entice buyer to spend their UBI.

[michaelmrose]

There is no particular reason to believe that increases in costs would exactly match the benefits granted leaving you 1000 dollars poorer even if ssdi income was better than ubi. Furthermore ubi would not be negatively effected by a spouse earning money in a way that actually punishes families for working nor would it require suing the government for 5-10 years while they pretend your family member isn't disabled.

On net the only people who come off worse are unmarried individuals receiving ssdi who are too young for social security retirement income.

Average ssdi income is around 1200 10 million people are on ssdi aprox 6 million under 65 45% in the overall US population are unmarried.

One could reasonably suppose at least 2-3 million out of 327 million will make no more money and will see slightly to somewhat higher costs. This could be corrected by cola.

In comparison the bottom 25% is 82 million strong and will benefit substantially as will the next quartile to a lesser extent another 82 millions

[tj-teej]

It is not a UBI as it is not U.

The McDonalds cashier is likely getting subsidized housing and food stamp benefits.

Yang's plan would require that the cashier has to choose between the "UBI" or her existing benefits.

I asked his campaign why they designed it this way and they did not have an answer, I was told to ask the candidate directly, which was disappointing.

[maxaf]

> Yang's plan would require that the cashier has to choose between the "UBI" or her existing benefits.

I'm neutral on Yang's campaign, but I like the idea of a UBI because administering it will be much cheaper than running existing benefits. Means-testing has a real and very sizeable cost.

What will happen to all the guvment workers who will get laid off once existing benefits have been supplanted by the UBI? They will go home to merrily enjoy their new UBI checks.

[dv_dt]

I think UBI is definitely interesting, but it can't wholesale replace benefits. For example, a major illness like cancer now can wipe out your income, your savings, and a UBI quite easily. I think UBI might be better than a range of some lower end benefits - but the also exists a variation of needs where we should commit to helping people with, that is going to exceed almost any general UBI threshhold in many cases, and still needs to be covered as benefits.

[maxaf]

Which existing means-tested government benefits are capable of paving over a major illness such as cancer?

[dv_dt]

One example might be medicaid - given it's in an incredibly barbaric and stressful way of exhausting your finances first, then trying to get onto the program all while fighting the illness.

[jimbokun]

> They will go home to merrily enjoy their new UBI checks.

Which might be cheaper for the government than paying them to do their current jobs.

[ryandrake]

It’s the government: They’ll just move everyone over to the new Department of UBI, with an Administrator of UBI, a Deputy Administrator of UBI, an Assistant To The Deputy Administrator, a team of consultants, inspectors, auditors, inspectors of the auditors, auditors of the inspectors of the auditors, and so on. Nobody will actually lose their job.

[maxaf]

Your comment is insightful, but left me no instructions as to whether I should be laughing or crying. So, I'll do both.

[matz1]

Yang has separate plan to tackle housing price. So essentially the choice is between food stamp or UBI. I would argue UBI is better since it allow you to buy anything you want, no paperwork/approval process required and you wouldn't lose it as you make more money.

[cmcd]

Yang talks about this on JRE, the idea is that individuals know what they need better than the boards designing "one size fits all" benefits. The Freedom Dividend is meant to help replace complicated benefits for those receiving less than the $1k with a more flexible fund.

Cutting back existing benefit programs saves money in bureaucracy and empowers individuals to spend in ways that most benefit them.

[kingkawn]

people are still gonna end up broke and need food, but now there won’t be food stamps specifically set aside for food, or Medicaid funding specifically set aside for healthcare? Terrible choice. People need $1,000 a month on top of what they have, not a check and slashing all their present support.

[ska]

FWIW, the article says she has no benefits like that.

[Ottolay]

I hate how well off people assume poor people are getting large benefits.

Most people under the poverty line do not receive over $1k in means tested benefits.

Also, millions of Americans living in poverty receive no benefits at all.[1]

[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/13-million-p...

[amelius]

The US will be the last country to implement UBI.

[sebringj]

yah I think we tend to lean toward Yang because well, Elon does and this is a tech forum...yada yada...Yang.