Author Topic: Andrew Yang  (Read 5537 times)

SafetyinNumbers

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 567
Re: Andrew Yang
« Reply #40 on: October 17, 2019, 01:36:05 PM »
The biggest benefit of everyone receiving UBI even if they are above the poverty line is that you donít want a system that disincentives work or taking a risk. If someone is close to the line and knows they have to give back any money they make over a certain amount then they are not incentivized to take that work. Even if just means they are removed from UBI and have to go through red tape in order to get reinstated. This is how the SSDI system works now. Needless bureaucracy and a bad incentive system.

UBI also removes the stigma from being on government assistance. During the Obama presidency, Fox News pundits would always complain about someone buying lobster with their food stamps and how they are all takers. Well with UBI, everyone is a taker and there are no food stamps so there should be less anger from those people.

So UBI helps the people above the poverty line stay above those below it? While Joe the forklift drive is using his UBI for food, little Jenna Smith from middle America will be using her UBI to start a Shopify T-shirt company.

That is not a benefit, and itís complete hypocrisy. Also youíre assuming risk is a bad thing. That business risk forces people to better think through business plans etc. If you want to take a shot at the next stick on finger nails business then you can do so on your own dime.

If UBI is going to exist then it should exist for those below the poverty line and no one else.

Iím surprised you want all of the red tape associated with having a non-universal universal basic income.

I want a negative income tax to replace all welfare. I would probably settle for UBI if it was limited to the poor.

With negative income tax there still might be more of an incentive to under report income but I understand why you like it.

UBI if limited to the poor keeps all the stigma and red tape for income verification. If there is a chance to shrink bureaucracy especially if it's the part that chooses winners and losers then I am for it. UBI to replace all welfare makes more sense to me.

Top 5 positions: ELF GCM.NT/GCM.WT.B TII.V PIF ATTO


Castanza

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 629
Re: Andrew Yang
« Reply #41 on: October 17, 2019, 05:48:53 PM »
The biggest benefit of everyone receiving UBI even if they are above the poverty line is that you donít want a system that disincentives work or taking a risk. If someone is close to the line and knows they have to give back any money they make over a certain amount then they are not incentivized to take that work. Even if just means they are removed from UBI and have to go through red tape in order to get reinstated. This is how the SSDI system works now. Needless bureaucracy and a bad incentive system.

UBI also removes the stigma from being on government assistance. During the Obama presidency, Fox News pundits would always complain about someone buying lobster with their food stamps and how they are all takers. Well with UBI, everyone is a taker and there are no food stamps so there should be less anger from those people.

So UBI helps the people above the poverty line stay above those below it? While Joe the forklift drive is using his UBI for food, little Jenna Smith from middle America will be using her UBI to start a Shopify T-shirt company.

That is not a benefit, and itís complete hypocrisy. Also youíre assuming risk is a bad thing. That business risk forces people to better think through business plans etc. If you want to take a shot at the next stick on finger nails business then you can do so on your own dime.

If UBI is going to exist then it should exist for those below the poverty line and no one else.

Iím surprised you want all of the red tape associated with having a non-universal universal basic income.

I want a negative income tax to replace all welfare. I would probably settle for UBI if it was limited to the poor.

With negative income tax there still might be more of an incentive to under report income but I understand why you like it.

UBI if limited to the poor keeps all the stigma and red tape for income verification. If there is a chance to shrink bureaucracy especially if it's the part that chooses winners and losers then I am for it. UBI to replace all welfare makes more sense to me.

People should have to be verified to receive welfare. Also it would likely cost less to have some administration dealing with negative income tax than it would to simply pay everyone 1k a month. Iím not understanding your reasoning here. Youíre basically saying....Ēwell itís difficult to verify if people are poor, so letís just give it to everyone and call it a day.Ē

At least thatís how it comes across haha

SafetyinNumbers

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 567
Re: Andrew Yang
« Reply #42 on: October 17, 2019, 07:35:37 PM »
The biggest benefit of everyone receiving UBI even if they are above the poverty line is that you donít want a system that disincentives work or taking a risk. If someone is close to the line and knows they have to give back any money they make over a certain amount then they are not incentivized to take that work. Even if just means they are removed from UBI and have to go through red tape in order to get reinstated. This is how the SSDI system works now. Needless bureaucracy and a bad incentive system.

UBI also removes the stigma from being on government assistance. During the Obama presidency, Fox News pundits would always complain about someone buying lobster with their food stamps and how they are all takers. Well with UBI, everyone is a taker and there are no food stamps so there should be less anger from those people.

So UBI helps the people above the poverty line stay above those below it? While Joe the forklift drive is using his UBI for food, little Jenna Smith from middle America will be using her UBI to start a Shopify T-shirt company.

That is not a benefit, and itís complete hypocrisy. Also youíre assuming risk is a bad thing. That business risk forces people to better think through business plans etc. If you want to take a shot at the next stick on finger nails business then you can do so on your own dime.

If UBI is going to exist then it should exist for those below the poverty line and no one else.

Iím surprised you want all of the red tape associated with having a non-universal universal basic income.

I want a negative income tax to replace all welfare. I would probably settle for UBI if it was limited to the poor.

With negative income tax there still might be more of an incentive to under report income but I understand why you like it.

UBI if limited to the poor keeps all the stigma and red tape for income verification. If there is a chance to shrink bureaucracy especially if it's the part that chooses winners and losers then I am for it. UBI to replace all welfare makes more sense to me.

People should have to be verified to receive welfare. Also it would likely cost less to have some administration dealing with negative income tax than it would to simply pay everyone 1k a month. Iím not understanding your reasoning here. Youíre basically saying....Ēwell itís difficult to verify if people are poor, so letís just give it to everyone and call it a day.Ē

At least thatís how it comes across haha

I mean it is basically what I'm saying.  I know it probably seems counter intuitive. If you take away the negative incentives then people might spend their time more productively. The hope is at least most will. For the top 1% it probably won't change their lives at all maybe hurt them a bit with the VAT tax. That being said, the stock market would probably do very well and the top 1% would be exposed to that. For the next 9%, it might make them feel better about their retirement or help their kid buy a house. For the next 90% it might transform a lot of their lives. Some might become deadbeats but for the people who have ambition and drive? It might give them the start up capital they need in a few years to take a chance at a business or get an education. The stress relief alone might make a significant difference to life spans. At the very least it would significantly reduce poverty.

I know its a very optimistic view but this idea is inspiring. I think there should be some sort of social safety net so why not make that net as free of bureaucracy as possible. That is free of as much waste as possible. Without anyone choosing winners and losers? Without stigma?

I am ready for abuse.
Top 5 positions: ELF GCM.NT/GCM.WT.B TII.V PIF ATTO

Castanza

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 629
Re: Andrew Yang
« Reply #43 on: October 18, 2019, 06:39:48 AM »
The biggest benefit of everyone receiving UBI even if they are above the poverty line is that you donít want a system that disincentives work or taking a risk. If someone is close to the line and knows they have to give back any money they make over a certain amount then they are not incentivized to take that work. Even if just means they are removed from UBI and have to go through red tape in order to get reinstated. This is how the SSDI system works now. Needless bureaucracy and a bad incentive system.

UBI also removes the stigma from being on government assistance. During the Obama presidency, Fox News pundits would always complain about someone buying lobster with their food stamps and how they are all takers. Well with UBI, everyone is a taker and there are no food stamps so there should be less anger from those people.

So UBI helps the people above the poverty line stay above those below it? While Joe the forklift drive is using his UBI for food, little Jenna Smith from middle America will be using her UBI to start a Shopify T-shirt company.

That is not a benefit, and itís complete hypocrisy. Also youíre assuming risk is a bad thing. That business risk forces people to better think through business plans etc. If you want to take a shot at the next stick on finger nails business then you can do so on your own dime.

If UBI is going to exist then it should exist for those below the poverty line and no one else.

Iím surprised you want all of the red tape associated with having a non-universal universal basic income.

I want a negative income tax to replace all welfare. I would probably settle for UBI if it was limited to the poor.

With negative income tax there still might be more of an incentive to under report income but I understand why you like it.

UBI if limited to the poor keeps all the stigma and red tape for income verification. If there is a chance to shrink bureaucracy especially if it's the part that chooses winners and losers then I am for it. UBI to replace all welfare makes more sense to me.

People should have to be verified to receive welfare. Also it would likely cost less to have some administration dealing with negative income tax than it would to simply pay everyone 1k a month. Iím not understanding your reasoning here. Youíre basically saying....Ēwell itís difficult to verify if people are poor, so letís just give it to everyone and call it a day.Ē

At least thatís how it comes across haha

I mean it is basically what I'm saying.  I know it probably seems counter intuitive. If you take away the negative incentives then people might spend their time more productively. The hope is at least most will. For the top 1% it probably won't change their lives at all maybe hurt them a bit with the VAT tax. That being said, the stock market would probably do very well and the top 1% would be exposed to that. For the next 9%, it might make them feel better about their retirement or help their kid buy a house. For the next 90% it might transform a lot of their lives. Some might become deadbeats but for the people who have ambition and drive? It might give them the start up capital they need in a few years to take a chance at a business or get an education. The stress relief alone might make a significant difference to life spans. At the very least it would significantly reduce poverty.

I know its a very optimistic view but this idea is inspiring. I think there should be some sort of social safety net so why not make that net as free of bureaucracy as possible. That is free of as much waste as possible. Without anyone choosing winners and losers? Without stigma?

I am ready for abuse.

Fair enough haha I think we can agree to disagree on what is constituted as waste. In general I see your point. I just think it's poor policy to create entitlements based on hopes that people will do something. Even Yang himself said on JRE that he thinks most people would just pocket the 1k a month. I think if you know that then you should reevaluate your policy. There is also the fact that all the other policies Andrew Yang wants would likely increase administrative bureaucracy. Govt funded marriage counseling, govt funded moving costs, etc.


SafetyinNumbers

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 567
Re: Andrew Yang
« Reply #44 on: October 18, 2019, 08:36:01 PM »
The biggest benefit of everyone receiving UBI even if they are above the poverty line is that you donít want a system that disincentives work or taking a risk. If someone is close to the line and knows they have to give back any money they make over a certain amount then they are not incentivized to take that work. Even if just means they are removed from UBI and have to go through red tape in order to get reinstated. This is how the SSDI system works now. Needless bureaucracy and a bad incentive system.

UBI also removes the stigma from being on government assistance. During the Obama presidency, Fox News pundits would always complain about someone buying lobster with their food stamps and how they are all takers. Well with UBI, everyone is a taker and there are no food stamps so there should be less anger from those people.

So UBI helps the people above the poverty line stay above those below it? While Joe the forklift drive is using his UBI for food, little Jenna Smith from middle America will be using her UBI to start a Shopify T-shirt company.

That is not a benefit, and itís complete hypocrisy. Also youíre assuming risk is a bad thing. That business risk forces people to better think through business plans etc. If you want to take a shot at the next stick on finger nails business then you can do so on your own dime.

If UBI is going to exist then it should exist for those below the poverty line and no one else.

Iím surprised you want all of the red tape associated with having a non-universal universal basic income.

I want a negative income tax to replace all welfare. I would probably settle for UBI if it was limited to the poor.

With negative income tax there still might be more of an incentive to under report income but I understand why you like it.

UBI if limited to the poor keeps all the stigma and red tape for income verification. If there is a chance to shrink bureaucracy especially if it's the part that chooses winners and losers then I am for it. UBI to replace all welfare makes more sense to me.

People should have to be verified to receive welfare. Also it would likely cost less to have some administration dealing with negative income tax than it would to simply pay everyone 1k a month. Iím not understanding your reasoning here. Youíre basically saying....Ēwell itís difficult to verify if people are poor, so letís just give it to everyone and call it a day.Ē

At least thatís how it comes across haha

I mean it is basically what I'm saying.  I know it probably seems counter intuitive. If you take away the negative incentives then people might spend their time more productively. The hope is at least most will. For the top 1% it probably won't change their lives at all maybe hurt them a bit with the VAT tax. That being said, the stock market would probably do very well and the top 1% would be exposed to that. For the next 9%, it might make them feel better about their retirement or help their kid buy a house. For the next 90% it might transform a lot of their lives. Some might become deadbeats but for the people who have ambition and drive? It might give them the start up capital they need in a few years to take a chance at a business or get an education. The stress relief alone might make a significant difference to life spans. At the very least it would significantly reduce poverty.

I know its a very optimistic view but this idea is inspiring. I think there should be some sort of social safety net so why not make that net as free of bureaucracy as possible. That is free of as much waste as possible. Without anyone choosing winners and losers? Without stigma?

I am ready for abuse.

Fair enough haha I think we can agree to disagree on what is constituted as waste. In general I see your point. I just think it's poor policy to create entitlements based on hopes that people will do something. Even Yang himself said on JRE that he thinks most people would just pocket the 1k a month. I think if you know that then you should reevaluate your policy. There is also the fact that all the other policies Andrew Yang wants would likely increase administrative bureaucracy. Govt funded marriage counseling, govt funded moving costs, etc.

Initially, I think most people will spend the money. 90% of people have bills to pay or have debt. After a while, people will use it build up emergency savings and retirement. That seems like a much more stable economy where people are less stressed and thus more productive. I do like the idea of having personal finance courses being part of high school curriculums.
Top 5 positions: ELF GCM.NT/GCM.WT.B TII.V PIF ATTO

Nell-e

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 99
Re: Andrew Yang
« Reply #45 on: November 20, 2019, 02:32:57 PM »
If it costs $80K/yr to house a prison inmate, would you support UBI of $12K/yr to incentivize people to stay out of jail?

Gregmal

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2549
Re: Andrew Yang
« Reply #46 on: November 20, 2019, 02:43:04 PM »
If it costs $80K/yr to house a prison inmate, would you support UBI of $12K/yr to incentivize people to stay out of jail?

Only question in regards to the effects of a UBI is how much NKE should one buy?

Spekulatius

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3569
Re: Andrew Yang
« Reply #47 on: November 20, 2019, 03:45:19 PM »
If it costs $80K/yr to house a prison inmate, would you support UBI of $12K/yr to incentivize people to stay out of jail?

Only question in regards to the effects of a UBI is how much NKE should one buy?

Or liquor store concessions and properties in the crummiest areas you can find.

I do think that UBI could be structured to reduce incarceration rate. At an incarceration cost of ~8x UBI, reducing the incarceration rate could help pay for part of the cost, at a net plus for society. These small time thugs often earn way less than minimum  wage salaries although I doubt they see it this way.
« Last Edit: November 20, 2019, 03:49:34 PM by Spekulatius »
Life is too short for cheap beer and wine.

Nell-e

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 99
Re: Andrew Yang
« Reply #48 on: November 20, 2019, 09:57:20 PM »

If it costs $80K/yr to house a prison inmate, would you support UBI of $12K/yr to incentivize people to stay out of jail?


I do think that UBI could be structured to reduce incarceration rate. At an incarceration cost of ~8x UBI, reducing the incarceration rate could help pay for part of the cost, at a net plus for society. These small time thugs often earn way less than minimum  wage salaries although I doubt they see it this way.

Here's the breakdown for annual cost for 1 prisoner in CA:
Californiaís Annual Costs to Incarcerate an Inmate in Prison

2018‑19

Type of Expenditure
   

Per Inmate Costs

Security  $35,425
Inmate Health Care $26,665
Medical care $16,100
Psychiatric services $6,051
Pharmaceuticals $3,124
Dental care $1,389
Facility Operations and Records $7,687
Facility operations (maintenance, utilities, etc.) $4,610
Classification services $2,109
Maintenance of inmate records $794
Reception, testing, assignment $150
Transportation $24
Administration $4,840
Inmate Food and Activities $3,733
Food $2,119
Inmate employment and canteen $997
Clothing $362
Religious activities $135
Inmate activities $120
Rehabilitation Programs $2,478
Academic education $1,277
Cognitive behavioral therapy $742
Vocational training $459
Miscellaneous $375

Total  $81,203

This doesn't even include legal costs (public defender, judge, etc), law enforcement needing to capture criminal, OR the societal cost of the crime itself i.e the trauma of victims.  There's no question that some people are in jail because they're desperate for basic needs and they rob/shoplift.  Other costs include medical costs, property damage costs, etc if robbery goes wrong.

The 5 most common crimes in US are larceny/theft, burglary, motor vehicle theft, aggravated assault, & robbery

Larceny / Theft
Larceny-theft hits the top of the crime list, far outweighing any other crime. The numbers of larceny-theft in this country are staggering Ė more than 7 million reported each year, making up almost sixty percent of all reported crimes.

Spekulatius

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3569
Re: Andrew Yang
« Reply #49 on: November 21, 2019, 03:49:01 AM »
Incarceration rates in the US are out of control - about 5-10x higher than other western democracies and much higher than Russia even. It’s a gigantic failure of the system, similar to health care cost.  Certainly high poverty rates contribute to this. I don’t think UBI is a solution to this (nor releasing prisoners indiscriminately as this has shown to rise crime rates), but it may have a positive impact.

https://www.apa.org/images/2014-10-incarceration-chart2_tcm7-176264_w1024_n.jpg
« Last Edit: November 21, 2019, 03:51:33 AM by Spekulatius »
Life is too short for cheap beer and wine.