[Heuristics]

(03-10-2019 01:43 AM)Sherman Wrote:  

I don't know much about him, but I haven't seen anyone else discussing a solution to all the people who are going to be put out of work by automation. Keep in mind that capitalist elites and corporations have chosen to side with the crazy leftists and SJWs, because ultimately it preserves their corruption and wealth. Their only goal is accumulation of profits. They have no other values. On top of that, we have Alexandria Cortez who is a fraud who is being fed a script. We really need a new leader with gravitas and intellect or we are going to be ruled by lunatics. Most people are still oblivious to how serious this is.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_conti...h5iv6sECGU

I did my research today, despite being a bit hungover, and I liked a lot of what I saw. His vision is prescient for a politician. He is definitely high IQ, and proposing shit that should have been proposed long before. This guy has balls, and who cares about his charisma...

SJWs did a deal with the devil when they aligned with big business. It is a cucked situation to be sure.

[captain_shane]

I hope you guys realize that young men and families will benefit greatly from UBI. The way I understand Yang's position is that if you currently get welfare you can either choose to keep it or accept the 1k a month, same goes with Social Security.

- Single mothers on welfare will benefit very little. Maybe 1-200$ a month.
- Boomers will be getting Social Security. No net benefit.
- Current welfare recipients won't benefit.
- Dumbass's that have 100K in student loan debt will be using the 1k to pay it off.

- On the other hand, men will be able to have their women stay home if they want (2k a month extra), pay off their mortgage faster, fuck off to a cheap country overseas if they want, purchase a shit ton of ammo, set up a side business, work on a passion project, etc.

If UBI is set up where it's offset by welfare and SS, it's amazing for men. And if democrats want to bring in massive amounts of immigrants, we can just vote ourselves an increase, and it's essentially slave labor working for us. We become part owners of this country instead of wage slaves.

[Heuristics]

(03-10-2019 02:03 AM)captain_shane Wrote:  

I hope you guys realize that young men and families will benefit greatly from UBI. The way I understand Yang's position is that if you currently get welfare you can either choose to keep it or accept the 1k a month, same goes with Social Security.

- Single mothers on welfare will benefit very little. Maybe 1-200$ a month.
- Boomers will be getting Social Security. No net benefit.
- Current welfare recipients won't benefit.
- Dumbass's that have 100K in student loan debt will be using the 1k to pay it off.

- On the other hand, men will be able to have their women stay home if they want (2k a month extra), pay off their mortgage faster, fuck off to a cheap country overseas if they want, purchase a shit ton of ammo, set up a side business, work on a passion project, etc.

If UBI is set up where it's offset by welfare and SS, it's amazing for men. And if democrats want to bring in massive amounts of immigrants, we can just vote ourselves an increase, and it's essentially slave labor working for us. We become part owners of this country instead of wage slaves.

Yes. But Yang i think is in favor of getting rid of student loan debt. It seems like a win-win the UBI though. I think going to a flat payment system could reduce a lot of welfare dependency even though not all experiments regarding it are showing positive results.

[Paracelsus]

As for the economic arguments:

(03-09-2019 02:58 PM)eradicator Wrote:  

From Yang's website

Quote:

How would we pay for Universal Basic Income?
It would be easier than you might think. Andrew proposes funding UBI by consolidating some welfare programs and implementing a Value-Added Tax (VAT) of 10%. Current welfare and social program beneficiaries would be given a choice between their current benefits or $1,000 cash unconditionally – most would prefer cash with no restriction.
A Value-Added Tax (VAT) is a tax on the production of goods or services a business produces. It is a fair tax and it makes it much harder for large corporations, who are experts at hiding profits and income, to avoid paying their fair share. A VAT is nothing new. 160 out of 193 countries in the world already have a Value-Added Tax or something similar, including all of Europe which has an average VAT of 20 percent. ...

Ah yes, the VAT, the tax that supposedly makes everything nice and fair for everyone. Small sidebar: when "160 out of 193" countries in the world have a VAT, and nobody's managed to achieve Wakanda/Zamunda civilisation with it, that's a pretty potent signifier that most of the world has got it wrong.

First thing is that the VAT doesn't apply to all goods and services, which immediately locks it out of being "fair" by way of being equal treatment on rich and poor. In Australia, we call the VAT a GST - a goods and services tax - and amongst the "fair" goods/services that are exempted from it are these:

- Any business with less than a $50K turnover per year is outright exempt (otherwise the streetside lemonade stand has to charge it.)
- most basic food
some education courses, course materials and related excursions or field trips
some medical, health and care services
some menstrual products (from 1 January 2019)
some medical aids and appliances
some medicines
some childcare services
some religious services and charitable activities
supplies of accommodation and meals to residents of retirement villages by certain operators
cars for disabled people to use, as long as certain requirements are met
water, sewerage and drainage
international transport and related matters
precious metals
sales through duty-free shops
grants of land by government
farmland
international mail
exports
sales of businesses as going concerns
some telecommunications supplies
eligible emissions units

That is, leftists carve out big exceptions to it for the wimminz or for muh ruhnewuhbles, and the rightists carve out all the fun stuff like travelling overseas, farmland, exports and other similars. That is, the rich get big exceptions which likely allow them to pay the GST on everything else they need. And since basic food isn't taxed, not everyone in Australia has to pay the GST at all.

Secondly, the assertion that "it's fair because it's 10% on all the goods and services you consume" is also shite, because as your income gets lower, a 10% increase in your costs is far more of an impost than it is when you're a rich man. The middle-class guy having to travel interstate for a vital medical operation has to pay another 10% on his airfares. And likely 10% on the hospital stay, because it's just the medicine that's discounted - not the services of the doctors. The upper-class guy, who can afford an operation overseas at Johns Hopkins or whatnot, saves 10% on his airfares because international transport is exempted, and he doesn't have to pay a cent extra on the operation overseas.

It's easier to accept a 10% increase on your luxuries than a 10% increase on your basic needs. Who feels a 10% increase in your internet account price harder, the rich guy who earn 10 million a year or the poor guy who has to have an internet account to have a chance of staying connected to the world?

"It's harder for corporations to hide their income and expenses?" This is irrelevant and attempting to generate class envy. A GST is a tax on the customers of the corporation: the corporation's just increases their prices by 10% to cover the GST and suffer no decrease in income or expenses -- and not the slightest effect on the shareholders or owners, because share dividends and whatnot are wealth items, not goods or services. And it doesn't help with competition, since everyone in the country pays the same 10% on top. If anything it forces business overseas, where the GST does not have to be paid.

Let's move onto the four sources of the UBI:

Quote:

The means to pay for a Universal Basic Income will come from 4 sources:
1. Current spending. We currently spend between $500 and $600 billion a year on welfare programs, food stamps, disability and the like. This reduces the cost of Universal Basic Income because people already receiving benefits would have a choice but would be ineligible to receive the full $1,000 in addition to current benefits.

This argument is basically that apparently we spend well above the cost of a UBI to administer all of these welfare benefit schemes, so a UBI therefore means a net decrease in costs.

Too bad that this argument is wrong, because it misses the fact those schemes are not being paid to everyone in the US. At its highest, there's only ever been 47 million people on food stamps in the US at a time. That's maybe 25% of the US population. You still need a bureaucracy to pay the UBI to everyone, which means the cost of administering a UBI is necessarily at least four times that of the food stamps. And that's on top of the fact that, for those food stamp recipients alone, their costs rise by a factor of half or more - because you're already paying them money.

Quote:

2. A VAT. Our economy is now incredibly vast at $19 trillion, up $4 trillion in the last 10 years alone. A VAT at half the European level would generate $800 billion in new revenue. A VAT will become more and more important as technology improves because you cannot collect income tax from robots or software.

Leaving aside what I've already indicated, this too is vastly overstated, because in return for slapping a VAT on everything in existence, there will be a demand to withdraw or reduce current taxes: sales tax, transaction taxes, you name it. Across the world -- which includes the 160 countries already with a VAT -- it's been demonstrated that the Laffer Curve applies: no matter the taxation scheme, you never get more than about 20% of a nation's GDP in taxation.

Quote:

3. New revenue. Putting money into the hands of American consumers would grow the economy. The Roosevelt Institute projected that the economy would grow by approximately $2.5 trillion and create 4.6 million new jobs. This would generate approximately $500 – 600 billion in new revenue from economic growth and activity.

You can find the Roosevelt Institute's paper here.

You can find the reasons why that paper is full of shit here.

Quote:

4. We currently spend over one trillion dollars on health care, incarceration, homelessness services and the like. We would save $100 – 200 billion as people would take better care of themselves and avoid the emergency room, jail, and the street and would generally be more functional. Universal Basic Income would pay for itself by helping people avoid our institutions, which is when our costs shoot up. Some studies have shown that $1 to a poor parent will result in as much as $7 in cost-savings and economic growth.

The problem with this asshattery can be explained by asking one thing:

Give a junkie $1,000 in extra money per month and what is the most likely thing he'll do?

The assertion that you get a 7-to-1 return giving money to poor parents is disproven by the current state of the welfare system. It is true that money spent on early intervention is a strong cost-saver as opposed to rehabilitation, but the fact is this is a proposal to just throw money at people, which is nowhere near the same thing.

Let's leave aside that, for any number of people, that $1,000 at best is going up as collateral on loans from large banks. Draw your own conclusions from what would happen there.

[CynicalContrarian]

All your 'dragon energy' belong to Yang.

[CynicalContrarian]

Finally, the hentai kids have a voice!

[CynicalContrarian]

Hmmm.
Iowa is clearly not on the Yang Train.

@ryanstruyk
9h

Quote:

Brand new 2020 poll from @CNN and @DMRegister in Iowa:

Biden 27%
Sanders 25%
Warren 9%
Harris 7%
O’Rourke 5%
Booker 3%
Klobuchar 3%
Bennet 1%
Bullock 1%
Buttigieg 1%
Castro 1%
Delaney 1%
Inslee 1%
de Blasio <1%
Gabbard <1%
Gillibrand <1%
Hickenlooper <1%
Swalwell <1%

[eradicator]

Also. Give a basic bitch an extra 1000 per month and she will spend it on getting fake tits, fake ass, plastic surgery on her face. I’m not really into fake looking women but plastic surgery is getting better. Maybe it will turn USA women more Into Colombia .

I’m definitely joining the Yang gang

[Paracelsus]

On the other hand, maybe Yang's got some insight about this from personal experience dealing with big money:

[BeardedMastodon]

I honestly do not see the appeal in this at all.

It’s still redistribution but in a nicer more “intellectual” package. But it will still have the same effects.

Here’s something we have to keep in mind.

People value what they work hard for. That’s why money is so valuable. It’s hard to get. If it comes easy that means it goes easy. Ninety percent of people won’t save the money to go to college. They will just spend it vacations, clubbing, video games, drugs and whatever.

That’s all awesome stuff. But since money comes easier they won’t want to work... then when people don’t show up to work taxes stop happpening and you can’t afford it...

Or maybe it would drive wages up because no one would want to work anymore. I see it. Genius. )

[Ouroboros]

(03-10-2019 04:34 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:  

Too bad that this argument is wrong, because it misses the fact those schemes are not being paid to everyone in the US. At its highest, there's only ever been 47 million people on food stamps in the US at a time. That's maybe 25% of the US population. You still need a bureaucracy to pay the UBI to everyone, which means the cost of administering a UBI is necessarily at least four times that of the food stamps. And that's on top of the fact that, for those food stamp recipients alone, their costs rise by a factor of half or more - because you're already paying them money.

This is a bit simplistic. The cost of administering a government program can't be estimated only from knowing what proportion of the population is entitled to it. A lot of the costs of such programs go into activities like processing applications, determining eligibility, answering queries, dealing with disputes, monitoring adherence to rules, etc. The more complex, confusing or contestable the entitlement, the more these activities will increase, along with the resultant bureaucratic costs.

The cost of administering the UBI can't be equated with the cost of administering most other forms of government welfare because it is far simpler. Every citizen is entitled to it, the amount is fixed, there is little scope for confusion, and the recipients don't need to be monitored to ensure they're abiding by the conditions of the payment, since there are none.

[Arado]

(03-09-2019 09:49 PM)Swordfish1010 Wrote:  

(03-09-2019 08:31 AM)Ski pro Wrote:  

1000 dollars a month doesn’t sound like a great deal of money to me.

I don’t know much about the US but you won’t get far on 1k a month in europe

It won't give you a lifestyle of luxury, but you can easily live on 1k a month anywhere in the US. Roommates, eating at home, etc. Same with Europe.

Seems like this would most benefit someone young, living with parents and/or roommates, without significant debt, who needs basic income to just get by while taking online courses or starting a business.

For the head of a family living paycheck to paycheck, if a father loses a 4,500$ a month job to automation, then how is the 1,000$ basic income going to help him support his family if he isn't able to upskill or find a new job? Eventually he will either have to downsize and move, or find a new job since he won't be able to meet expenses with 1,000$ a month - how is this any different from getting unemployment benefits which eventually run out?

Unless am I missing something and parents of kids get 1,000$ per month per kid as well? I would be in support of that - I'd rather have taxpayer money going to stable nuclear families rather than just welfare mothers.

Are there any residency restrictions? With 1,000$ a month it's a no brainer to relocate to a beach in Thailand and work on a part time business.

[Fortis]

(03-10-2019 06:45 AM)Arado Wrote:  

(03-09-2019 09:49 PM)Swordfish1010 Wrote:  

(03-09-2019 08:31 AM)Ski pro Wrote:  

1000 dollars a month doesn’t sound like a great deal of money to me.

I don’t know much about the US but you won’t get far on 1k a month in europe

It won't give you a lifestyle of luxury, but you can easily live on 1k a month anywhere in the US. Roommates, eating at home, etc. Same with Europe.

Seems like this would most benefit someone young, living with parents and/or roommates, without significant debt, who needs basic income to just get by while taking online courses or starting a business.

For the head of a family living paycheck to paycheck, if a father loses a 4,500$ a month job to automation, then how is the 1,000$ basic income going to help him support his family if he isn't able to upskill or find a new job? Eventually he will either have to downsize and move, or find a new job since he won't be able to meet expenses with 1,000$ a month - how is this any different from getting unemployment benefits which eventually run out?

Unless am I missing something and parents of kids get 1,000$ per month per kid as well? I would be in support of that - I'd rather have taxpayer money going to stable nuclear families rather than just welfare mothers.

Are there any residency restrictions? With 1,000$ a month it's a no brainer to relocate to a beach in Thailand and work on a part time business.

Agreed.

I'd also just prefer that tax dollars go to Americans as opposed to suspicious wars abroad and Israel.

[Spectrumwalker]

(03-09-2019 10:03 PM)Swordfish1010 Wrote:  

It doesn't work like that. The rest of the world will still automate and then we won't be able to compete in the global marketplace, similar to what happened to our automobile industry.

Well... fuck me. Then it finally may be a good project for the little suit and tie do gooders at the UN to work on since they want what's good for the harmony of the world ostensibly. Hell with it, I've read Revelation. Proggie marxists win in the end anyways. I suppose I'll accept my share of the plunder to buy more cattle and ammo and hunker down.

In this guys YouTube video he mentions how much it will help single moms. Yes, right. Let's give our women even more incentive to spawn bastard children who will continue to wreak havoc. Unless you're supporting this guy for the sole purpose or accelerating a collapse, which is respectable, I cant believe everyone's salivating over this tool.

[infowarrior1]

How is UBI going to deal with the generational dependency of welfare? Where people have children that are as dependent on UBI as themselves?

Thereby increasing dependency overtime as more and more dependents are born down the generations?

[CynicalContrarian]

(03-10-2019 06:24 AM)BeardedMastodon Wrote:  

I honestly do not see the appeal in this at all.

It’s still redistribution but in a nicer more “intellectual” package. But it will still have the same effects.
...

DARPA :
"We need to forcibly acquire peoples personal data, but we don't want to cause a fuss..."
"Let's develop a social media site where people think it's popular, so they'll actively give all their life logs to us indirectly!"
"Perfect. Although no one says life logs. Think of a new name. Life Journal or Friend book or something..."

Globalists :
"We need to forcibly impose a very socialist system, but we don't want to cause a fuss..."
"Let's develop a taxation redistribution policy which people think is popular, so they'll actively give all their earnings to us indirectly!"
"Perfect. Although no one will just give us their earnings. Think of a way to sweeten the deal. Social support income or Basic needs income or something..."

[Leonard D Neubache]

The reality is this. Middle class westerners and particularly proud lower-middle class westerners are the only ones without their hands in the public purse.

"This is socialism!"

What fucking planet are you living on? The dregs get welfare and everyone making 7 figures or above has some kind of sweetheart deal going with the government for bullshit subsidies or tax breaks. Everyone in a make-work government job is fucking you as well, not to mention every pensioner and social security recipient that bled the state dry during their youth and are more than happy to bleed you dry in retirement.

You proud, working-poor conservatives doing your 9-5 AND sending your fucking wives to the slave-mill so you can afford a house that isn't a functional part of greater-Mexico so that all of the assholes above and below can pick at the carcass of your Normal Rockwell dream. How are you still able to look at the status quo and claim that a UBI is "choosing socialism".

Everyone else already chose socialism and you're the only one that's getting fucked without the reach-around.

Who is it that's hectoring you and lecturing you to keep slaving away so you can prop up the balance sheet for this madness? Oh yeah...



^...this guy!

Take the money.

Build your life raft.

Collapse the state.

Start over.

[Hypno]

Sorry, late to the party because I thought this was the left eating itself.

Is the 4Chan crowd and former Trump supporters now supporting Yang? Why would they do that? Is this a prank or serious?

[Genghis Khan]

(03-10-2019 08:23 AM)Hypno Wrote:  

Sorry, late to the party because I thought this was the left eating itself.

Is the 4Chan crowd and former Trump supporters now supporting Yang? Why would they do that? Is this a prank or serious?

Probably because he comes across as rational, intelligent and willing to fight for working class men - so everything Trump is not

[RawGod]

UBI/Yangbux will be extremely socially destructive. There are legions of people working hard for $500-$1500 per month...retail and fast food workers, cleaners, warehouse workers, on and on. They will quit en masse and then do nothing and become utterly socially useless. They'll be useless eaters for good, getting into crime, drug abuse, etc. instead of maintaining the basic self-discipline and dignity they had as low-wage earners. Then because fast food workers and shelf-stackers are needed, wages will rise for these jobs, leading to inflation. There will be a cascade of effects, mostly undesireable.

[Jaydublin]

I'm seeing a lot of people posting their opinion on Andrew Yangs UBI proposal without actually listening to Andrew. Just so we are all on the same page Andrew proposes the idea that the 1k per month be given no matter your situation. If you are unemployed you get 1k, if you make 20$ an hour you get 1k, and if you make 500k a year you get 1k per month extra....no strings attached.


But it is not on top of welfare benefits. So if one gets 400$ a month in food stamps they will not get the full 1k or maybe they will and not get food stamps. But 1k is what each person gets. I am not sure if this applies to disability, probably the same.

[Renzy]

(03-10-2019 07:09 AM)infowarrior1 Wrote:  

How is UBI going to deal with the generational dependency of welfare? Where people have children that are as dependent on UBI as themselves?

Thereby increasing dependency overtime as more and more dependents are born down the generations?

I'm wondering the same thing.

Once people get used to receiving a UBI, are they ever going to want to give it up? Even if they were doing fine, not struggling financially, once they've come to expect that money being there in their budget they'll come to depend on it. And when the next generation of kids grow up in families where it's just a given that you get a check from the government, what kind of mindset do think they're going to have with regards to a welfare state?

[RawGod]

(03-10-2019 09:02 AM)Jaydublin Wrote:  

I'm seeing a lot of people posting their opinion on Andrew Yangs UBI proposal without actually listening to Andrew. Just so we are all on the same page Andrew proposes the idea that the 1k per month be given no matter your situation. If you are unemployed you get 1k, if you make 20$ an hour you get 1k, and if you make 500k a year you get 1k per month extra....no strings attached.


But it is not on top of welfare benefits. So if one gets 400$ a month in food stamps they will not get the full 1k or maybe they will and not get food stamps. But 1k is what each person gets. I am not sure if this applies to disability, probably the same.

So all those whose only income is welfare will be getting $1000 per month, only. And everyone else will be getting their current income, plus $1000 (unless they choose to reduce their hours). There will be huge inflation due to all the middle and high income earners splashing that $1k around with abandon. And the bottom section of society will be trying to buy their necessities with $1k - the problem that all these necessities have just doubled in price.

[nomadbrah]

(03-10-2019 08:23 AM)Hypno Wrote:  

Sorry, late to the party because I thought this was the left eating itself.

Is the 4Chan crowd and former Trump supporters now supporting Yang? Why would they do that? Is this a prank or serious?

I can only speak for myself but I'm guessing:

To show just how much Trump has failed his base, that right wingers have all but given up on politics.

That Trump has not accomplished anything meaningful for his base. $1000 > embassy in Israel.

Liberal democracy has now clearly been proven a sham by Trump, so why not just sell your vote for $1000 a month? It will have a larger financial impact than the 3% of job growth that went to white males.

Pessimistic rational accelerationism (Ride The Tiger) which is probably the baseline for /pol/.

Also, Yang has said some dog whistly things about white men, so /pol/ memes him to be transracial (asian to white).

[nomadbrah]

The correct way to fund UBI is to institute a Tobin tax on all financial transactions.

You want to wire $10.000.000 to buy a mansion? 1%

You want to speculate $1.000.000.000 against the Peso? 1%

You want to short sell one million times a day? 1% of each and every position

It's a simple and efficient method of taxing those who primarily live of investments, while at the same time removing short term speculation.