How do you feel about Andrew Yang's UBI of 1,000 a month for every US Adult

[TheramoreIsTheBomb]

I think this is something every democrat should go for. Not only will it lower unemployment because people will want more money but it is a great way for more americans to start investing and saving and let their money grow interest and this will teach them how to better spend their money and also lower poverty and help out with student debt.

[PosPosPos]

I think there are 2 ways it can go:

1. Cause massive inflation spike, which would make that 1k worthless and might ruin economy.

2. If it doesn't cause inflation spike, I don't see how it would lower unemployment. If anything, it will give incentive to be officially unemployed to receive free money, while also getting paid in cash without taxes. So it would result in more spending and less taxes.

Either way bad idea.

^
Watching reactionaries talk what they don't know is always funny, especially if it flatly goes against all historical precedence.

[the game]

Who's going to pay for it

[nonameelf]

I think it'll be necessary as jobs continue to be automated or exported overseas, but I don't think we're at the point where it's necessary yet.

But there is argument to be made that we should start implementing such a system before it is needed.

[Beefhammer]

I think this is something every democrat should go for. Not only will it lower unemployment because people will want more money but it is a great way for more americans to start investing and saving and let their money grow interest and this will teach them how to better spend their money and also lower poverty and help out with student debt.

If you think this will make most people start saving you are flat out wrong. The people who will benefit from this most will be spending it on things that are needed like health insurance, rent/mortgage payments, SL payments, and other necessities that they are unable to afford. Those that can afford to save are those that have more than enough. This would be a huge boon to the economy as poorer people would be spending money. When you inject money to middle and lower classes, they spend and economies grow. This is a historically proven fact. It is also a historically proven fact that they won't save or invest.

- - - Updated - - -

Who's going to pay for it

Those that can afford it. Those that owe society for getting where they are today as a direct result of being apart of this society.

- - - Updated - - -

^
Watching reactionaries talk what they don't know is always funny, especially if it flatly goes against all historical precedence.

Just look at China. just before their economy took off they doubled the salary of every government worker, which is around a quarter of their population and mostly low wage earners by their standard of living. Why would they do this you ask? To make their economy grow. All of a sudden, their economy started growing by double digits, people were now buying homes, cars, jewelry, higher end clothing and such. They basically injected billions into their economy overnight and no inflation came in and ruined their economy. Even with currency manipulation by lowering there value of their currency, inflation, on purpose, their economy continues to grow at a much faster rate than the sub 3% dear leader's economy is doing.

[Machismo]

How will it lower unemployment?

Incentivizing people to not work is not going to make them want to work harder.

I look forward to him providing evidence to back up all of his absurd claims.

[the game]

Those that can afford it. Those that owe society for getting where they are today as a direct result of being apart of this society.

Who will pay for it after "those who can afford it," run out of money or leave the country?

[Beefhammer]

Who will pay for it after "those who can afford it," run out of money or leave the country?

Those that can afford it would be paying a few pennies on the hundreds of millions and billions they have. They aren't going anywhere.

- - - Updated - - -

But they weren't getting that money for free. Salary ≠ UBI.

Doesn't matter. Money is money. When money is injected to the working classes, economies grow. I bet you didn't know that unemployment has the greatest return on investment from all government type of stimuli. it averages around a 6% ROI. money in the hands of those that need it is the best way to grow. Guess what? Those that have and can give will see a return on that money as those industries will reap the rewards of a growing economy anyway. It's a win, win, but the 1% and higher have convinced those that have just a little, that it is best to keep those with out down.

[Orange Joe]

Who will pay for it after "those who can afford it," run out of money or leave the country?

Where they gonna go? Most other western countries have a higher tax rate.

[Draco-Onis]

Who will pay for it after "those who can afford it," run out of money or leave the country?

Why haven't they left the country already for places with 0% taxes?

[Adam Jensen]

Who's going to pay for it

The fucking billionaires.

[Beefhammer]

It does matter. Salary incentivises people to work. UBI incentivises people to be unemployed. You are comparing apples to oranges and saying it doesn't matter because both are fruits.

If you think getting a $1000 a month is incentive not to you work you really need to get information from different sources. You are using classic conservative tactics to claim that those getting assistance only want to get assistance when that is true of a very small % of people most of those receiving UE and other forms of assistance do not want to be on it.

[Orbitus]

Who will pay for it after "those who can afford it," run out of money or leave the country?

They aren't going to leave the country. The only places they can go that have lower taxes, are places that literally are 3rd world countries and they would most likely end up being captured or killed for their money.

[Machismo]

This is something people say but I never actually saw much evidence of it when I was actually unemployed.

There's a tiny minority, and it is tiny, of hardcore drug users/alcoholics who need direct intervention, probably less than 5%. But pretty much everyone else is trying to get out of poverty but lacks the means to do so because of the impossibility of obtaining seed capital. Finding employment requires things like transport expenses, decent clothing etc....these things cost money. It doesn't take much money to start many types of business but it takes some money.

What turned it round for me was getting my Father to loan me 2k for a computer. That was it. Improved my productivity 250% which was enough to give me an income in the top 5% of the population within a year, when I'd literally been below the poverty line for God knows how long. That's how powerful a small stimulus is. There are millions of stories like that across the world. The sad thing is there are tens of millions of stories like that where the parents can't afford to do that for their kids and everyone remains poor. UBI solves that.

- - - Updated - - -



Tell that to JK Rowling who parlayed her benefits up into a 9-digit payday for the taxpayer. Her story is exceptional but not unique. Investing in people is he best investment government can make.

There are already programs in place to help people actually get jobs. A UBI isn't about getting a job, it's about free money.

This isn't stimulus, it's welfare for everyone. Someone has to pay for it, and in the United States, at $1k a month, that would be $128 billion a month, if you give $1k to each household. If it's to every single adult, that number climbs to $209 billion a month.

Where do you plan on getting that money from?

[Orbitus]

It does matter. Salary incentivises people to work. UBI incentivises people to be unemployed. You are comparing apples to oranges and saying it doesn't matter because both are fruits.

In what state could you live off of $12,000 a year, since the UBI would also most likely get rid of welfare and food stamps.

[Machismo]

If you think getting a $1000 a month is incentive not to you work you really need to get information from different sources. You are using classic conservative tactics to claim that those getting assistance only want to get assistance when that is true of a very small % of people most of those receiving UE and other forms of assistance do not want to be on it.

It's literally a financial incentive. It's free fucking money. A person could decide to live quite frugally, and never have to work. People could form co-ops, and pool that money. They could even to what a lot of churches currently do with welfare, and pull the same shit.

If you claim free money is not an incentive to stop working, then why do so many people who win the lottery never go back to work? I don't know about you, but I certainly have a "price" when it comes to never working again. It's not $1k a month, but I'm sure there's plenty of people who would take the government up on that offer, and not work.

[Beefhammer]

It's literally a financial incentive. It's free fucking money. A person could decide to live quite frugally, and never have to work. People could form co-ops, and pool that money. They could even to what a lot of churches currently do with welfare, and pull the same shit.

1, you are not living quite frugally in America on $12K a year.
2, this flies in the face of research and data that people are incentivized to not work when given free money or assistance.
3, the people that would need this the most that would take advantage of it are selfish in nature. They are not going to form some co-op or commune.

Seriously you guys and this bull shit argument.

[Machismo]

1, you are not living quite frugally in America on $12K a year.
2, this flies in the face of research and data that people are incentivized to not work when given free money or assistance.
3, the people that would need this the most that would take advantage of it are selfish in nature. They are not going to form some co-op or commune.

Seriously you guys and this bull shit argument.

Plenty of people can easily pull that off. Not only that, it means they have a $12k incentive to work less hours. It's not simply about not working at all, but also working less.

Why wouldn't people form a co-op? Pooling resources is exactly one of the inevitable scenarios. We see it in hippy communes, cults, churches, or even people who share apartments.

When they extended unemployment under Obama, a lot of people didn't go back to work. When their benefits were about to finally dry up, a miraculous number suddenly found work. What a strange coincidence.

So, how much money would it take you to stop working, or work less hours?

I'm pretty sure if my wife and I were just given an extra $24k a year, I'd seriously consider quitting my main job, or shutting down the small company that I own.

[TheramoreIsTheBomb]

Every ADULT in the household gets 1000. Most households have two to three family members. Thats about 24k a year

- - - Updated - - -

If you think this will make most people start saving you are flat out wrong. The people who will benefit from this most will be spending it on things that are needed like health insurance, rent/mortgage payments, SL payments, and other necessities that they are unable to afford. Those that can afford to save are those that have more than enough. This would be a huge boon to the economy as poorer people would be spending money. When you inject money to middle and lower classes, they spend and economies grow. This is a historically proven fact. It is also a historically proven fact that they won't save or invest.

- - - Updated - - -



Those that can afford it. Those that owe society for getting where they are today as a direct result of being apart of this society.

- - - Updated - - -



Just look at China. just before their economy took off they doubled the salary of every government worker, which is around a quarter of their population and mostly low wage earners by their standard of living. Why would they do this you ask? To make their economy grow. All of a sudden, their economy started growing by double digits, people were now buying homes, cars, jewelry, higher end clothing and such. They basically injected billions into their economy overnight and no inflation came in and ruined their economy. Even with currency manipulation by lowering there value of their currency, inflation, on purpose, their economy continues to grow at a much faster rate than the sub 3% dear leader's economy is doing.

You must be on a budget which is a bad way to manage your money and is well known and studied in financial analytics.

[Beefhammer]

Get your facts straight, Yes it was extended under Obama but that's because there were no jobs to be had. Places were not hiring and people could not find jobs. Funny how no one went back to work when shortly after they extension as the economy turned around, people went back to work in drove so much so it continued and were are above peak employments now. Most people want to work not just get free handouts. Again $12 is not incentive not to work.

Americans are incredibly selfish, and when money is tight even more so. I fond it incredibly hard for 1% of those that do not want to work would be inclined to put in the effort to form a co-op.

As for how much, I work 32 hours a week and make about $35K a year. For me not to work, I would need at least $35K. To work less hours, I would need to reimbursed 1:1. I cannot speak for anyone else.