MovieChat Forums > Politics > Thoughts on Andrew Yang for U.S. preside...

Thoughts on Andrew Yang for U.S. president + his ideologies?

posted 5 years ago by SolemnMime (174)
33 replies | jump to latest

I've only heard of him in the past ~4 months, give or take. I had never really heard of concepts Yang mentions (especially) like his "freedom dividend" -- and the seriousness of technology overtaking human work capacity, rendering more people unemployed due to machines/A.I./etc. doing endless labor work and replacing people who would've done them otherwise (I think big numbers).

I really grew fond of his ideals -- one of the only candidates I've actually grown to like somewhat. UBI or universal basic income is something I never even knew existed until not long ago. Overall I think Yang makes lots of good points and doesn't seem like some copy and paste drone type of candidate who just robotically belches out the same stuff in different ways. He's pretty much the only candidate I actually would/am consider(ing) backing due to his slightly new-formed approach to things (like the UBI).

I was wondering what some opinions of him are around here. Has anyone heard of him and do you support him or at least agree with his points? He has me sold over any of the other candidates I know of thus far. I don't know about voting for him, but I'd encourage everyone to at least consider his points/ideologies before only going for their initial favorite candidates.

I am not endorsing/sponsoring him -- just wanted to make a topic and get some ideas going here on subjects surrounding the U.S. issues; and of course how Andrew Yang proposes he can fix/improve them, like UBI for poverty/unemployment/lost jobs/etc.; basic healthcare for all which is easier and simpler (like Canada I guess -- not too knowledgeable in this area); and just overall economic/financial/social factors. You can dig deeper than just the surface level considerations on these specific subjects & consider how they could work out in the longer run too. I know healthcare for all isn't magic & UBI won't end income inequality, but the real factors are in considering whether any of these changes COULD bring significant positive feedback & change in people/society/work somehow, if implemented well.

reply
formatting help
[–] Qberto (1139) 5 years ago

UBI has FAILED in each instance it was tried.

https://www.livemint.com/Opinion/ZejGZeZLmL6L5a1RPvH4YJ/The-failure-of-Finlands-Universal-Basic-Income-experiment.html

https://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/universal-basic-income-experiments-fail/

https://reason.com/2018/08/01/ontario-ends-ubi-experiment-2-years-earl

That said Yang is not wrong about tech replacing workers - all the more reason this mass importation of illegals at this stage of the tech transition is lunacy!

reply
formatting help
[–] SolemnMime (174) 5 years ago

Okay. I didn't read all of those articles fully, but read most of the first one. From what I read, the Finland experiment (in article 1 you posted) claims it would have had to raise income tax to support such a policy. In Andrew Yang's case he plans to use a VaT/VAT for certain companies that intend on producing said machines/etc. which are taking jobs away from people (makes some sense: they are creating things that are taking away jobs, so a tax imposed further on them to support lost employment doesn't appear completely unjust from the face of it). Maybe the solution isn't to raise everyone's income tax to support a basic income, but to have highly profitable technology companies that affect the specific working sectors contribute/chip in? Also, it said in the same article that income inequality will grow as a result -- but that doesn't make sense to me....

How would giving everyone money increase inequality? At the worst it shouldn't change at all since everyone would gain equally and the net difference is effectively zero. Giving people more money to me sounds like giving people more economic opportunities, such as investing and influencing the market; starting businesses; and increasing consumerism (not necessarily a bad thing). Reasons as to why it's failed before could be in the ways it was implemented rather than in the core of the UBI system itself. I mean we already have a welfare system in the U.S. and nobody argues against that. I don't see how UBI being implemented in place of it in a slightly different manner (like everyone getting it by default as opposed to having to make yourself qualified for it like people struggling to get benefits/assistance) is seen as bigger negative. By doing that it would eliminate the need to jump through hoops for people in need, as everything will be covered by default and no run around or etc. is needed to get welfare or any SNAP/food stamps/etc.

So while I didn't read all of that just now, from reading most of the first article I feel it's a slightly flawed premise/test in some ways. The U.S. did try something kind of like what Yang is trying to do, but this was done time ago. In today's age you could see a massive difference in how UBI would play out in current day U.S. possibly. Last, Findland's experiment from the first article seems to mention giving these benefits to only the unemployed, whereas Yang wants to give UBI to literally every American citizen aged 18 and over, having it replace or drastically restructure the welfare system as a whole.

reply
formatting help
[–] Qberto (1139) 5 years ago

1.) Glad you took a look at one of them. The VAT tax is a potent DIS-incentive to consumption as it taxes at every juncture of a given product's life cycle. Go study what an "economy car" costs in Yuro-peon land versus here. Then grasp why China and India are the economically advantaged owners of so much of their and soon our auto industry. So if tech firms are highly taxed what cost is passed down to us as consumers? Do you posit that making tech less affordable would be a good thing as it begins to replace us in the workforce? If tech is only a rich kids' toy then where are we in all this - its/their slaves perhaps?

2.) You can't give everyone money and have money mean a damned thing! Money is a transfer mechanism, its worth is pegged by productivity and also scarcity. If productivity does not account for its value then what will, study hyperinflation after world wars for a clue. Making welfare ubiquitous would indeed swiftly put us in the category of a full-on welfare state. Can you list for us any examples of successful welfare state nations? Would you feel comfortable living in a close analog nation like Cuba or the collapsing Venezuela? I wager not.

3.) You can't "restructure" the welfare system by putting everyone on it. All you can do it make it fail equally for all and destroy this nation and its economic system in the process.

reply
formatting help
[–] SolemnMime (174) 5 years ago

1. First off, good point/response. I have heard of others saying similar things. I agree that this could be a negative for the consumer-end somewhat, but at the cost of successful UBI, will it be that much of a loss? I doubt a TV is going to go from $200 to $2,000 just because of a VAT.

2.Money is like a good and a bad I think. In our current society, the majority of wealth is controlled by a few. Does that sound good? I don't think so. UBI wouldn't fix that, but it would at least lift the line of how poor/bad financial situations can be for people. No one could say they are struggling with no money because everyone will have at least some money to their name always. This doesn't mean things will be great and bliss, but at least re-evaluates the need of money and the inability for some people to sufficiently get some that's adequate for some form of happiness, survival, or improvement in life (due to lack of employment potential or resources; mental issues; etc.).

3.Great point. I kind of explained/wrote that part without thinking much. What I meant was that the concept of "welfare" will not need to exist if everyone had some little basic income. The idea is that it will help everyone because poverty will no longer be argued for in the case of income insufficiency. I can't guaranteed a good prediction, but on the base of everyone benefiting financially and possibly helping shift the current stigma of poverty, some positives are probably likely if the system was restructured this way. Since everyone would receive it, no one would classify as "poor" like in the current system which is based on the negatives of having to be considered lazy or etc. because everyone will always be at a guaranteed minimum of money no matter what. So while you are right that you can't fit everyone in to poverty because that doesn't make sense in our society, you can possibly eliminate or change the concept of welfare/the welfare stigma drastically by everyone having default income.

reply
formatting help
[–] SolemnMime (174) 5 years ago

And I was going to add some more to the first and second point, but there's a limit here to how long a post can be. I was going to further explain/clarify that just because you are added a VAT to certain companies or etc. doesn't mean everything in the technology industry is going to become only affordable to the top 1-5% or such. Even if it did have to affect consumers, I don't think the cost will be that much of a burden when considering how good a successful UBI system could be for everyone, specifically those with lower income/below the poverty line.

To continue on point two, perhaps it's time the U.S. saw some of a money surplus for everyone. While I get your point about money, it's crucial in life. What good can we do restricting some people's access from it? Even if it ultimately means nothing in the end besides a means of transfer and the like, it's a mandatory one in our society. I think at the same time people could evaluate money's meaningless in being spread around because the concept of it being special would lessen, one could also ponder how it shouldn't be seen as scarce at all. Is your point that making welfare ubiquitous is bad, or more so that making money/access to money in general ubiquitous is bad? I think there is a difference in the two. If making money easier to get is bad, then who's it bad for? Everyone? Should it only be good for some and bad for others? That doesn't sound just. I get that you mean if everyone had money then you can argue, "If everyone has it, no one has it" but what else can you propose that's better when it comes to fixing financial issues and lack of employment/ability to find work/extreme classism/etc.? I know these are complicated/tough subjects at their core. But if money can get in more hands easier, classes and struggles of people will fade more I believe. You have to be for the people's benefit overall -- not for some.

If no/insufficient money is one of the main problems, what is the simplest and easiest solution to implement?

One reason why is that money gives people opportunities to better things for themselves/others; consume and create; and make changes in the economy. If everyone knew they had money, they'd be able to do more with that money and improve their standard of living. As we are now, everyone cannot do this and some really face tough financial obstacles. All of these barriers can be lifted just by easily implementing an UBI, even if at the expense of some higher costs that are still fair.

reply
formatting help
[–] Qberto (1139) 5 years ago

So let's give UBI the poverty line eradication - that's a testable premise. It sure didn't work in Canada, did it? I know - limited roll out, pilot program, etc. Ignore those results however and scaling up could be a huge disaster.

"In Canada, Ontario's government decided to launch a UBI experiment in July of last year. But a few months ago, they decided to end the experiment — two years ahead of schedule. Upon the conclusion of the trial, a Canadian official called the experiment "quite expensive" and said "it was certainly not going to be sustainable."
[url]https://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/universal-basic-income-experiments-fail/[url]

So while you may not believe cost is a burden, the facts speak otherwise:

"From 1968 to 1980, the federal government ran a "negative income tax" experiment — meaning that a minimum income is guaranteed, but phased out as earnings increase. The goal was to incentivize work, but the policy ended up encouraging just the opposite.

The program resulted in a drop in working hours across the board. Most strikingly, working hours fell by 43% for single men not responsible for a family. To make matters worse, stints of unemployment were prolonged — meaning that after someone lost a job, it took them longer to begin a new one."

"Finland would have been forced to raise their income tax by nearly 30% to keep such a program alive. And when the personal income tax rate in Finland already maxes out at more than 50%, another increase would likely prove unsustainable."

This ponderance on making money a surplus requires either phony inflationary fiat currency from irresponsibly run printing presses...or...an increase in earnings based upon greater productivity. Did you see above what UBI did to productivity? Not good.

Since global currencies are largely OFF the gold standard we also a face a situation in which fiat currencies find new masters - oft times military power, and economic might. UBI won't help there.

reply
formatting help
[–] Qberto (1139) 5 years ago

If no/insufficient money is one of the main problems, what is the simplest and easiest solution to implement?

One reason why is that money gives people opportunities to better things for themselves/others; consume and create; and make changes in the economy. If everyone knew they had money, they'd be able to do more with that money and improve their standard of living. As we are now, everyone cannot do this and some really face tough financial obstacles. All of these barriers can be lifted just by easily implementing an UBI, even if at the expense of some higher costs that are still fair.


You can't just print money with no real peg, or should I say you can but history records economic and political wreckage every single time we have.

Ours is a world looking for a Star Trek utopia but lacking a "replicator" in every home to get us there.

UBI is a "wealth" transfer con job lacking each household's complete and unassailable freedom from wage slavery to energy, food, shelter and medical costs via some device or technology that physically CREATES the basics of life for us.

Beam me up Scotty!

reply
formatting help
[–] Qberto (1139) 5 years ago

1.) A TV is a cheap consumer good and not really considered as "tech" in terms relevant to whom we propose to tax and why. Apps, and OS's, job automation, the dreaded A.I. and biotech however are. Make those inaccessible due to embedded VAT costs and you have a major inequality of opportunities collision to cope with.

2.) Thinking that UBI can ameliorate income inequality leaves us with the tech access inequality described above - which is worse, hard to tell , perhaps the latter. When everyone had roughly the same access to the basics of life we had the old USSR. How'd that work out for the folks? Hint - Politburo and above never felt a hardship, did they?

3.) Trying to eliminate welfare stigma by deploying ubiquity of experience and a designated baseline standard of living is like an exercise in sanding down a rough piece of wood, at the ned of the day you have a flat featureless piece of product, all the character is gone. It may be more useful yes, but to whom and for what? What is the final denouement on a society where in essence we all have no need to work, vote, create, struggle, achieve? What incentive have we to explore space instead of staying home and getting loaded and watching mind control "entertainment".

Top tip - Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World"





reply
formatting help
[–] Qberto (1139) 5 years ago

Ping - SolemnMime:

Thanks for an interesting thread, solid substantive content and well-written opinion, and a real dialog devoid of the usual forum flammage.

This is a subject that is not going away, and the inexorable creep of technology insures as much.

Mr. Yang will, I feel, play a role in future events and political responses.

🔮
Cheers.

reply
formatting help
[–] SolemnMime (174) 5 years ago

Hey. I don't think your ping worked -- didn't notify me (if that was intended).

But yeah, I try and make conversation that has a point or goes somewhere. What would be the point of starting a discussion just to derail it in to personal attacks?

But you make good points and not easily refutable (by me at least).

I am not a huge Yang supporter or anything, but do prefer him as the ideal candidate over, say, Bernie or Trump again.

He is not perfect, but maybe his plans might work out for the time being even if not sustainable.

I'll add more to the discussion/topic soon, but interestingly only you seem to have had any input so far.

reply
formatting help
[–] Qberto (1139) 5 years ago

Understood.

He's an interesting guy even if his program is way early versus where we are tech and automation wise. But he is also young enough that I believe we'll see him as player for some time to come.

With all the AATIP disclosures and massive asteroids playing near miss with this rock a lot of things may change rather rapidly and reset whole swaths of our lifestyles.

You're right, this thread got low participation - a shame really as you put a ton of content in her and it deserves more eyeballs if not ranters.

I guess maybe a ping requires the @ symbol as on some boards? I'm not a prior user so not sure about that function.

Looking forward to your next input. Cheers.

reply
formatting help
[–] SolemnMime (174) 5 years ago

1. I know that with TVs and stuff it won't make much of a difference, but my point was that consumer electronics as a whole probably won't change with a VAT. Most people are in the market for consumer electronics (TVs, game consoles, kitchen appliances, washers/dryers, monitors, computer accessories and etc.). VAT would not impact this since the production behind which operates and would be taxed has no relation with the majority of electronic consumer needs/wants anyways. As for things like apps, as long as they're easily programmable and made with increasingly simplistic tools, toolchains/frameworks, and abstraction layers/engines, the price margin for profit on small indie projects would not be greatly affected given the limitations of most smartphones/mobile devices/computer platforms and their technology. If you mean with VR/A.I. specifically in a common consumer app (like on the app store or indie developed) I don't see any significant differences. Only a small part of the technology market would be impacted by this, which seems to be the the least in demand/use anyways (like you said with biotech and etc., which is in its infancy or in limited use in many cases within the medical/health industries or such). My point overall is that this "big new tech" is more theory than widespread application. If you're taxing something that's very limited and only partially useful to most, I can't imagine cost being a burden when the production/use/implementation isn't even mature enough yet to be comparable to a current market TV price and supply/demand/etc.

reply
formatting help
[–] Qberto (1139) 5 years ago

To your point on the VAT tax and consumer electronics:

https://www.financialexpress.com/economy/gst-how-the-ordinary-consumer-would-be-impacted-by-goods-and-services-tax/335893/

"The indirect tax cost on most goods is currently on the higher side. This is for the reason that most goods (for e.g. beauty products, most consumer electronics, non-luxury automobiles) attract an excise duty of 12.5% and a VAT of 12.5% to 15% depending on the State. Further, there are numerous cascading of taxes on account of levy of CST, input tax credit retention under the VAT laws, levy of entry tax/ Octroi/ local body tax, etc till the time the product reaches the end customer.

A combined effect of the same leads to an effective indirect tax rate 25% to 30% in the hands of the end customer.

If these goods are kept at the standard GST rate of 18% then there would be significant increase in cost for the end customers. Even if these goods are kept at the lower GST rate of 12% there would be an increase in cost for the end customers."

As for limited use items or technology the VAT could very well cause new cures (biotech) and technologies to be still-born rather than incented.

That's where a traditional system can adapt and (forgive me for writing this) "pick winners and losers".

Aggh!

Oh and that's been such a "winner" hasn't it, what with all the green energy and battery technology firms that went bankrupt while on the Obama Administration's government subsidy drip line?

Best bet is a national flat tax, the least gubmint meddling and nurturing possible, and let the market sort he winners and losers free of excessive regulation and taxation - my .02c.

Yes that's a literal "unsafe economic zone", but it imperils only those operating in it, not taxpayers at large.

reply
formatting help
[–] SolemnMime (174) 5 years ago

2. I'm not good with history or USSR, so I can't add anything there without significant researching. When it comes to UBI, I don't know if the goal would be to specifically fix income equality as opposed to just helping with income mobility potential of many more people. I see it personally as something like a loan maybe -- or possibly a door opening for people. Sure, giving money alone won't fix everything -- but when you have many people falling behind, sometimes a little push back up can be worthwhile in the case of such. I also don't see it as access to "basics of life" because that may imply that people receiving UBI under Yang (which would be any adult/U.S. citizen over age 18) are impoverished or in need of "basics," whatever that means. Since most people are not poor, most people getting UBI won't be getting access to "the basics of life" but really more about some form of income mobility. Poor can become less poor (some even richer/wealthier); lower/middle-class/working class average can get a boost to help their financial situations (debt; future investing; new job; new business; relocation; fallback security); and the more upper-class gets more money to play with too (in a perfect world this could benefit the worst off even more, but things aren't likely to be that movie magical).

My point here is that your idea of tech access inequality wouldn't likely be a real issue -- at least not in the near future. I can't imagine such a massive surplus of new technology that different classes or income variations in people would be gaining while another is losing. In our current structure now, both poorer and richer people can afford iPhones, computers, TVs and etc. How would implementing something like UBI make this any different? You already have massive income differences as is and no tech access inequality -- so giving more people overall more money under a VAT (with specific areas of application here to add) doesn't strike me as something problematic.

reply
formatting help
[–] Qberto (1139) 5 years ago

So why not give a push with a national flat tax and not UBI?

That will instantly put money in ALL peoples' pockets, streamline the inefficiency of the massive tax preparation industry, and begin to chip away at gubmint designated winners and losers.

I submit that we do have tech access inequality, in fact the recent tussle over "net neutrality" shades the usage parameters of that in nicely.

Returning for moment to the VAT - here's an interesting find from the UAE, a very wealthy nation but also a very stratified society in which concentration of assets is very much at the top. And therefore the top is not in any danger, here or there, the poor however:

https://gulfnews.com/business/how-vat-in-uae-will-impact-consumers-1.1602612

Considering the purchasing power of residents in the country, a 3 per cent to 5 per cent VAT may generally be hardly noticeable, especially if the essential food items are exempted, but a tax rate of 10 per cent or higher is clearly seen to have a negative impact on consumer spending.

Those who love to shop for big-ticket items or upgrade their gadgets and cars more often than others will mainly bear the brunt of tax collection. As long as the VAT rate does not exceed 5 per cent and food essentials remain untaxed, low-income families have nothing to worry much about, according to the experts.

“The imposition of VAT will have a huge effect on the buying power of both the [residents and tourists]. It is well known that most tourists and residents will have to pay duty tax again on certain goods in their country of origin.”

To avoid burdening consumers, Patel said it would be a good idea to implement VAT in phases and exempt certain consumer goods.

Other companies who also deal with tourists in the UAE expressed the same concern, adding that any tax collected could limit visitors' spending power.

“Any amount gone out of [tourists’] pockets is their expense, whether it is in the form of VAT or tax.

reply
formatting help
[–] SolemnMime (174) 5 years ago

Honestly I don't see much of a difference in a flat tax system.

I don't have enough research on the topic, but I can't see how a national flat tax is comparable to an UBI-like system in terms of it benefiting everyone.

Not saying it wouldn't be with its pros in some cases, but wouldn't see how it would be in any way beneficial as an ideal basic income system would be (when it comes to economic growth potential and fighting poverty and such).

Factoring in taxation for (presumably) income tax seems to be irrelevant when we look to the fact that there may be no income in the first place for many in the coming years (unemployment; in between jobs; can't find any jobs).

We should worry more about the means of work potential than the (income specific) taxation policies which only apply after the former.

And it should be clear that "trickle down" economics is far from ideal. A lot of money evened out across the spectrum of different income classes and etc. rarely ever significantly benefits those struggling the most or any in a fairer sense overall.

"Low skilled" workers still mostly get garbage pay, whereas the "rich keep getting richer" mantra about the utmost, top% "elite" seems to hold true. Given this I have little faith that a flat tax system would make any difference when trickle down theory seems to mostly remain that -- a theory.

reply
formatting help
[–] SolemnMime (174) 5 years ago

3. This one is tougher, but.....

Eliminating the welfare stigma is probably just a side-effect. The real goal is slowly band-aiding "the money problem" even if the further implications of such a system have no real positive gain. Society as it is has no clear or correct direction on where it needs to go socially, economically or etc. When you give everyone $1,000 a month, will this make any difference than not, other than granting more people higher chances of financial mobility and freedom in some small ways even? I don't know what the future has in store for us all or anyone of us really. I do know that if you can't predict the future with one million dollars or zero dollars, it matters little about worrying on what's to come and whether people deserve anything or not, including UBI or social structures and work, jobs, etc. The point is that UBI isn't meant to answer or solve all future questions about where things will go or why, but to increase the standard of living and help people out because face it ... Money is a problem in societies and it hasn't gotten any better in time overall. Richest country(ies) in the world, but so many poor and miserable because of one thing. Is it any better to keep things the way they are?

We can have a moral argument or go full philosophical theories here, but the point is ... UBI is for here and now. Andrew Yang never said what purpose it would serve in 100 years or 1,000 years, because what would worrying about that do now? And is it really such a concern that people having just a little pinch more money would drastically play a role in to some hypothetical dystopia any more than not implementing it? I can't see many downsides vs. upsides personally.

reply
formatting help
[–] Qberto (1139) 5 years ago

We can have a moral argument or go full philosophical theories here, but the point is ... UBI is for here and now. Andrew Yang never said what purpose it would serve in 100 years or 1,000 years, because what would worrying about that do now? And is it really such a concern that people having just a little pinch more money would drastically play a role in to some hypothetical dystopia any more than not implementing it? I can't see many downsides vs. upsides personally.


"Here and now" thinking is perilous at best. Why? Because no new tax is ever retired, ftmp.

That's why we were still paying (unti as late as 2006) long distance access fees linked to the Spanish American war!

https://taxfoundation.org/spanish-american-war-tax-1898-2006
In May, the IRS and the Department of Treasury eliminated the 3% federal tax on long distance phone service, or the so called Spanish American War Tax (See a great article in Budget and Tax News fore more information). As part of a broad tax package that passed by voice vote yesterday in the Senate Finance Committee, federal taxes on local phone service were also eliminated. However, the package was not immune from controversy. From Tax Analysts:

“The U.S. Senate Finance Committee on June 28 easily approved legislation to repeal the telephone excise tax, but not without saddling it with the pet projects of nearly every Senate taxwriter.

Although telephone excise tax repeal enjoys wide support in both chambers of Congress and from the White House, Senate tax writers may have sunk its chances of enactment by adding over 75 unrelated tax provisions, many of them controversial. The bill includes several contentious IRS-related amendments, a pair of unpopular revenue raisers, several tax administration reforms, and a provision targeting tax evasion by pimps and prostitutes. And tax writers aren’t even done.”

reply
formatting help
[–] Qberto (1139) 5 years ago

The point is that UBI isn't meant to answer or solve all future questions about where things will go or why, but to increase the standard of living and help people out because face it ... Money is a problem in societies and it hasn't gotten any better in time overall. Richest country(ies) in the world, but so many poor and miserable because of one thing. Is it any better to keep things the way they are?


No special disagreement here, rather the notation (again) that a national flat tax will be so much more successful at raising all boats and thereby juicing our economy from top to bottom. Recall please that Dems believe that welfare money is a net job creator, ludicrous as that notion may be. And UBI could be seen as little more than added welfare spread more broadly sans means testing.

https://www.investopedia.com/articles/tax/09/flat-taxes.asp

In 2004, ten Eastern European nations used a flat tax; Ukraine taxed its residents 13%, Georgia implemented a 12% tax and Lithuania taxed its residents 33%. But Ukraine, Lithuania and every other nation that instituted a flat tax saw their economies grow by approximately 8% in a single year, over double what was seen in the world's mature, industrialized economies.

Since instituting the flat tax, Estonia has emerged from obscurity to become a member of the European Union. And it has also earned the nickname "The Baltic Tiger" due to its incredible growth rate for much of its history. From 2001 to 2007, Estonia grew by an average of 9% per year. In 2003, its unemployment rate was in excess of 12%; just five years later, only 4.5% of its population was without jobs. Estonia has also gained a reputation for being surprisingly high-tech; over 63% of its population has access to the internet, well above the world average.

reply
formatting help
[–] SolemnMime (174) 5 years ago

Economies can grow, but that alone isn't likely the best measurement of how good people overall are doing. It isn't a bad factor, but a slight change in the economy doesn't necessarily translate perfectly to a slight change in the population overall, including with money/jobs issues and limitations that a "booming economy" may not exactly fix thoroughly.

But I'm not sure here. I don't think just because it worked in some places means it's going to work in the U.S.A. the same way. Success in one place doesn't really mean the same success in others, but it's at least an idea and yeah....

I don't know if a "flat tax" will make a big difference for the U.S. of A. I'm sure economic scientists will have far more insight on this than me though and where the U.S. could go with this.

I know it's probably not always good to think that -- if success in place A benefited because of B -- then the same would be working/applicable anywhere else. I'm not disagreeing with you on the flat tax, but more so not seeing the immediate benefit it would bring like Yang proposes with UBI. Everything under a "here and now" mindset isn't good, but waiting long and seeing things not change/get worse can be much worse.

reply
formatting help
[–] Qberto (1139) 5 years ago

We need not wait all that long as recent news indicated a loss of over 22 million jobs to tech - that alone will hasten whatever the process is to be.

I will maintain that a properly functioning economy is mandatory if UBI is to be deployed, but I also state that UBI for those who don't need it will be socially toxic.It either has some means testing and exists as a broader welfare program or it will be deemed a con job and potentially an opiate for the masses, those of the masses the elites want complicit and silent.

No way we can measure the impacts of a flat tax using breakaway Soviet republics as an analog to a nation of our size, but dat is dat and the results to me look promising. Then again none of these nations is shackled with the immense military responsibilities and spending we are, so there's that. If peace breaks out any time soon, we can talk, right?

And who know, if this "soft disclosure" in the AATIP ufo sightings and associated phenomena is pushed hard enough by this gubmint we may even see Reagan's ET "common enemy" speech come to be hard core prophetic. Do you trust our masters and overlords to be truthful? There's a question...

reply
formatting help
[–] Sandoz (2021) 5 years ago

I don't know anything about Yang or his policies, but I can also say that about a dozen or so of the Dem candidates who are grouped at the bottom of the polls. I think after the debates there is a good chance 1 or 2 of them might break out and impress enough to bump their numbers up and that's what I'm waiting for. Like almost every other person in the country, I don't seriously have the time to look into *everything* that a pool of almost 20 candidates is proposing. Once the field gets narrowed down more, then I'll delve more into the platforms of the remaining candidates.

Ultimately though, I'm still going to vote for whomever is the Democratic candidate for President...I don't care who it is. I'd vote for a brick with a smiley face painted on it instead of Donald Trump...and it would still be more intelligent than him.

reply
formatting help
[–] Qberto (1139) 5 years ago

Ultimately though, I'm still going to vote for whomever is the Democratic candidate for President...I don't care who it is. I'd vote for a brick with a smiley face painted on it instead of Donald Trump...and it would still be more intelligent than him.


Big MISTAKE!

You let personal animus get in the way of critical thinking.

A Dem vote is an open borders vote.

An open borders vote is a suicide vote for America as a free nation.

You can find ZERO examples of 'successful' modern economies with open borders; Brexit alone ought to confirm the folly of mashing up disparate ethnicities, income levels, productivity ratings, and nations.

So why would you vote for America to become a refugee camp for central America?

And how long do you think it will take for this nation to fall and fall hard?

Trump thinks about 10 years - I believe about half that.

reply
formatting help
[–] AmeriGirl26 (12299) 5 years ago

I will be polite and say that he will quit before the halfway point, if the other candidates in the field have anything to say about it.

reply
formatting help
[–] Qberto (1139) 5 years ago

That's a fair estimation for a first timer, but I do think he will be back.

He has some interesting and some odd things to say.

reply
formatting help
[–] SeussMyTub (226) 5 years ago

A Chinese commie- who would have known...

reply
formatting help
[–] Qberto (1139) 5 years ago

Hmmm...par-credit there...

[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Yang{/url]

Yang was born in Schenectady, New York, to immigrant parents from Taiwan.His parents met while they were both in graduate school at the University of California, Berkeley.His father graduated with a Ph.D. in physics and worked in the research labs of IBM and General Electric, generating over 69 patents in his career. His mother graduated with a master's degree in statistics and later became an artist.

In 1999, after graduating from Columbia Law School, Yang began his career as a corporate attorney at Davis Polk & Wardwell in New York City. He left the firm in 2000 to join his officemate in launching Stargiving.com, a website for celebrity-affiliated philanthropic fund-raising. Stargiving.com raised some capital from investors but folded in 2001. Afterward, Yang joined a healthcare software startup, MMF Systems, Inc., as its Vice President and third hire.

After working in the healthcare industry for four years, Yang left MMF Systems to join friend Zeke Vanderhoek at a small test preparation company, Manhattan Prep. In 2006 Vanderhoek asked Yang to take over as CEO. While he was CEO of Manhattan Prep, the company primarily provided GMAT test preparation.

His campaign proposes a $1,000/month "Freedom Dividend" to all U.S. citizens over the age of 18 (a form of universal basic income) and other responses to predictions of mass unemployment from technological automation. An article in The New York Times about his campaign described various new policies Yang proposes, such as a department focused on regulating the addictive nature of media, a White House psychologist, making Tax Day a national holiday, and, to stem corruption, increasing the salaries of federal regulators but limiting their private work after they leave public service.

A "white House psychologist"?

Seriously?

Oh what could ever go wrong there...

reply
formatting help
[–] Rorikon (16393) 5 years ago

You have to remember, you can only keep such a service if the person or company being taxed is willing to be taxed accordingly. Once that person or company moves off and there is no one else left tax, the whole system falls under itself.

reply
formatting help
[–] SolemnMime (174) 5 years ago

There would have to be some kind ideal backup hopefully. If it becomes a government-mandated thing (which UBI would) it would be up to the companies with the VAT additions to determine if they can keep afloat or adjusting pricing/seek alternative methods of profiting or operating. If they don't like it, I guess either the industry will fall or they will take it on and adjust things financially.

But the thing with Yang is that he wants UBI to come from money already in circulation -- not "create new money" or etc. The biggest issues with possible inflation, I think, are attributed mostly to new additions of money than changing the dynamics of the money already "out there."

reply
formatting help
[–] elcamino (15540) 5 years ago

A thousand dollars each month given to buy pot and smoke all day.

reply
formatting help
[–] robocat893 (13415) 5 years ago

That's for liberals. Conservatives would buy meth and drink cheap beer all day.

reply
formatting help
[–] SolemnMime (174) 5 years ago

Some people maybe, but I would think much bigger things down the road than just getting high or using all of the money for drugs.

Just because some people would blow it mindlessly or such doesn't mean it isn't still a good thing for the rest who would make better use of it/need it to help with bills/improve their or others lives in some other fashion.

The "people will get free money and just blow it all so it's probably worthless or pointless" seems to be only type of mentality many people focus on immediately.

I don't know if you mean this as a point against UBI or just in general, but this is the impression I get from people who point out the "it would just be for pot/alcohol/'insert bad thing here'/etc." theory.

reply
formatting help
[–] Qberto (1139) 5 years ago

Some people maybe, but I would think much bigger things down the road than just getting high or using all of the money for drugs.


It's still not in any scale or tested application cost effective.

However - in Kenya there may be hope - which indicates that as a means tested or extreme poverty situation palliative it could work:

https://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/insights/23750/the-promise-of-kenya-s-experiment-with-universal-basic-income
Abeta summarizes the general sentiment: “If you give me money, I know what I need better than somebody else.”

The UBI recipients also report that there has been a reduction in petty crime in the community. This seems to be connected to the increased money available for food, which has made stealing out of hunger unnecessary.

Does a UBI Make Long-Term Sense?

A cursory poll among the population of Makanga reveals broad support for an extension of the UBI across the whole of Kenya. But it will take a few years to get the first meaningful sets of data on longer-term impact and how the UBI compares to other development interventions.

reply
formatting help
About | Contact | Privacy | Terms | Standards | Contribute
Top Movie Discussions
Civil War Discussion | Dune: Part Two Discussion | The Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare Discussion | Abigail Discussion | Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire Discussion | Immaculate Discussion | Monkey Man Discussion | Poor Things Discussion | Late Night with the Devil Discussion | Kung Fu Panda 4 Discussion | The First Omen Discussion | Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire Discussion | Bade Miyan Chote Miyan Discussion | Wish Discussion | Love Lies Bleeding Discussion
Copyright © 2017 - 2024 MovieChat LLC

MovieChat is not affiliated with IMDb, IMDb Message Boards, or Reddit