News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Andrew Yang's Presidential Bid Is So 21st Century by manfredo on Monday April 01, 2019 @01:20PM (#19545663)
I don't see how he's portraying it differently. He's still essentially banking on some utopian vision actually coming true. Replacing welfare? Sure we may be able to decrease it, but what are we gonna do with the minority of people that squander their UBI check? Let them starve? His VAT proposal isn't even on the same order of magnitude of what it would take to pay for the program. Heck, even if you add up the proposed VAT tax and all the purported savings it doesn't even add up to the cost of the UBI checks let alone the administrative overhead:

(5-6bn in welfare cuts) +

(8bn in vat) +

(5-6bn in magic economic growth) +

(1-2bn in cutting stuff he doesn't really elaborate on) =

(1.8-2.1trn).

So even if all his fantastic predictions come true we're still short of the 3.1 trillion to give 1k UBI checks to all ~260m adult Americans.

Re:Andrew Yang's Presidential Bid Is So 21st Century by nailer on Monday April 01, 2019 @01:23PM (#19545711)
He broke down the 3tn a year on his Rogan interview. And yes, if you squander your UBI you squander it. Like if your squander your welfare now.
Re:Andrew Yang's Presidential Bid Is So 21st Century by manfredo on Monday April 01, 2019 @01:28PM (#19545767)
And you really think society is just going to let people starve in the streets? Yeah, no. We're going to end up paying die both UBI and welfare.

Regardless of his purported numbers he's still banking on massive economic growth happening at the same time as a massive tax increase. This is next-level voodoo economics.

Re:Andrew Yang's Presidential Bid Is So 21st Century by dragonwriter on Monday April 01, 2019 @01:56PM (#19546091)
> And you really think society is just going to let people starve in the streets?

We (at least, public direct aid programs; food banks etc., may pick up some of the slack) do now if people squander welfare, why would UBI change that?

Re:Andrew Yang's Presidential Bid Is So 21st Century by manfredo on Monday April 01, 2019 @02:07PM (#19546244)
My point exactly. Yang's assumption that we'll be able to scrap welfare program if we give people UBI is a fantasy. Because UBI won't change the fact that many people are still going to need welfare, UBI or not.
Re:Andrew Yang's Presidential Bid Is So 21st Century by dragonwriter on Monday April 01, 2019 @03:03PM (#19546889)
> My point exactly.

Well, exactly the opposite, but sure.

> Yang's assumption that we'll be able to scrap welfare program if we give people UBI is a fantasy. Because UBI won't change the fact that many people are still going to need welfare, UBI or not.

No, your idea that we will be compelled to double cover against because some people might not use their first-line benefits ideally is fantasy, because people not doing that happens now and we are fine not double covering.

Re:Andrew Yang's Presidential Bid Is So 21st Century by manfredo on Monday April 01, 2019 @03:09PM (#19546980)
So we're just going to let people starve in the streets if they waste UBI? Again, you're not seeing the fact that welfare often comes in the form of services, which the welfare receipts can't waste. I guess someone could try to seell soup they get at a soup kitchen but I doubt it's a effective or common.

Replacing welfare with UBI isn't going to happen, we will end up paying for both.

Re:Andrew Yang's Presidential Bid Is So 21st Century by ekiru on Monday April 01, 2019 @04:38PM (#19547970)
I’m not sure if you’re speaking of the US or elsewhere, but here in the US this really is not at all how it works.

When my family was on food stamps, if we mismanaged our money and food stamps one month (spent them too inefficiently, accidentally let some food spoil, or such), then, yes, society would absolutely have let us starve (though not in the streets, as we did own our house and were in a rural area). We might have been able to get some further help from family or friends, but not from any form of welfare.

Re:Andrew Yang's Presidential Bid Is So 21st Century by dragonwriter on Monday April 01, 2019 @05:22PM (#19548395)
> So we're just going to let people starve in the streets if they waste UBI?

Yes, just as much as we do now if they resell (e.g., for drugs) or squander their food stamps. Or, for perhaps a more perfect parallel, the same as the existing system does for anyone who had the income or assets to fail to qualify for means-tested benefits in the first place but fails to use them to meet their basic needs.

> Again, you're not seeing the fact that welfare often comes in the form of services, which the welfare receipts can't waste.

The things that directly stop people from starving in the streets are cash aid and aid that purchases food, neither of which are proof against recipient waste.

There are other forms of means-tested aid (largely, by dollar value, Medicaid) which are harder to misdirect, but UBI plus a default (with premium) public health insurance plan that you can opt-out of the purchasing a qualified private plan (a no B.S. individual mandate rather than a pay-a-small-fine one) handles that.

> I guess someone could try to seell soup they get at a soup kitchen

Soup kitchens aren't means tested public welfare, they are generally private charity, and are usually means-tested only in that people with any other options don't go.

Re:Andrew Yang's Presidential Bid Is So 21st Century by nailer on Monday April 01, 2019 @02:15PM (#19546340)
OK but why? People need money. Why does it matter whether it's called 'welfare' or 'freedom dividend'?
Re:Andrew Yang's Presidential Bid Is So 21st Century by manfredo on Monday April 01, 2019 @03:02PM (#19546877)
Welfare comes with strings attached, or is spent on services (e.g. a soup kitchen). These are much less likely to be squandered, as the funds' applications are not determined by the recipients. UBI is not subject to such restrictions. There's nothing stopping people from wasting UBI. As the previous comment pointed out, people will waste their UBI so we'll end up paying for both UBI and traditional welfare. This is bad for UBI proponents, who usually depend on scrapping nearly all welfare spending too afford UBI.