I mean, part of the allure of UBI to me is that it is a social safety net except it benefits everyone. Because it's universal and not means-tested, it removes the stigma of being 'on welfare' which IMO is incredibly discouraging and makes it harder to rise out of your unfortunate situation. So yes, I would love if UBI replaced some programs while augments others.

At the end of the day it's the most direct and effective way of combating poverty and goes a long way towards closing the wealth gap. Especially when we can divert those funds from corporations into the hands of the people.

I do generally favor shrinking the government but not at the expense of the people's safety, liberty or well-being.

> At the end of the day it's the most direct and effective way of combating poverty and goes a long way towards closing the wealth gap.

Where do you think all this Income is going to come from? The middle class will shoulder the bulk of it which will widen the wealth gap. You will end up with 1k in UBI and 1500 in taxes to pay for it.

Under Yang's plan even if you made $100k/yr (single person household) you'd get an increase[0]. You'd be having to make roughly $140k+/yr to see a decrease in total income (140k results in -$66/yr). (If you were the norm of 2 adults and 2 children your household income would need to be north of $315k/yr to "shoulder" his UBI)

So I'm not sure why you think the middle class will shoulder the bulk of the cost. Do you think $150k/yr earners ($300k/yr families) are middle class? The median household income int he US (2018) was $62k/yr[1]

[0] https://ubicalculator.com/

[1] https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publicatio...

Yang's plan also involves one of the highest deficit spending proposals of any of the UBI plans listed on that calculator.

It's all very well and good to say "look, virtually everyone would see a net income increase!" until you realize that's only possible by literally just printing money.

The costs of such high deficit spending are pretty certain, but the benefits meant to offset those costs are only speculative (and highly speculative, at that).

You're right and this is the criticism I have of Yang, though I supported him. I'd rather have a higher VAT and other methods to gather revenue than through deficit spending. Especially since it is inflation tied and deficit spending leads to inflation.

Though I'm also not an economist and lots of economists seem to like deficit spending. So I'm just going to say I'm naive here.

I appreciate your perspective. The problem of course is that a higher VAT would also reduce the effective purchasing power granted by the UBI.

I get that one of the benefits of UBI is that it's supposed to empower people to use the money in the way that satisfies their needs best, rather than rely on inefficient bureaucracies to determine what needs are worth subsidizing and who qualifies.

The problem is, there's no free lunch. It seems to me like any sensibly funded UBI is going to probably negatively impact many middle-class folks. Politically that's just a non-starter in the U.S.

While you're right in that a higher VAT __can__ reduce the effective purchasing power, it doesn't have to. 1) Yang's VAT was at 10% which is under half the rate of most of the European countries. So I'd feel confident that we could follow similar procedures, which would halve the deficit spending (if the carbon tax was doubled to $40/ton, there'd be a surplus). 2) VATs don't have to be applied uniformly. I'm also not opposed to a wealth tax. But from my understanding, it is harder to avoid a VAT. This is probably an easier loophole to close (and Republicans like consumption taxes, so easier to pass). But you are right in that things would need to be reformed dramatically to actually capture a wealth tax.

I still do not buy the argument that a UBI will be shouldered by the middle class. I have yet to see evidence that it will be shouldered by anyone but the 1% (really the 0.01%).

Governments are already printing money for the rich though, it's called 'Quantitative Easing'.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantitative_easing

I was waiting for this reply. The obvious answer to that being that it doesn't make printing money for a UBI any better of an idea. It's completely irrelevant.

Let's not try and justify bad ideas by pointing out that people currently do bad things.

> Where do you think all this Income is going to come from?

As I mentioned:

> divert those funds from corporations into the hands of the people

To be fair, it's true that won't cover the entire bill. However, between reducing spending in other welfare programs, the increase in economic output and implementing a VAT, the gap closes pretty quickly.

As a sibling comment mentions, the math is pretty straightforward. Let's also not forget the second- and third-order benefits to society and the economy that will result from most of the population having more purchasing power and economic freedom.

Do you think it's fine that Amazon and friends pay next to nothing in taxes by exploiting the tax code? Why are we (taxpayers) subsidizing mega corps who are making money hand over fist?

> As I mentioned:

>> divert those funds from corporations into the hands of the people

There's a limit to how much you can tax corporations until they just up and leave. Just ask Sweden in the 70's.

> To be fair, it's true that won't cover the entire bill. However, between reducing spending in other welfare programs, the increase in economic output and implementing a VAT, the gap closes pretty quickly.

All UBI programs I've seen also require deficit spending. And good luck canceling other welfare programs.

> Let's also not forget the second- and third-order benefits to society and the economy that will result from most of the population having more purchasing power and economic freedom.

People will have more dollars, but between increased taxes and inflation from deficit spending, I'm very suspect that people will have more purchasing power.

> Do you think it's fine that Amazon and friends pay next to nothing in taxes by exploiting the tax code? Why are we (taxpayers) subsidizing mega corps who are making money hand over fist?

I have no idea what Amazon should pay in any moral sense, but I'm fine with taxing them more so long as

1) A marginal increase in tax rates would increase net revenues (and not drive jobs/business offshore)

2) The increase in tax revenue was for a compelling public interest (not merely because "they're not paying their fair share") OR because it involved closing a tax exemption that was not available to their competitors (so that the market stays competitive)

> The middle class will shoulder the bulk of it

Why is that the assumption?

Medicare isn’t going anywhere. Once people get the taste for single payer healthcare, they don't give it up.

Social security should be replaced with privately held accounts, just like superannuation in Australia. But in the transition people would need to be paid out their entitlement. So no problem there.

But if UBI replaced all normal welfare (excluding disability etc) is that such a bad thing? As long as the UBI is high enough and indexed to cost of living, welfare that’s broadly targeted at the poor should be unnecessary. Not just unnecessary, it tends to have the effect of making poverty stickier. Any time benefits are inversely tied to how well you're doing, you reduce the incentive to do better.

> But if UBI replaced all normal welfare (excluding disability etc) is that such a bad thing?

Part of the problem is that some welfare is not about the money, but the support. UBI is less likely to help someone with mental issues than someone who hates working at 7/11 while studying. Generalised, UBI likely helps those who have an impermanent problem over those that have longer term issues.

Society likely would still need welfare services for those people who struggle with the multiple travails of existence.

Personally, I'm less interested in UBI in the first world, where welfare is pretty good already and the negative affects are unknown and complicated. I'm more interested in what affect it would have on the third world, where the downsides - disincentives to work etc - seem far less of an issue. https://www.givedirectly.org/ubi-study/ is a good example.

I'm not familiar with the US system - does the term "welfare" refer to more than just monetary assistance?

I would assume social programs, mental health support, addictions support, job training etc. would still be around with a UBI.

I'm not American, so same situation, but welfare as a cost to government I am pretty sure includes all spending, not just that which goes to the final recipient. https://www.budget.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/CRS%20Report%20-... is the best I could find.

I'm also pretty sure that is the case in almost all countries, where welfare is all money spent on, well, looking after people in some way?

You are writing as if shrinking the government is a priori bad.

Is that your stance?

Your stance is coming across like “more government is intrinsically better”

Is that what you are hoping I take from reading what you wrote?

> enable even more shrinking of government.

Nothing wrong with that. The government is severely bloated. Also nothing wrong with reducing or replacing horrid, administratively wasteful, degrading, stigmatized, means-tested social safety nets with UBI.

I’m confused. Is “means-tested” supposed to be a degrading adjective? Because I think the fact our existing social safety nets are “means-tested” is exactly why people have doubts about UBI.

> Is “means-tested” supposed to be a degrading adjective?

Yes. People who are on means-tested social safety nets are subject to these test which often make you feel degraded. They often make people fear they will lose their benefit. And in many cases they encourage people not to improve their lives (e.g. I better not take that part-time job, because then I will lose unemployment benefits.) It also creates an incentive to falsify information so that you can continue to receive said benefit.

UBI solves all that because it isn't means-tested, you just get it no matter what (Oh you improved your situation? You got a job, got healthy, etc. That's great! You will continue to get UBI.)

This is why Yang wanted to make it a choice. The average welfare recipient is getting less than $1k/mo in help and are limited in how they can use it (food stamps can't buy the car repair you need to keep your job).

But I do think that is is an overstated concern __because__ most welfare recipients are already receiving less assistance. Btw, there's capitalist oriented arguments for single payer options that libertarians are in favor of (tldr: health care operates under a network effect and single payer can minimize individual and public costs).