> 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?