Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

qman said:

Yeah, that's fine that you disagree with his UBI solution. I just thought the details of the problem were the most interesting aspect of the discussion. Even Shapiro acknowledges the massive challenges ahead and how unprepared we are today for that new world.

---

I don't totally disagree with UBI.  But I think Bernie's jobs program is a FAR better solution,

---

christopera said:

When you dig into Yang's plan it's not superior to Bernie's plan. Unfortunately the plan rests almost entirely on a VAT. If you know anything about VAT, it basically increases the price of goods for all consumers and disproportionately effects the middle class and poor. He has been pressed on the VAT issue, and his response is always something along the lines of "we put VAT on the items rich people buy not the ones everybody else buys" and while that seems okay, there's basically no evidence to show that this would generate enough revenue to pay 320m people $1k a month. His plan also works to decrease some of the existing social programs arguing that UBI is a valid replacement, and that just hasn't been shown to be true. Basically, it's a lot of speculation. Bernie on the other hand has a very comprehensive and well documented plan that most economists believe would help wage growth, which is what we need.

---

christopera said:

You haven't countered anything I have said.
Yes I have I am going off of Yangs speeches.

Again, there's no evidence to show that VAT falling primarily on the wealthy is feasible.
Of course its feasible and its the real cash cows are the big corporations like Amazon who have paid zero in federal taxes despite billions in profits. Vat will target them effectively.
He's just saying words, there's not much content.
Terrible argument I could say the same thing for Bernie. I like Bernie by the way but his plan for this is not as good.
How exactly do we apply a tax on items that only applies for the rich?
Luxury goods like yachts sports cars rocket engines industrial matierials all of those hit the rich and big corps. A true VAT taxes everything but Yangs Vat is far more sophisticated.

---

Quote:

YangSupporter said:Yes I have I am going off of Yangs speeches.

---

Quote:

YangSupporter said:Of course its feasible and its the real cash cows are the big corporations like Amazon who have paid zero in federal taxes despite billions in profits. Vat will target them effectively.

---

Quote:

YangSupporter said:Terrible argument I could say the same thing for Bernie. I like Bernie by the way but his plan for this is not as good.

---

Quote:

YangSupporter said:Luxury goods like yachts sports cars rocket engines industrial materials all of those hit the rich and big corps. A true VAT taxes everything but Yangs Vat is far more sophisticated.

---

christopera said:

Quote:

YangSupporter said:Yes I have I am going off of Yangs speeches.

---

Okay, go off his speeches all you like. You have hardly provided any evidence that isn't lip service to counter my points.

Quote:

YangSupporter said:Of course its feasible and its the real cash cows are the big corporations like Amazon who have paid zero in federal taxes despite billions in profits. Vat will target them effectively.

---

You're parroting Yang. A VAT is a tax on consumers, not on corporations.

Quote:

YangSupporter said:Terrible argument I could say the same thing for Bernie. I like Bernie by the way but his plan for this is not as good.

---

You can say it, but you'd be wrong. Bernie has published real plans. As a law maker he's also enacted real law. Yang has not.

Quote:

YangSupporter said:Luxury goods like yachts sports cars rocket engines industrial materials all of those hit the rich and big corps. A true VAT taxes everything but Yangs Vat is far more sophisticated.

---

Show Yang's math. Does a VAT on these items generate $320B a year in revenue needed to give every individual $1000. He hasn't shown that a VAT is capable of doing that.

---

christopera said:

Here's a question for you, if we remove all existing social supports such as SNAP/TANF and replaced those benefits with $1000/m will people who received the old benefits be better or worse off?

---

Quote:

How would we pay for Universal Basic Income?

It would be easier than you might think. Andrew proposes funding UBI by consolidating some welfare programs and implementing a Value-Added Tax (VAT) of 10%. Current welfare and social program beneficiaries would be given a choice between their current benefits or $1,000 cash unconditionally – most would prefer cash with no restriction.

A Value-Added Tax (VAT) is a tax on the production of goods or services a business produces. It is a fair tax and it makes it much harder for large corporations, who are experts at hiding profits and income, to avoid paying their fair share. A VAT is nothing new. 160 out of 193 countries in the world already have a Value-Added Tax or something similar, including all of Europe which has an average VAT of 20 percent.

The means to pay for a Universal Basic Income will come from 4 sources:

1.  Current spending.  We currently spend between $500 and $600 billion a year on welfare programs, food stamps, disability and the like.  This reduces the cost of Universal Basic Income because people already receiving benefits would have a choice but would be ineligible to receive the full $1,000 in addition to current benefits.

2.  A VAT.  Our economy is now incredibly vast at $19 trillion, up $4 trillion in the last 10 years alone.  A VAT at half the European level would generate $800 billion in new revenue.  A VAT will become more and more important as technology improves because you cannot collect income tax from robots or software.

3.  New revenue.  Putting money into the hands of American consumers would grow the economy.  The Roosevelt Institute projected that the economy would grow by approximately $2.5 trillion and create 4.6 million new jobs.  This would generate approximately $500 – 600 billion in new revenue from economic growth and activity.

4.  We currently spend over one trillion dollars on health care, incarceration, homelessness services and the like.  We would save $100 – 200 billion as people would take better care of themselves and avoid the emergency room, jail, and the street and would generally be more functional.  Universal Basic Income would pay for itself by helping people avoid our institutions, which is when our costs shoot up.  Some studies have shown that $1 to a poor parent will result in as much as $7 in cost-savings and economic growth.

---

christopera said:

Okay, but 45% of those receiving SNAP are children, and they aren't eligible for Yang's $1k a month.

Additionally, SNAP is a block grant, so if the money isn't used the grant will go away and it could end the program.

What about those children? Should they get jobs?

---

christopera said:

From Yang's website:

Quote:

How would we pay for Universal Basic Income?

It would be easier than you might think. Andrew proposes funding UBI by consolidating some welfare programs and implementing a Value-Added Tax (VAT) of 10%. Current welfare and social program beneficiaries would be given a choice between their current benefits or $1,000 cash unconditionally – most would prefer cash with no restriction.

A Value-Added Tax (VAT) is a tax on the production of goods or services a business produces. It is a fair tax and it makes it much harder for large corporations, who are experts at hiding profits and income, to avoid paying their fair share. A VAT is nothing new. 160 out of 193 countries in the world already have a Value-Added Tax or something similar, including all of Europe which has an average VAT of 20 percent.

The means to pay for a Universal Basic Income will come from 4 sources:

1.  Current spending.  We currently spend between $500 and $600 billion a year on welfare programs, food stamps, disability and the like.  This reduces the cost of Universal Basic Income because people already receiving benefits would have a choice but would be ineligible to receive the full $1,000 in addition to current benefits.

2.  A VAT.  Our economy is now incredibly vast at $19 trillion, up $4 trillion in the last 10 years alone.  A VAT at half the European level would generate $800 billion in new revenue.  A VAT will become more and more important as technology improves because you cannot collect income tax from robots or software.

3.  New revenue.  Putting money into the hands of American consumers would grow the economy.  The Roosevelt Institute projected that the economy would grow by approximately $2.5 trillion and create 4.6 million new jobs.  This would generate approximately $500 – 600 billion in new revenue from economic growth and activity.

4.  We currently spend over one trillion dollars on health care, incarceration, homelessness services and the like.  We would save $100 – 200 billion as people would take better care of themselves and avoid the emergency room, jail, and the street and would generally be more functional.  Universal Basic Income would pay for itself by helping people avoid our institutions, which is when our costs shoot up.  Some studies have shown that $1 to a poor parent will result in as much as $7 in cost-savings and economic growth.

---

This seems to be the entirety of his plan.

I agree with the principles here, but there's a lot of leg work left before this plan is doable. He also conveniently ignores that VAT is always passed onto the consumer.

---

YangSupporter said:

qman said:

XUL said:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

A little long to watch without a summary to pull me in, but I did catch this at the beginning:

3:50 - "I'm running for president to wake up America to the fact that it is NOT immigrants that are causing economic problems..."

---

How do you respond, qmain?

---

He was wrong about the immigration and he was also wrong for NOT mentioning the millions of jobs that moved to third world nations.

---

If I had to guess you are a Trump supporter? The myth of illegal immigrants stealing jobs is a popular scapegoat but it has no basis in reality. The most common jobs in the US are retail and I can assure illegal immigrants aren't taking those jobs. They work in the fields and in shady industrial operations dangerous conditions they exist in parallel with the economy American citizens work in. To claim they are stealing jobs though is at best misinformation.

---

christopera said:

Wage growth has been decoupled from job demand for decades (you know this because it's been proven to you time and time again). Hate immigrants the elite all you want, it won't help wage growth.

---

christopera said:

Why would it be impossible to quantify job supply? It's done all the time.

Law of supply and demand works, it just doesn't have as significant bearing on wage growth in the current employment environment

Nobody cares about your ancestors (should we be considering slave economy economics while we are at it?).

Bernie wants to increase wages.

Bernie, like everybody else, agrees that illegal immigration is in fact illegal.

---

christopera said:

Ahhh, a standard qman deflection where "you do realize" is used.

You asked about job supply. Here is the answer to your question.

https://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm

If you want to talk about how illegals effect the labor market you should have asked that question. Let's remember, the laws of supply and demand have long been separated from the labor market in regards to wage growth.

---