Comments by "wvu05" (@wvu05) on "Brian Kilmeade Does NOT Like Andrew Yang" video.

The Alaska fund goes to everyone, and it doesn't exclude anyone, unlike his "universal" basic income plan. Another giveaway of Yang's true aim is the fact that he calls it the "freedom dividend."
5
@Jason MacNeil What do you think the purpose of UBI is? Yang even admits that his plan won't help a lot of disabled. Why do people like Yang get the full benefit but the poor and the disabled don't?
3
@Jason MacNeil How will giving $1000/month to people not currently receiving benefits "take the boot off their neck"? Not that $1000/month is insignificant, but he has been saying that it is to help displaced workers. If it is that, $1000/month won't be nearly enough. So, do you see this as a welfare program for the middle class? If so, that isn't universal, and it is misleading to call it universal basic income. Universal means everyone gets it, and he doesn't do that. For someone who is supposedly so open to suggestions, there have been two main criticisms of his proposal from the left: it doesn't cover everyone, and the method of taxation. Has he moved an inch on either of those? Not that I've seen. Given his insistence that these major concerns are trivial, I don't trust him to come back and say, "I realized that it was a mistake to design this program in a way that the poor and disabled either don't get the maximum benefit or even benefit at all, so I will make my program truly universal and open it up to everyone no questions asked."
3
@Jason MacNeil You're contradicting your own candidate's rationale for his plan. You see it as a middle class welfare program, but he says that it's to help people weather the storm of automation. $12,000/year won't be nearly enough to replace a middle class income. You seem to keep missing the point that I am making. Why not let everyone get the full $1000/month? His is a version of the libertarian UBI that ultimately wants to replace existing programs, and it sounds like that is where you are going. He's not a Presidential candidate, but Robert Reich proposed a far superior version that is actually universal. Taxing workers because you are afraid of not being able to collect from the rich isn't courage and it doesn't address wealth and income inequality other than salving a plutocrat's conscience. Yang opposes increasing the minimum wage, he prefers the public option to Medicare for All, and he is opposed to paying college tuition and proposed a steep repayment for college loans that most people would struggle with. We can do a lot better. A lot better.
2
@KhurtKhave669 So much for removing the stigma of receiving government benefits.
2
@coreyander286 It is not UBI. Andrew Yang has this annoying habit of using words that don't really mean what he says they do. Universal (adj) Of, affecting, or done by all people or things in the world or in a particular group; applicable to all cases It clearly does not apply to all. If you are already poor or disabled, no more help for you. Also, it is not inherently redistributionist. If it is paid for by a regressive tax (VAT) and not truly universal (i.e., the neediest in society either don't qualify or won't benefit because he refuses to give it to them), it will actually make them worse off than before. There is left UBI and right UBI, except his is even worse than the standard right UBI because he doesn't let everyone have it. Why is receiving SSI or SNAP or any number of programs for the poor disqualifying, but receiving tens of thousands in tax breaks that favors rich people not disqualifying? As far as bringing right wingers along, your tag team partner above isn't helping your argunent that that is a good thing.
2
@saiyanduckk If the poor and disabled don't benefit, it is not universal, and you need to be honest and admit that. This is being touted as a way to make it easier for people displaced by automation so they don't have to worry about work. Who can live off of $1000/month unless you are in an economically depressed area where you can rent a decent apartment for under $400/month? If it is for helping those people, it needs to be far more generous. Instead, it looks like a welfare program for the middle class. And it will cause rent to go up, because landlords will say, "You have more money, so I will raise your rent." If not everyone gets it, the poor and disabled will be in a worse position than before.
2
@KhurtKhave669 What do you see as the purpose of UBI?
1
@saiyanduckk He didn't say luxury VAT (he did say that he would trt to exclude certain things, but someone pointed out that he said "fresh food," and I responded to that by pointing out that poor people don't eat as much fresh food because it is more expensive), and 10% wouldn't be enough if it were only on luxury items. Unless he has updated his page, luxury is nowhere near VAT, and he even said that books from Amazon would get the VAT. Is that your idea of luxury? Stop lying. I think you miss my point when I talked about the stigma. Your tag team partner was talking about it being a good thing that Yang is talking about it in a way that is palatable to the right (never mind that it is palatable because it is the version of the right) because that makes it easier to pass. As I have pointed out numerous times, there is a left UBI and a right UBI (never mind that his isn't even universal), and given the remarks above, I was making the argument that getting the right on board and leading it from that perspective will only make it more punitive, not less.
1