Comments by "" (@thehumanity0) on "Brian Kilmeade Does NOT Like Andrew Yang" video.

They're making incredibly fair criticisms about Yang and problems with his specific UBI proposal. Saying "It's not that it goes too far, it's that it doesn't go far enough" and criticizing that it would be very easily used for shrinking social programs along with how it is actually not universal because citizens with disabilities, child care, etc. would not receive it if they received slightly more in social programs. Literally nothing would change for those people. Do you have a counter-argument to these specific points? Because Brookes has said several times that he would support a UBI bill that fixes these problems such as making UBI supplemental on top of social programs and healthcare, and changing from a VAT to a Capital Gains tax or raising the top marginal tax rate.
2
@HayteStreet Not if it substitutes current social programs for a $1,000 flat flee. In many cases, people will take the lump sum even though it's less than they receive in disabilities, child care, food stamps, and other programs. The promise of cash in hand will actually net save the government money in many circumstances. As I've heard some progressive commentators explain, this is similar to the option that Republicans were trying to give people with Trumpcare and healthcare tax credits. You get a lump sum for healthcare to do with whatever you like, which sounds appealing at first, but then in the long term, it actually screws people when they then need real care and it's only a thin level of insurance because the credits run out quickly when used on a serious health issue. If you made UBI supplemental on top of these programs, you wouldn't have to worry about these numerous complications.
1