Federal Jobs Guarantee VS. Universal Basic Income

Page 1 of 2 [ 18 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next


Which do you prefer, UBI or Federal Jobs Guarantee?
UBI (Universal Basic Income) Andrew Yang’s Freedom Dividend 80%  80%  [ 4 ]
FJG (Federal Jobs Guarantee) by Bernie Sanders 20%  20%  [ 1 ]
Total votes : 5

MannyBoo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Mar 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,968
Location: Hyperspace

16 Oct 2019, 5:09 pm

Yang showed in the debate how Bernie has good intentions, but his idea is archaic old school stuff and not the progressive innovative way to go. I think Yang’s UBI or “Freedom Dividend” is the better, more efficient, more speedy and more practical solution that gives people freedom of choice to create their own job. In the yesterday’s debate, Bernie clarified that Federal Jobs Guarantee means doing construction work on roads & bridges. Do many people really want to do that? I think Yang is very “pro-choice” when it comes to jobs.

What is UBI (Universal Basic Income)


UBI vs. Federal Jobs Guarantee



RushKing
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Age: 27
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,243
Location: Minnesota, United States

16 Oct 2019, 9:15 pm

I find Yang's implementation of UBI to be really flawed.

Yang plans on funding UBI with a VAT (Value-added tax). Which means the lower income brackets will be disproportionately affected --these people have to spend the largest proportion of their income.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 40,226
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

16 Oct 2019, 11:14 pm

I lean more toward Yang on this because as mechanization and outsourcing have become a part of working Americans' lives, jobs are becoming more scarce, and needing more specialized training and education, and thus out of reach of most people. At least this way people can still eat, have shelter, and clothing even if employment eludes them.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,943
Location: USA

17 Oct 2019, 12:18 am

Basic Income is strange.

We dramatically increase prices on everything, and then give everyone an equal money to offset the price increases.

Why?


_________________
After a failure, the easiest thing to do is to blame someone else.


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 40,226
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

17 Oct 2019, 12:25 am

LoveNotHate wrote:
Basic Income is strange.

We dramatically increase prices on everything, and then give everyone an equal money to offset the price increases.

Why?


So that everyone will be able to afford the necessities of life, and keep the economy chugging along with all that buying power.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,943
Location: USA

17 Oct 2019, 12:28 am

Kraichgauer wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
Basic Income is strange.

We dramatically increase prices on everything, and then give everyone an equal money to offset the price increases.

Why?


So that everyone will be able to afford the necessities of life, and keep the economy chugging along with all that buying power.

No, the money is coming from a tax on goods (massive sales tax (called VAT)).

So, the prices on goods will skyrocket.

So, the typical person needs the $1000 to pay for the cost increases of $1000.

The typical person is no better off.

However, as mentioned earlier, poorer people are hit the hardest as they likely spend a lot of their income on goods.


_________________
After a failure, the easiest thing to do is to blame someone else.


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 40,226
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

17 Oct 2019, 12:38 am

LoveNotHate wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
Basic Income is strange.

We dramatically increase prices on everything, and then give everyone an equal money to offset the price increases.

Why?


So that everyone will be able to afford the necessities of life, and keep the economy chugging along with all that buying power.

No, the money is coming from a tax on goods (massive sales tax (called VAT)).

So, the prices on goods will skyrocket.

So, the typical person needs the $1000 to pay for the cost increases of $1000.

The typical person is no better off.

However, as mentioned earlier, poorer people are hit the hardest as they likely spend a lot of their income on goods.


Yes, poor people will spend money on goods and services, very different from the way the rich just put their tax cuts into savings accounts. It's the latter which has driven up the deficit with the lack of revenue from lost taxation, made up now by the treasury department.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Antrax
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2019
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,312
Location: Midwest

17 Oct 2019, 1:34 am

Yeah I don't see how VAT UBI works. Milton Friedman's negative income tax proposal was a reasonable implementation.

As for UBI versus Federal jobs guarantee, it depends on the implementation but in general I would favor UBI.


_________________
"Ignorance may be bliss, but knowledge is power."


MannyBoo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Mar 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,968
Location: Hyperspace

17 Oct 2019, 3:55 pm

RushKing wrote:
I find Yang's implementation of UBI to be really flawed.

Yang plans on funding UBI with a VAT (Value-added tax). Which means the lower income brackets will be disproportionately affected --these people have to spend the largest proportion of their income.

Actually Yang’s VAT (Value Added Tax) is nuanced and does not affect the poor. He always considers the poor and low income groups. There are exemptions on essential goods that poor and low income people definitely need. So they will not be spending more, because it’s not a VAT on everything. It’s a VAT on non-essential goods that everyone does not necessarily need. In short it’s a Luxury VAT tax which mostly affects the rich and high income brackets.

Yang explains this clearly here.



MannyBoo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Mar 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,968
Location: Hyperspace

17 Oct 2019, 4:12 pm

LoveNotHate wrote:
Basic Income is strange.

We dramatically increase prices on everything, and then give everyone an equal money to offset the price increases.

Why?

Not everything. It is NOT a Value Added Tax on everything. There are exemptions on essential goods that poor and working class people definitely need. Yang’s VAT will be on non-essential goods or luxury items, which affects the rich and higher income people more.

With the VAT tax, Yang says he is “going where the money is, not where the money isn’t.”

Check out the video above where he explains it clearly.



The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 24
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,442
Location: Reading, England

17 Oct 2019, 4:39 pm

I like an NIT-style UBI, but Yang's version funded by a form of sales tax doesn't seem like quite such a good idea. Agree with Manny that it isn't as regressive as it first seems, but if you don't mind me saying Manny, I think the tax you have described would raise relatively little revenue and would still disproportionately fall on the poorest (the poor might not spend as much on yachts, but they spend a greater proportion of their income on things like fast food and video games).

I don't like the Federal Jobs Guarantee one bit. The government's role should be to create the conditions in which everyone can access employment, not to create fake jobs so that everyone has work. My flatmate grew up in communist Poland and remembers seeing people just standing around in the places they worked all day because the government was paying them to be there, but wasn't giving them anything to do. I'd much rather just give people the money.



kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 62,811
Location: Queens, NYC

17 Oct 2019, 4:51 pm

We need a way to train people in the new technology.

There's lots that's going to be obsolete over the coming decades.



MannyBoo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Mar 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,968
Location: Hyperspace

17 Oct 2019, 5:17 pm

The_Walrus wrote:
I like an NIT-style UBI, but Yang's version funded by a form of sales tax doesn't seem like quite such a good idea. Agree with Manny that it isn't as regressive as it first seems, but if you don't mind me saying Manny, I think the tax you have described would raise relatively little revenue and would still disproportionately fall on the poorest (the poor might not spend as much on yachts, but they spend a greater proportion of their income on things like fast food and video games).

I don't like the Federal Jobs Guarantee one bit. The government's role should be to create the conditions in which everyone can access employment, not to create fake jobs so that everyone has work. My flatmate grew up in communist Poland and remembers seeing people just standing around in the places they worked all day because the government was paying them to be there, but wasn't giving them anything to do. I'd much rather just given people the money.

Bernie’s Federal Jobs Guarantee jobs are infrastructure improvement, or doing construction work on roads, tunnels and bridges. He wants millions of people to become construction workers. Bernie is obviously stuck in the 1930’s. No thanks.

Yang’s “Luxury Items VAT” will be not the only source of funding. He will also do something like a transactions tax on the big tech companies, Amazon, Google, Facebook, etc, whenever they obtain or use millions of people’s personal information. Currently billions of people around the world are literally getting nothing back, and he wants to change it in America at least. He calls information the “New Oil” of the 21st century. Plus revenue from every mile of automated trucks in the huge trucking industry will also be taxed. This will increase as Automation rapidly increases. Automation is also a main concern of his. The introduction of UBI itself will also naturally generate revenue. It’s like a massive nationwide inter-circulating continuum of money, to stimulate and grow the whole economy.

Here’s what he says.

The means to pay for the UBI (Freedom Dividend) will come from four 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 the Freedom Dividend because people already receiving benefits would have a choice between keeping their current benefits and the $1,000, and would not receive both.

Additionally, we currently spend over 1 trillion dollars on health care, incarceration, homelessness services and the like. We would save $100 – 200+ billion as people would be able to take better care of themselves and avoid the emergency room, jail, and the street and would generally be more functional. The Freedom Dividend 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.


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 will grow by approximately $2.5 trillion and create 4.6 million new jobs. This would generate approximately $800 – 900 billion in new revenue from economic growth.


4. Taxes on top earners and pollution: By removing the Social Security cap, implementing a financial transactions tax, and ending the favorable tax treatment for capital gains/carried interest, we can decrease financial speculation while also funding the Freedom Dividend. We can add to that a carbon fee that will be partially dedicated to funding the Freedom Dividend, making up the remaining balance required to cover the cost of this program.



sly279
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Dec 2013
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,711
Location: US

17 Oct 2019, 5:47 pm

$1000 isn’t enough.
I get $765 so does my mom and we only make due cause housing pays most our rent. Under his plane housing would be gone as well as food stamps(which we also get)
Our society security with the other welfare help is more then the $1,000 he’d like to replace it with making people like me worse off then I am now and then prices of goods and food would go up as well making even worse.


_________________
TRUMP 2020!!


MannyBoo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Mar 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,968
Location: Hyperspace

17 Oct 2019, 6:13 pm

sly279 wrote:
$1000 isn’t enough.
I get $765 so does my mom and we only make due cause housing pays most our rent. Under his plane housing would be gone as well as food stamps(which we also get)
Our society security with the other welfare help is more then the $1,000 he’d like to replace it with making people like me worse off then I am now and then prices of goods and food would go up as well making even worse.

UBI is not supposed to pay for everything, it’s to act like a cushion, so expenses are lessened. There’s a reason it’s $1000 and not $3000 a month. Plus Social Security will stay in place. You can choose whichever you want. It’s Opt in. If you want Social Security now, then switch to UBI later when your income improves, you can. The point is to promote people to get off Welfare and Food Stamps. Most people don’t want to be on Welfare forever, do they? Once you don’t need welfare anymore there’s a UBI Freedom Dividend waiting for you.

All prices will NOT go up because VAT IS NOT A TAX ON EVERYTHING!! Groceries, clothing, etc, essential goods that poor and lower income people need are exempted.