Andrew Yang giving positive gesture at the start of the Democratic presidential debate in Houston, Texas, September 12, 2019
Andrew Yang intends to give each American adult $1,000 every month in all-inclusive fundamental pay, as an approach to balance work misfortune from automation. The pledge now says he will give 1000$ to 10 families off of a lottery system. The first-run through presidential up-and-comer proposes paying for the month to month dispersions, in huge part, by executing another 10 % esteem included expense (VAT) on merchandise and services. A VAT assessment resembles a business charge, yet it's gathered differently. Normally, for a business charge, when you purchase an item, the tax will be collected. Yet, under a value-added tax, the tax is actually collected in stages along the production process. He stated, “In America today, everything revolves around the all-mighty dollar,” Yang said. “It’s time to trust ourselves more than our politicians. That’s why I’m going to do something unprecedented tonight. My campaign will now give a Freedom Dividend of $1,000 a month for an entire year to 10 American families.”
With a UBI, which Yang calls a “freedom dividend” no American would need to fear they couldn’t cover their basic human needs. The presidential candidate says this is because when we operate from fear, we tend to make poor decisions and there is typically a cascading effect on our lives that impacts our families, networks, and society at large. Yang plans to use the UBI after being elected president to give back to the families. A UBI would liberate Americans to move from shortage to wealth mode, which would empower more individuals to go out on a limb and take part in a more prominent, progressively broad vision for their future. Yang's opportunity profit would give Americans more prominent office to leave mutually dependent connections, proficient or something else, and work as the CEO or business person of their own lives
However some experts state, it can be a violation of campaign finance laws. The UB I works where monthly money instalments would go out to each American beyond 18 years old. They'd get the same dollar amount regardless where they live and how much, if anything, they gain by working. The administration charges a 10% worth included assessment merchandise and enterprises to pay for the program, just as raising expenses on high workers and polluters, and discovering investment funds somewhere else, as indicated by Yang's site. Paying $1,000 per month to each American would cost at any rate $2 trillion per year and the weight would be conveyed by everybody, not simply the wealthy.
I think putting 1000$ to families is both right and wrong. It can start maximizing on generating income from the people and businesses that benefit from society most. Once the 10% value-added tax will be imposed it will focus on persons and businesses making a killing in the society and this will help raise the funds that will be needed to fund the 1000$ to families that will be randomly selected. To help rectify wage stagnation, poverty and to respond to rising inequality. Yang wages to help rectify the poverty and the rich gap by empowering anyone that will be selected to get the funds to help him/her be able to do anything with the funds that the government will offer and hence reduce poverty levels and solve the inequality issue. However, slightly higher prices of goods, since the 10% will be imposed on goods and services, then this means there will be an increase in price to be able to compensate on the lost cash to taxation and this will eventually lead to prices rocketing a bit higher. Also, mass job losses as technology will be greatly involved. When taxation is high industries tend to minimize wage bills by doing automation, this will definitely lead to job loss as there will be mass layoffs in various companies as they will resort to automation.
Questions-Every eligible UBI recipient, regardless of location, would receive $1,000 a month, would it be right or wrong to make adjustments to the amount based on where you live?
Would you say giving out 1000$ per month out of campaign funds and handing it out to individuals violate the personal use prohibition?
3 comments:
While I agree that a lack of money can cause stress on a person's life, Yang's solution of doling out money is not effective. Based on my limited knowledge of economics, I see a few flaws with his idea. First, giving each person the same increase in money would cause goods to become more expensive because everyone can afford more. People would be left back where they began--unable to afford certain goods because it is just out of their price range--except now the price has increased from the initial price. Also, his 10% increase in goods would further separate economic classes, as some citizens wouldn't have enough money to pay for the tax on top of the price of the good. Second, $1,000 in Wyoming does not carry the same value as $1,000 in California. Giving everyone the same amount of money everywhere does not translate into life sustainability the same in all areas. Thus, although I see the well-intentioned reasoning behind giving everyone $1,000 and understand that it is a catchy symbol for his presidential run, his goal is unsustainable in the long run.
While I can see Yang’s good intentions, I don’t believe that giving out money will solve the problem. Huge sums of money over long periods of time can reduce the mental value of money. An example can be seen with many lottery winners, who oftentimes get into debt after spending irresponsibly. The NBA has had similar incidences with many players in financial instability after they’ve retired, unable to manage their money responsibly. Rather than giving out money (something that probably isn’t economically viable for the long term), I think it would be more valuable to put taxpayer dollars into educating citizens about better money management. On average, a typical American adult sits on around $20k-$30k in debt which is likely the result of student loans and our credit economy. By teaching people how to manage their money (perhaps by using the 50% needs/30% savings/20% wants plan), we can boost the economic stability of the US, leading to more spending & thus a prosperous economy. With that being said, the cost to fund this endeavor will be high; however, I agree with Yang in that taxing the rich at a higher marginal tax rate would be the best solution (not so sure about the VAT as it may decrease spending leading to a decline in the economy).
Despite being able to benefit the minority with their wealth and maybe even health status, I believe that it is wrong to make such adjustments because it would cost the US a fortune if this continues long-term. And if it doesn’t continue long-term, people might complain about how short-term it is or how they were given benefits that will be immediately taken away. Moreover, the idea of granting money to eligible recipients almost provides a communist view of the American life situation. The fact that this idea has come up might suggest that our democratic system is failing and most are not satisfied with it. To answer the second question, giving out 1000$ per month out of campaign funds to individuals would not violate the personal use prohibition; this prohibition only applies to candidates. The real issue is whether or not this plan is economically sustainable and ethically intelligent.
Post a Comment