Completely incorrect.
Thoughts on Andrew Yang?
- Thread starter benxedits
- Start date
- Status
Still completely incorrect. Not paying federal taxes is not the same as not paying taxes lmao
Exactly! The word “free” in politics tends to be VERY misleading. It just means “Paid for by tax-paying citizens”. Obviously it’s not actually free, all these things need to be paid for somehow, and it certainly isn’t by getting money from thin air.
Nobody has “free healthcare” or “free college” - you and your fellow countrymen are paying much higher taxes for things which would cost significantly less if you paid for them yourself. With higher tax rates to fund “free X”, those who benefit most are those who don’t work or work the least, since they pay the least or none in taxes but get all these benefits from the work of others.
The best way of “giving back” to citizens is by tax cuts, because that is just taking less of their money away to begin with, instead of taking their money, swishing it around in a hat and then giving more of it away to other people.
Besides UBI, what do you think about receiving a check for OUR data that is being sold by companies to profit for themselves?
I would honestly need to know more.
Is there somewhere to read about how exactly this would work? Because I haven’t found a clear explanation for myself so far.
I believe there is a difference between agreeing to terms which allow data to be sold, because well, they were agreed to and if the user doesn’t agree, they shouldn’t accept those terms.
But if companies sell our data without consent, I definitely do not like that at all. Preferably this should be enforced by heavy fines or worse. But if they at least paid me for it, that is better than just having my data sold and not getting anything from it.
The issue I see with this though is - will this be a fixed amount? Or will everyone be compensated for exactly what data of theirs is sold?
Andrew Yang is my second favourite Democratic candidate, after Pete Buttigeg. I think he, despite my personal political affiliations, is a highly qualified candidate who brings new, refreshing ideas to the table at a time when Statecraft in the United States has stagnated.
Whether you agree with Yang or not, you've got to give it to him - he isn't a continuity candidate, he's a new face on the stage of American politics who has an opportunity to go far and create a large-scale movement around his ideas. He may not have a chance in 2020 (lets be realistic), but he has a chance to go for other political positions, such as quite a high-profile Senator, or House Representative, for example - maybe the more moderate AOC.
On his flagship policy, Universal Basic Income - I've never been a fan of the idea, but his plans are certainly interesting. I can't see how the USA, with their soaring national debt, could afford UBI, as well as continuing their current spending plans. However, I really don't like how he's using the whole "give 10 families $1000/month" to further his campaign.
Whether you agree with Yang or not, you've got to give it to him - he isn't a continuity candidate, he's a new face on the stage of American politics who has an opportunity to go far and create a large-scale movement around his ideas. He may not have a chance in 2020 (lets be realistic), but he has a chance to go for other political positions, such as quite a high-profile Senator, or House Representative, for example - maybe the more moderate AOC.
On his flagship policy, Universal Basic Income - I've never been a fan of the idea, but his plans are certainly interesting. I can't see how the USA, with their soaring national debt, could afford UBI, as well as continuing their current spending plans. However, I really don't like how he's using the whole "give 10 families $1000/month" to further his campaign.
Free healthcare is not misleading at all? It's supposed to be "free" because you're not directly paying for it. You're paying the government, who is paying for it. This way is better because good healthcare is actually reachable for people who live in poverty, as taxes are a % of your salary. If you had to pay it yourself, poor people would have almost no chance of getting healthcare, and the rich would just get richer.
You have to think about the impacts of each of your decisions, and not just what it's face value is.
I'm going to suggest that most people not to put their political opinions on mc-market because an unpopular opinion will quickly get flamed and because this is a minecraft forum.
I think he's using the "give 10 families $1000/month" to show you how it helps families and how it works.
Don't give it away. Don't expect anything in return if you just give something away.
One of the largest corporations in the United States (Amazon) paid $0 in taxes last year. Yang's idea is to implement a VAT tax on all business transactions. This tax would essentially fund UBI. UBI wouldn't make people "work less" because $1000 is not enough to live off of in most areas. 98% of the people on this forum live with their parents, have them cook for them, pay for insurance, etc. Once you are an adult and out for yourself $1000/month is not enough. Rent, insurance, car payments, etc. Of course you could make the UBI your bitch by being a young adult living with your parents, but that's not the case for most people. The idea is to help people who are living paycheck-to-paycheck (lower and middle class) and give them some breathing room because most people spend and purchase next to or beyond their means. Well people also think that businesses would hate Yang because of his proposed tax, but that's not the case. If all american citizens got $1000 more each month, most of that money would go right back into the economy. Another thing Yang has done is brought up the topic of automation which nobody else is talking about, which will most likely be one of the next main topics in the next presidential election.
People feel like Yang's model is unrealistic but yet UBI was almost implemented in the United States in the 1970s since Andrew Nixon also had a very similar policy to Andrew Yang "Living Income Guaranteed Proposal" but Watergate happened and it fell off.
I agree that nothing is free. Free college would be terrible, because not everyone should go to college. Your best way is an opinion and there's more than one solution to a problem. UBI is like "here is $1000" and your method would be basically "you owe me $1000 less". UBI is more convincing than tax cuts, which is what he needed to even make a footing in this race since he wasn't a politician beforehand and didn't really have much of a following.
At least with the thing with Yang he isn't talking about increasing the taxes for the people but for the corporations. It seems like most candidates when asked about corporations not paying taxes saying that they will force them to pay taxes when they are president but does not present a solution on how.
Amazon paid $0 in federal income taxes. They put all of their profit back into operations in the company.
Last edited:
And why exactly is this a bad thing? Not every fucking thing needs to be taxed jfc
Amazon had $11,000,000,000 in profit and paid $0 in federal income taxes.
Someone who makes below minimum wage paid for in federal income taxes than a nearly trillion-dollar company.
Literally could not have said it better.
Ah I was wondering when Yang would penetrate this site.
One reason why I support the concept of basic income is because social support systems tend to become administrative nightmares with more resources dedicated to making sure only those that 'deserve' it get support than is spent on actual support. Universal basic income would eliminate most of that, so the overall cost is not nearly as much of an increase as you might think.
An example of how wasteful systems can be (not US, but I imagine its just as bad if not worse there), spring before last I had a burnout combined with a new, harassing landlord. So I applied for welfare to tide me over while looking for a steady job. In the end I'd gotten a job 3 months after applying. I got an advance on the 3 months of welfare I qualified for a month after that. 3 weeks after that I was denied on a technicality (I had 1 bank statement less than they believed was needed, and they had 2 weeks to notify me of this but did not).
Now, a year and a half removed, I've FINALLY managed to get the money I originally applied for plus payment of a fine on their part to me, after a lengthy appeal process that likely cost 2-3 times as much as the 3 months I originally applied for.
Now tell me, is that an effective use of resources?
One reason why I support the concept of basic income is because social support systems tend to become administrative nightmares with more resources dedicated to making sure only those that 'deserve' it get support than is spent on actual support. Universal basic income would eliminate most of that, so the overall cost is not nearly as much of an increase as you might think.
An example of how wasteful systems can be (not US, but I imagine its just as bad if not worse there), spring before last I had a burnout combined with a new, harassing landlord. So I applied for welfare to tide me over while looking for a steady job. In the end I'd gotten a job 3 months after applying. I got an advance on the 3 months of welfare I qualified for a month after that. 3 weeks after that I was denied on a technicality (I had 1 bank statement less than they believed was needed, and they had 2 weeks to notify me of this but did not).
Now, a year and a half removed, I've FINALLY managed to get the money I originally applied for plus payment of a fine on their part to me, after a lengthy appeal process that likely cost 2-3 times as much as the 3 months I originally applied for.
Now tell me, is that an effective use of resources?
- Status
