|
Post by yeshuapantera on Feb 24, 2019 15:32:50 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Midnight Rider on Feb 27, 2019 17:05:17 GMT
I didnt think AOC was a thing? She's not even 35. I'm clueless, mostly.
|
|
|
Post by yeshuapantera on Mar 2, 2019 15:16:58 GMT
I just mean the Sanders / AOC democratic socialist team. Their UBI plans don't seem very realistic to me at all. But in contrast, Yang's plan has pretty large conservative support and it's in line with our capitalist economy without changing too much. Instead of gouge taxing the rich or any other unrealistic ideal, it will pull the funds out of our growing technological economy and put money back in the hands of the people. No questions asked and no strings attached, "Freedom Dividend." It's basically paying every adult US citizen as a share holder of the US itself. I advise watching the video because it's very interesting. If it came down to Yang verses Trump, I may be inclined to vote Yang the way things are going.
|
|
|
Post by yeshuapantera on Mar 12, 2019 12:11:08 GMT
|
|
|
Post by yeshuapantera on Jan 19, 2021 21:09:37 GMT
|
|
Wertbag
New Member
Posts: 14
Current Belief System: Atheist
Gender: Male
|
Post by Wertbag on Jan 20, 2021 2:23:44 GMT
Not a fan of UBI from everything I've read. The idea seems greatly open to abuse, with anyone who is willing to rough it being paid to not work. I heard a story of surfers who were collecting benefits and living in a shared beachfront house. Cheap living, surf all day and have enough money left for parties at night. Just handing out money to everyone removes the incentive from such people. I also was doubtful on the source of the money they talk about, as if there was billions of dollars available then getting the rampant debt under control or getting the citizens access to healthcare could be a better use. It would also mean that Bill Gates would receive the same payment as a homeless man, which doesn't sound like distributing the wealth to those most in need. They talk about UBI as helping those in need, but that is what social welfare benefits already do but targeted. I also worry whenever I hear a politican talk about giving money away, are they genuine or just vote buying? I think Yang is genuine, but some of the others talking about it seem less so.
|
|
|
Post by yeshuapantera on Jan 20, 2021 2:52:37 GMT
He's talking about a use tax on big tech. Companies like Amazon who currently avoid taxes. The idea is that taxes like this will contribute to a capitalist system that doesn't start at zero income. Every citizen, by right of citizenship, is entitled $1,000 dollars a month in the plan. The reason is so that it's equal across the board and no fighting over the targeted methods currently used. The money goes back into the economy as people spend it on things they want or need. Mainly in their local regions through restaurants and everything else. He talks of a trickle-up effect.
And it has to be no strings attached. People can do whatever they want with it. If hippies want to live together and surf, so be it. If that gets old and they want to earn a real living they can change gears and work. But the idea is that in most cases $1,000 a month isn't enough to sit back and live on. But it goes a long way towards assisting people who currently can save up their money for things they need. Yang seems to veer away from the idea that the rich need to be stripped of money to target out to the poor.
From what I can tell, Yang is very genuine. He thinks he has a good plan and seems to want to help. He's a business man. And if win's New York it looks like there will be some experimenting going on with the application of some of his ideas and platform on small scale. I honestly hope we wins so that we can see how his ideas pan out given the opportunity. If they don't, then they don't. But I'd like to see him given the chance to succeed or fail.
|
|