Andrew Yang and his UBI

[nwhiker]

Universal basic income. It's a great idea and I'd like to see it implemented. There are small experiments here and there to see how it really affects people, but ultimately, they're small and don't last long enough.

One could say that the Alaska Permanent Fund dividend is an approximation, but it isn't a constant number that people can rely on, and it's not enough to truly make a day-to-day difference, more like a large income tax refund (I know, that's one's own money, but...) than a universal basic income.

The thing is.... it's a good idea. Community wide, especially in the US where the economy is consumption driven, it makes sense to give people the ability to, well, consume. And pay rent. And their bills. And maybe save a bit.

So why do I think Andrew Yang is a disingenuous piece of scum?

Because his "Freedom Dividend" is a lie. It's extra money for the middle class and above. He has stated that of course people would have to decide if they wanted the cash from the Freedom Dividend or whatever other benefits they get from government.(*)

So you can choose. Your $1000 from Yang or your heating oil benefit. Or your childcare subsidy. Or your Medicaid.

This won't help the poor who, quite frankly, need the dividend and allthe subsidies. It will help people with more money, of course.

To those who have, more will be given.

(*) By the way, he made it sound as if that choice would be empowering for poor people, saying that of course they knew better than government what they needed and which would benefit them more etc. It was like... head-meet-desk. Yes, of course poor people can budget and figure out if the childcare subsidy is worth more than the UBI, but OMG, talking as if that was an empowering choice when the reality of LIFE is that they fucking need BOTH.

I don't understand the absolute hatred people in power (mainly but not limited to Republicans) have of poor people, and of helping poor people. After my FIL's death, my MIL had the option of keeping her social security, or getting his, which was a bit more. She applied, and YAY! would be getting about an extra $250/month, which was incredible, since her rent is more than she currently GETS in social security (and she lives in a not great place. Rents are insane around here). However, by accepting the extra $... she lost all the SNAP and other benefits she got, leaving her about $30 ahead. Why? This is ridiculous. (Note: we help, but it's a balancing act...) Things should be cumulative up to a certain point. (I still don't understand how my SIL manages to get as much money as she does out of the system.)

So yeah, it's stupid.

And since I'm talking about social policy.... For those interested, the book _The Public Option: How to Expand Freedom, Increase Opportunity, and Promote Equality_ by Ganesh Sitamaran and Anne Alstot is a worthwhile read: I put up a brief review on goodreads:

It's a good book, a necessary book.

It doesn't go into policy nitty gritty boring details, but gives enough of the reasons behind how a public option for many areas in our lives either work (libraries, postal service) or could work (retirement funding, health care). The authors are honest about how some public options work better than others in real life.

Recommend, especially in this primary season.

All this to say that I want to smack Andrew Yang.