Nope, because people aren't impoverished intrisically, they are impoverished due to injustices within our economic system.
False. Children who are born into poverty will be poor. Might not be forever but the time they are born for sure. I don't see how you got to that conclusion.
it's always 1,000. Your assistance doesn't decrease as you climb out of poverty.
Okay but what if people need more than 1k?
Poor people aren't inherently irrational with money
That is not my claim. My claim is that poor people tend to make bad choices due to the circumstance they are in.
scarcity has been shown to lower a persons IQ by a standard deviation, and UBI helps to eliminate the scarcity mindset. I think you might have picked up some rather unfair views of poor people from Republican propaganda.
Giving someone 1k doesn't solve their problems but it can help. Do you agree?
Also, look at Alaska. UBI hasn't lead to either inflation or bad choices;
I said tend not will.
people use the money to pay down bills or generally augment a responsible life.
If the bills are manageable or they are rational people then it can work but it does not solve their problems which is why in Alaska they are still working their jobs not deciding to do something else with their life because the UBI does not cover them to do something more important. This is based on people not liking their job and I think that assumption is fair.
The reason that UBI doesn't lead to price inflation is because while it gives consumers more money, it also revitalizes local economies to create more competition. There was no measurable inflation in the Finland trial.
Do you have evidence for Alaska? I would rather stick to one instead of another UBI trial in Finland.
It's a VAT on domestic automated industry, not on European goods. You may be thinking of the fact that Europe, along with every other civilized country in the world, already has a VAT because VATs are incredibly difficult to dodge.
Yes. I heard the US' is really low compared to European countries and simply increasing it will not move away industry because from what Yang is proposing it would still be less VAT compared to other developed countries.
I don't see poor people doing that, because everyone wants a better life and more money.
You seem liberal to me, so I don't know why you seem to believe that most people on welfare are 'welfare queens'.
That could be implied by what I said but I don't take the position. I think people on welfare depend on it and UBI will not help them get out of welfare because I think most people require more than 1k every month I think to ditch welfare programs and enter the job market.
Most of them are working poor trying to make ends meet, and if they make more money and the government cuts their benefits due to means testing then UBI becomes the better option.
So you the government is going to force UBI whether or not it is beneficial? What if like I said before the individual or family take more than 1k from welfare programs will that be cut as well?
Also, UBI is no-strings-attached money. It's not SNAP, which people often are ashamed to use. There's no government oversee checking in on how you're spending the money. It gives you freedom
Shame can come after being able to survive and I doubt it would take people out of welfare programs.
Social security costs alone are like 2 billion a year I think, and the country has less than a thousand billionaires,so giving them all 1,000 bucks brings the cost to 12 million a year.
I don't think you can support that claim but I am open to seeing the evidence of prior social security compared to current social security when using UBI.
Here is a study:
It states this "When you are living in the United States, you will likely want to budget approximately $1000 – $1500 per month for housing and utilities." That is only for housing and utilities so other necessary payment like food or water would add to that total. Meaning if UBI is considered a welfare program it won't be enough by itself to keep up with the cost of living in the United States.
