by Outcast_Searcher » Thu 05 Dec 2019, 16:36:13
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', '
')Yang's point is that automation and climate change are going to booger up the economy but good, and we've got to radical steps to deal with it. His proposal for the $1000 per month dividend is coupled with a requirement that recipients renounce their right to all other welfare programs, so its actually a plan to streamline government bureaucracy. It would actually probably cost less then the current multiplicity of federal welfare and social benefits.
Personally I think its a good idea.

Would you rather get welfare and food stamps and a housing voucher or $1000/month for life? I'll take the dividend, thank you very much.
CHEERS!
But in the real world, almost NO liberals are going to go for getting rid of ANY social programs, especially favorites like food stamps.
So now you have both this AND the huge mess of all the social programs. That makes it a non-starter for me.
Now, realistically, if you could replace one with the other and get rid of all that monstrous overhead of managing all that, I'd be all for it -- but we don't live in anything CLOSE to that world in the US.
Also, generally, the VAT is going to be highly regressive. Good luck getting liberals to go for that. Personally, I agree with having far more of the taxes be consumption taxes. Then, perhaps, only the truly rich would pay income taxes, have to file income tax forms, etc. That would be great. But again, I don't see liberals voluntarily giving up on highly progressive income taxes -- even for the upper middle class.
To me, it's ridiculous not to have an income test for this. Why do Gates, Buffett, etc. need such income? And it's not like the income tax system couldn't handle it re seeing who is eligible. The only downside would be that people who don't file today would need to file to document that they are entitled to it, IMO.
I also think Tanada had an excellent point re what happens to people and their wages and their rents if it is put into place. I hadn't really thought about how pervasive that issue would be. Price controls are worse than having this, so that's a BIG negative right there.
It's better than arbitrarily stealing X percent of assets from the wealthy re Sanders and Warren, but in the real world where a huge percentage of the public and politicians will NOT tolerate removing the majority of social programs or the income tax, it's not that great overall.
Given the track record of the perma-doomer blogs, I wouldn't bet a fast crash doomer's money on their predictions.