Yang says he wants to give $1000 a month to all adults in the United States...
That means that every month, 300 billion dollars will be spent on his "universal health care plan" remember billions going to niggers too.
Annually this is 3.6 trillion dollars
How retarded can a chink get?
OP is a cumer
Who /YANGGANG/ here?
We need this man back
I want dem neetbux.
i donates to Yang
here’s the plan. we give UBI to everyone including me. then we slowly move to cash only. no more stamps or anything. just a check.
It'll go back into the economy, dumass
> in the future there are no jobs, some elites control all industry and give us unproductive masses just enough to consume and keep the cycle going
UBI supporters are so retarded they deserve the future they want
UBI is going to make people more docile and complacent then they already are. We need people to feel the heat so the revolution can commence.
but I want my NEETbux. Public policy is just a vehicle to get me more gibs because I'm as useless as a nigger
>t. UBI fags
All of this money will go back into the economy. Additionally it will replace the dozens of welfare programs that exist in this country, each of which has their own massive cost overhead that wouldn't exist if you simply mailed out a check every week.
Yo holup, yang, whadabou mah keeedz? Mah boy, he got a club foot, and mah girl her brain not right. $1000 ain't gon fix dat, we need mooore yang. My granmomma got the diabeetus an' I can't walk so good on account of i's too beeg. We need mo than $1000 yang, gibs us mo!
Not all of it goes back into the economy because no everyone in the US spends their money quickly, some people spend money on stuff that isnt legitimate and some people buy stuff from overseas. STUPID CUNT.
Yeah SS alone is a trillion a year.
Can you imagine the savings by removing all the bureaucracy involved in the government by dealing with applications/programs that are vetted and yet still fail? Also you can get rid of minimum wage so even the right gets something out of it.
Also degrading jobs will actually need to pay what they are worth. No more $8 an hour for someone to be a janitor, meaning that jobs will actually reflect wages based on demand by the market and not wage slavery.
Explain to me how the trillions in wealth that aren't spent by the richest are being reinvested into the economy? By definition it stimulates local economies. How much of the TARP bailout money went to local economies? Virtually none.
Best part is not only that but he's willing to extend the Gibs to the millions of illegals
How about get rid of social programs and fund public works projects instead or give grants to startup companies or talented young people to go to school. UBI is fucking retarded. The only good thing about it is poor people spending money keeps the economy going, which you could just substitute with the above and achieve the same result.
if I could invest the 7.65% from FICA each year I could retire 10 years earlier. Sticking it in the market with 8% average gains will always be more attractive than paying 1:1 for someone's retirement then having someone else do the same for me. I know it's more complex and it actually just goes into a fund but that's how it is in effect
that's true but that doesn't mean it's the best way to put it into people's pockets. Just because it works in a very narrow context doesn't mean it doesn't have other problems or is the best way of doing what you want
All you right fucks will be crying when all of your jobs are automated and won't have enough savings to support your families for 2 years while you scramble to get a vocational degree for a job that will probably be automated again within the decade.
Left accelerationist have seen this shit coming for a while now, and right accelerationists are just banking on you stupid fucks not noticing until its too late
The types of people that need UBI will spend it all within a week of recieving it
TBF Yang's implementation is garbage and I've been strongly attracted to the Fair Tax system that slowly increases the sales tax rebate because it essentially acts as an incremental UBI that's based on actual spending instead of some neoliberals arbitrary bar.
I think your first comment is ultimately a argument in favor for UBI, our stock market would take an initial hit from raised corporate taxes but you'd see record revenue subsequently starting first in the consumer space and bubbling up to primary/secondary economies. More cash in your pocket ultimately makes your financial future lay solely on your decisions and no one can arbitrarily blame government mishandling or general market failures with managed 401ks.
look, I don't like UBI in any form but if you're trying to scrape together the revenue don't get it from corporate taxes. Who gives a fuck if a corporation has money, it's ultimately going to be reinvested or go to shareholders. If you want to target one of these things for revenue, go for it once it's making its way to shareholders because anything else is probably economically useful.
So make a graduated capital gains tax such that retirees aren't getting fucked up the ass while the super rich get a chunk that is at least comparable to income tax rates taken away. I think that's fair without stunting economic growth. Also a wealth tax of .5-2.5% could be good because it would encourage deployment of capital into high-yield investments and make sitting on money unattractive without making building wealth impossible
>first in the consumer space and bubbling up to primary/secondary economies
With all due respect I don't think you have a good idea how the economy or securities work, or at least your terminology is wacky. You're still a lot more informed/reasonable than most though, so good on you
>More cash in your pocket ultimately makes your financial future lay solely on your decisions and no one can arbitrarily blame government mishandling or general market failures with managed 401ks
wait what? The best think you can do with your money is invest it, and tax-advantaged vehicles like the 401k, TSP or normal IRAs are great ways to do so (though I agree on the "managed" part). There hasn't been a decade in the history of the Dow where we've had a 10 year period in the red and annualized returns average like 8-9% even now. Long term investing is great, people are just sensitive to volatility when money is tight.
The benefit of increasing perceived and actual individual responsibility is a great point and in my opinion the most attractive argument for UBI from a more conservative angle
This.
Hey man, these immigrants came LEGALLY. If they want communism to displace whites, who are we to oppose?
chicom shill
>power strip plugged into itself
INFINITE ENERGY
Might want to doublecheck that math
Very few corporations pay significant dividends and are exempted from all corporate taxes if reinvested. You only need to jack up the 501 (c) pre-shared incomes a little bit, and a ton of dividends to encourage reinvestment. If these corporations are going to get personhood they should start paying for these new legal benefits.
I would actually prefer to have a regressive capital gains tax based on length of ownership to encourage less speculative trading in the market and to fuck over future AI trading/shorts.
Also from a libertarian perspective, a very high estate tax > wealth tax. Children from poor families would receive more benefits in the decades of UBI than any house or money they could inherit and inheritance in general destroys families. If rich folks want to start giving stuff to their kids before they die to avoid the estate tax, at least that money gets reinfused into the UBI earlier than waiting til they kick the bucket.
>With all due respect I don't think you have a good idea how the economy or securities work, or at least your terminology is wacky. You're still a lot more informed/reasonable than most though, so good on you
I'm just using generic econ terminology, admittedly not more than undergrad college educated but I fit squarely into freshwater school.
>wait what?
Black families in the US lost something like 50% of their invested wealth in the 2008 financial crisis due to corporate management of 401ks. You do a UBI, companies will no longer worry about that soft benefit or 401k matching and people will sink or swim
He’s not retarded. Honestly it’s going to happen sooner or later. We have to have it with automation coming. It’s time we stop fucking thinking that billionaires care about us and that trickle down economics work. We need real changes and I’m a huge fan of this guy. UBI is better than fucking wiping college debt for yuppies like Bernie wants to do.
>Very few corporations pay significant dividends and are exempted from all corporate taxes if reinvested. You only need to jack up the 501 (c) pre-shared incomes a little bit, and a ton of dividends to encourage reinvestment. If these corporations are going to get personhood they should start paying for these new legal benefits.
yeah I'm aware of all this, what's wrong with reinvesting? That's either going into employees' pockets, or into equipment/services that stimulate the economy. Also dividends are extremely common, they're only going by the wayside these days because of high-growth tech companies. All mature sectors are full of dividend stocks
>I would actually prefer to have a regressive capital gains tax based on length of ownership to encourage less speculative trading in the market and to fuck over future AI trading/shorts.
that's an interesting proposal, is there anyone who's an expert on the ins and outs of this sort of thing and would know about legal quirks that has commented on something similar? I'd like to hear more
>Also from a libertarian perspective, a very high estate tax > wealth tax
fair enough. 1) I'm not libertarian though and 2) I want my children to inherit most of what I leave behind, which could easily climb to ~$5million
>Black families in the US lost something like 50% of their invested wealth in the 2008 financial crisis due to corporate management of 401ks. You do a UBI, companies will no longer worry about that soft benefit or 401k matching and people will sink or swim
yeah I'm skeptical. I couldn't find information that confirmed that 50% number, even in the ballpark, let alone that it was because of mismanaged 401ks. Most people lost money because they panicked and withdrew money during the slump, or had to liquidate their meager savings due to unemployment. My parents lost half their 401ks' value but continued investing and it bounced back much higher. Recessions are the best time to invest if you have the flexibility
also because I ran out of characters
>If these corporations are going to get personhood they should start paying for these new legal benefits.
that's a good rhetorical argument but not a good argument in general. Public policy is concerned with what is effective, not what seems fair or evenhanded
You're in for a surprise when Yang beats Trump in the general. My poll was only posted on Jow Forums and Yang won. Imagine how he must poll in the rest of the country.
No. Its still retarded.
How about people buy shares in the robots and live off its productivity.
>buy a robot that makes cars inba factory
>or buy shares in a fleet of robots
>car manufacturer does not need to buy
>lower price for car
>you, the owner of the robot, get paid for its productivity
There. I just blew basic wage out of the water with simple capitalism.
fucking kek. user I think I'm gonna take a screenshot of this so I can enjoy this in a year and a half. I sincerely hope I'm wrong and you're not a chicom because then you'll actually feel retarded when he drops out of the primary earlier with worse polling than Lincoln Chafee did in 2015. I'm sure things will pan out just like your poll
Sorry If I wasn't clear, I want reinvestment and that's why I wouldn't want *too* much of a increase on pre-shared taxes, where the dividends payout would actually be very high. And again I'm ok with it hurting investment into dividend stocks, it's the least skill-based part of the market and purely favors those with capital.
>that's an interesting proposal, is there anyone who's an expert on the ins and outs of this sort of thing and would know about legal quirks that has commented on something similar? I'd like to hear more
Nope this is novel as far AFAIK so i'm sure there's something technical that would fuck it up, but being involved in trading machine learning has shown me that this seems to be the only real way to curb the upcoming automation crisis in the market.
>fair enough. 1) I'm not libertarian though and 2) I want my children to inherit most of what I leave behind, which could easily climb to ~$5million
Give your children everything, they pay income tax, and live off the UBI then. If you live for 50 years, your kids would make over half a million each (if 1k a month) in UBI over the years. I think that + the education you provide them would be a pretty good start to their professional career.
> yeah I'm skeptical. I couldn't find information that confirmed that 50% number
Sorry 43% for total wealth (pewresearch.org
He made some good points:
>it’d replace the existing SNAP and EBT programs, thereby covering some of the cost
>the money would circulate in the economy
>a lot of jobs are ready to be automated anyway
>that's a good rhetorical argument but not a good argument in general. Public policy is concerned with what is effective, not what seems fair or evenhanded
Effective for whom? The people or the corporations? Corporate income tax has been justified by many as a fee for the Corporate Veil, and this is just a continuation of that. Also I'm not really sure about that in the last few months given this: zerohedge.com
UBI would usurp the treasury bond rates as the determinant for inflation, and it would be impossible to curb said inflation because no politician will ever vote against free gibs.
shit idea, come back when it doesn't single handedly destroy the economy.
given what? NASDAQ is performing worse than dow because tech stocks have been inflated for a while. What exactly are you trying to imply with that poor excuse for an article?
I'm fine with leaving most of your points alone, there's just one thing
>~40% loss between 2007 and 2013 in stocks
I'm well aware people lose a ton in the stock market, but it's always because they buy in while the market is chugging along and sell when it's going down the shitter. Anyone who held onto their stock ended up making all their money back and more if they just rode it out. If you refer back to the data you showed me in the second link, you'd see that the ~40% loss in stock value was followed by a 59% increase in the next three years alone which I think supports my point fairly well
Also this says absolutely nothing about how the money was managed, and definitely nothing about 401ks, at least where you pointed me to. I won't read 1000 pages to verify there isn't something in there
Effective for whom? The people or the corporations? Corporate income tax has been justified by many as a fee for the Corporate Veil, and this is just a continuation of that. Also I'm not really sure about that in the last few months given this: zerohedge.com
for nobody in particular. All I'm saying is that your statement was only useful in a rhetorical context. I don't want to get into an argument about the nature of public policy
fucked up the quote, oops
>he thinks automation will be free
>he thinks automation is risk free
technological advancements, high investment cost, and high maintenance cost practically guarantee that automation will never usurp the laborer.
exhibit A: the technology to automate farms has been around for a while, yet all of the wineries in California use illegals to pick their grapes. why is that?
It's not an article really, just joking that with the Fed staying the course with rates despite all the clear economic indications like the 10 year bond yield, and the market just going along with it, shows that public policy hasn't been about effectiveness as much as it is about boosting investor confidence as the future expense of most citizens. I don't like the argument that it's not about what's fair but what is effective because you can take that to any logical extreme, Why tax corporations at all? They create jobs and brain drain other countries to boost our productivity? They are doing us a service! We should pay them for that!
*380 billion a month
Here are a list of active deep state agents that are on the media matters payroll.
>Adam Green
>Ryan Dawson
>Andrew Yang
>Patrick Little
>Jake Morphonios
>Jimmy Dore
>Abby Martin
>Michael Scheuer
>Ilhan Omar
These people are agent provocateurs on a mission to derail the MAGA movement going into 2020. What ever you do don't give them the opportunity to demoralize you. The MAGA train has no brakes.
The majority of the issues the market faces today is that consumer confidence is still in the shitter because of 2008, so the Fed trying to shore up that confidence is probably a safe bet.
>at the future expense of most citizens
doubtful, although there will be some hefty corrections that will surely sour someone's portfolio. long term investments will be a bit riskier in exchange for short term stability and a spurt of economic growth because of cheap funds.
All and all, the 10 year bond yield is just a bunch of FUD. Return will drop quite a bit, but they will still yield. It's worth the price to return consumers to pre-2008 levels of confidence.
Do you honestly think that most black families are buying into the market with any significant capital of their own instead of soft benefits? Even more, you really think they sold because of shitty speculation and not because they were essentially FORCED to liquidate? If you're playing 1v1 poker and starts with $10 in chips and your opponent is playing with $10000, how many hands do you reasonably expect to last if he always makes you go all in? It's straight up robbery what happened when the TARP bailouts happened.
>Also this says absolutely nothing about how the money was managed, and definitely nothing about 401ks, at least where you pointed me to. I won't read 1000 pages to verify there isn't something in there
You have to combine that fact with the notion that most black families don't go out and have their own vanguard accounts. I don't have a link off cursory searching, but if the notion that most black families are using managed 401ks, and instead are going out and setting up vanguard/fidelity accounts on their own, then we know very different communities.
Stop shilling this communist slope on here. Not only does he not have any chance to become president, I would personally put him back in the rice patties where he belongs for being dumb enough to think UBI is a good idea. Especially in a nation like the US where you have low IQ nigger welfare parasites everywhere.
I think some of this was intended for me, not , so
>Why tax corporations at all? They create jobs and brain drain other countries to boost our productivity?
I literally advocated for the abolition or lowering of corporate taxes and dramatic raise of capital gains tax earlier in the thread. I don't know what you're trying to do with this but you're not making the point you're attempting to
>Fed staying the course with rates despite all the clear economic indications like the 10 year bond yield, and the market just going along with it, shows that public policy hasn't been about effectiveness as much as it is about boosting investor confidence
you have no idea what you're talking about despite using some basic jargon. Investors want lower interest rates because it means cheaper capital. Raising rates gives the government more options in a recession and discourages speculative/risky investing
>because they were essentially FORCED to liquidate?
hey buddy >Most people lost money because they panicked and withdrew money during the slump, or had to liquidate their meager savings due to unemployment
you're getting awfully forgetful. I know we've had a long talk but that doesn't excuse you forgetting my points then acting outraged
>You have to combine that fact with the notion that most black families don't go out and have their own vanguard accounts. I don't have a link off cursory searching, but if the notion that most black families are using managed 401ks, and instead are going out and setting up vanguard/fidelity accounts on their own, then we know very different communities.
well fund managers can't do anything about you selling shares during a recession. And again, refer back to the data. They gained all the money back if they didn't sell everything off.
I literally advocated for the abolition or lowering of corporate taxes and dramatic raise of capital gains tax earlier in the thread.
Based on your "not what's fair comment" you clearly aren't advocating for these policies based on what's fair to the average citizen trying to obtain class mobility. If all we did was implement policy based on what was effective on behalf of corporations (like not taxing them at all) that would clearly not be "fair" and would be "very" effective at encouraging companies to move to the US, hiring our workers, etc.
>you have no idea what you're talking about despite using some basic jargon. Investors want lower interest rates because it means cheaper capital. Raising rates gives the government more options in a recession and discourages speculative/risky investing
I'm aware, and I'm pointing out that there is obviously a pending recession coming. Leveraged buybacks have completely fucked real valuations of tons of non-tech stocks and the fact that the 10 year isn't tracking with the markets anymore indicates that the bubble *will* pop, not even accounting for bespoke tranches, and yet we haven't raised rates yet or got into a position to survive another 2008 meltdown again.
>hey buddy
yeah sorry missed "liquidate their meager savings due to unemployment", but that accounts for a super majority of the cases and isn't trivial. I am outraged that you phrase it as a marginal thing as if it hit all families across america equally but minorities somehow just speculated wrong.
>well fund managers can't do anything about you selling shares during a recession. And again, refer back to the data. They gained all the money back if they didn't sell everything off.
Is there a black Ron Paul I'm not aware of that was well respected by a majority of the community and was telling everyone to sell? Obviously they would have made their money back if they didn't sell off. but that wasn't voluntary.
>Based on your "not what's fair comment" you clearly aren't advocating for these policies based on what's fair
you could've stopped right there. Nothing in the line following that is at all relevant to what we're talking about
>I'm aware, and I'm pointing out that there is obviously a pending recession coming. Leveraged buybacks have completely fucked real valuations of tons of non-tech stocks and the fact that the 10 year isn't tracking with the markets anymore indicates that the bubble *will* pop, not even accounting for bespoke tranches, and yet we haven't raised rates yet or got into a position to survive another 2008 meltdown again.
yes and it'll be another great time to buy stock. Literally just don't tell shit halfway through a recession and you're good. You shouldn't have retirement savings at all if you don't have an emergency fund, your immediate subsistence is way more important
>yeah sorry missed "liquidate their meager savings due to unemployment", but that accounts for a super majority of the cases and isn't trivial. I am outraged that you phrase it as a marginal thing as if it hit all families across america equally but minorities somehow just speculated wrong.
they didn't speculate wrong, they speculated at all (some of them). Our debt-driven economy is the real culprit, not the markets. People are roped into buying all sorts of dumb shit because it doesn't have any immediate impact. Imagine how much more money people would have without interest payments
>but that wasn't voluntary
some of it was. Just because I only dedicated one line to people being forced to sell doesn't mean I'm trivializing it like you said above. Also anyone sensitive to volatility needs to buy more bonds. Literally every point you're bringing up can be solved with financial literacy. What am I supposed to do about that? What is the government supposed to do? Take some goddamn responsibility, christ. Nobody is forcing you to use a 401k over a traditional IRA
>Is there a black Ron Paul I'm not aware of that was well respected by a majority of the community and was telling everyone to sell?
this is just retarded. There's always a massive panic during recessions and it's not limited to old white people who watch commercials about buying precious metals
>you could've stopped right there. Nothing in the line following that is at all relevant to what we're talking about
The original context of this argument is for subsidizing UBI with extra taxes. How is saying that corporations should pay an extra amount for reaping benefits legally and HR wise with a healthier and more educated workforce not relevant?
>yes and it'll be another great time to buy stock. Literally just don't tell shit halfway through a recession and you're good. You shouldn't have retirement savings at all if you don't have an emergency fund, your immediate subsistence is way more important
With a UBI that comes naturally instead of expecting poor families to liquidate all their 401ks every year based on education they aren't really receiving.
>they didn't speculate wrong, they speculated at all (some of them). Our debt-driven economy is the real culprit, not the markets. People are roped into buying all sorts of dumb shit because it doesn't have any immediate impact. Imagine how much more money people would have without interest payments
I think our main disagreement here is that you have some notion that everyone with a 401k is actively educated and engaged with its performance like some trader. You see it as some optional thing they chose, when most people just get it automatically by checking a box on their new-hire forms.
>Literally every point you're bringing up can be solved with financial literacy. What am I supposed to do about that?
That's kind of the point of the UBI, helps fund some of that post-highschool education you know?
>What is the government supposed to do? Take some goddamn responsibility, christ. Nobody is forcing you to use a 401k over a traditional IRA
A UBI so that the government is less involved with those decisions. Raw money is you taking responsibility, that was one of my first points that you actually agreed with.
According to you white people didn't panic as much as black people because they didn't hang onto their stocks. You can't have it both ways where there was massive panic but only black people sold, unless you bring in some media figure with social appeal.
sorry they did* hang onto their stocks
>The original context of this argument is for subsidizing UBI with extra taxes. How is saying that corporations should pay an extra amount for reaping benefits legally and HR wise with a healthier and more educated workforce not relevant?
because fairness has nothing to do with what is best for the people or corporations
>With a UBI that comes naturally instead of expecting poor families to liquidate all their 401ks every year based on education they aren't really receiving.
would basic financial education be cheaper than UBI? kek
>I think our main disagreement here is that you have some notion that everyone with a 401k is actively educated and engaged with its performance like some trader. You see it as some optional thing they chose, when most people just get it automatically by checking a box on their new-hire forms.
dude I'm an industrial engineer, not some financial genius. It doesn't take much to learn some basic rules of thumb about investing
>That's kind of the point of the UBI, helps fund some of that post-highschool education you know?
>investopedia.com
you think I learned this shit in school? Reading instead of dicking around for one Saturday would give you enough info to not lose half your net worth in a recession
>A UBI so that the government is less involved with those decisions. Raw money is you taking responsibility, that was one of my first points that you actually agreed with.
you talk about how guaranteed income is a safety net then turn around and say it increased responsibility. These aren't necessarily mutually exclusive but I believe they are antagonistic
just to be clear I want good outcomes for the poor. I just don't think that solving the problem with any form of welfare is actually solving the problem itself
>According to you white people didn't panic as much as black people because they didn't hang onto their stocks. You can't have it both ways where there was massive panic but only black people sold, unless you bring in some media figure with social appeal.
black people were more likely to need to sell due to financial difficulties most likely, and plenty of white people sold off their assets, I just think they were also more likely to exploit it (being in general more wealthy). I never said anything that contradicts this afaik. That said, it's better to go into short term debt than to sell assets at half value, so unless you're bleeding money for more than 3-6 months I'd hold on for dear life. The recession lasted longer so if they got fucked up at the beginning and didn't recover till like 2010 (employment-wise) that's totally understandable
>because fairness has nothing to do with what is best for the people or corporations
Ok you're fucking with me now and we're just arguing in circles. Fairness is totally a relevant factor when it comes to these policies. You think corporations get taxed because it results in some mythical pursuit of efficiency and *not* because we want public kickbacks via taxes?
>would basic financial education be cheaper than UBI? kek
It's not just education, that's a strawman. Having a UBI for kids that can be used as investment for future college education is way cheaper and better than just waving away a bunch of college debt or pretending like poor families will get that education. Unless you want to put college level financial education into highschool curriculum. But hey, you apparently don't think very highly of my college education on the matter so really I don't know what standard that should be held to.
>dude I'm an industrial engineer, not some financial genius. It doesn't take much to learn some basic rules of thumb about investing
Of course not, but it's a life style thing and a leading thing. When the economy crashed in 2008 I had a rude awakening as a software engineer because I had just been doing max 401k matching amounts and not at all paying attention. You have to get that paranoia to start learning, and most people just assume if you check the boxes and do cursory news updates, you can be ready financially for things. It just isn't the case.
> you think I learned this shit in school? Reading instead of dicking around for one Saturday would give you enough info to not lose half your net worth in a recession
Again you were exposed to things in your life that afforded you that ability to dick around on a saturday about a subject you knew existed from other sources. Most don't have that luxury or freetime to waste it fucking around on investopedia
>you talk about how guaranteed income is a safety net then turn around and say it increased responsibility. These aren't necessarily mutually exclusive but I believe they are antagonistic
There's a massive difference between expecting the government to have a safety net installed for when you fall compared to the government giving you the safety net before you fall and expect you to set it up correctly. It's a nanny state that makes your decisions for you and you are counting on the government to help, as opposed to the government purely being mechanism for giving people an equal opportunity that they have to use correctly and have no one to blame but themselves for their inadequacy.
So this 1984-style Social Credit system endorsing shithead is the new AOC on Jow Forums?
Yeah, no thanks, at least she's got nice tits.
>Ok you're fucking with me now and we're just arguing in circles. Fairness is totally a relevant factor when it comes to these policies. You think corporations get taxed because it results in some mythical pursuit of efficiency and *not* because we want public kickbacks via taxes?
you're trying your hardest to drag me into arguing about objectives. We tax the corporations and the rich to make life less shit for the poor, sure. Among other reasons. The corporations and the rich can also grow the economy if properly directed (or neglected). There's a balance to be struck, and neither of us knows exactly what it is. I don't give a shit about the welfare of a legal construct, which is why I don't think fairness makes any sense when corporations are just constructs. "They" don't benefit from anything the way an individual does, so any comparison is apples and oranges
>It's not just education, that's a strawman. Having a UBI for kids that can be used as investment for future college education is way cheaper and better than just waving away a bunch of college debt or pretending like poor families will get that education. Unless you want to put college level financial education into highschool curriculum. But hey, you apparently don't think very highly of my college education on the matter so really I don't know what standard that should be held to.
let's address the absurd administrative bloat and silly expenses on facilities before trying to spend even more
>Of course not, but it's a life style thing and a leading thing. When the economy crashed in 2008 I had a rude awakening as a software engineer
not gonna quote the rest because character limit. I didn't need paranoia. The moment I started handling my own money I made sure any money I saved was done so effectively. Why would anyone put away thousands in an account they know nothing about? Genuine question since you did it
>flag
>commie gook subhuman
checks out
it's not a Social Credit System, it's a social CURRENCY.
you earn a new form of currency for doing things that would normally not earn you money, caring for elderly parents, mothers caring for newborn children. it would be a new digital currency. please get your facts straight before trying to discredit Yang with racist arguments. also that meme is so bad you must be a dnc shill
>Again you were exposed to things in your life that afforded you that ability to dick around on a saturday about a subject you knew existed from other sources. Most don't have that luxury or freetime to waste it fucking around on investopedia
>people don't have 10 free hours over the course of years
seriously? It doesn't need to be all at once. Read about REITs while you're on the bus. Read about the difference between Roth and traditional IRAs on your lunch break. Everyone has free time and what I said just now actually resembles how I learned. I never sat down for hours to do it, I just said you could do it as a hyperbolic example
>There's a massive difference between expecting the government to have a safety net installed for when you fall compared to the government giving you the safety net before you fall and expect you to set it up correctly. It's a nanny state that makes your decisions for you and you are counting on the government to help, as opposed to the government purely being mechanism for giving people an equal opportunity that they have to use correctly and have no one to blame but themselves for their inadequacy.
fair enough, though any form of welfare decreases the consequences for bad/dumb actions and seems like it would decrease responsibility. I'll at the very least agree that it is distinct from other welfare (and better)
>is the new AOC on Jow Forums
in the sense that he is being shilled in a similar way, yes. He is less retarded, though more dangerous because he passes the smell test
I'd like to see more specific proposals because this sounds extremely convoluted
>that meme is so bad you must be a dnc shill
kek
>no dude, it's totally cool
Yeah, no brah, you can call it the "Shiny happy good citizen helping others and making a difference program" all you want, but you're not fooling anyone.
You and the DNC get the rope.
>let's address the absurd administrative bloat and silly expenses on facilities before trying to spend even more
I don't think it will ever be feasible to take away a lot of things like social security, minimum wage, etc *first* and then implement a UBI next. Like I said earlier a fair tax system is a totally realistic measure to start off small and gradually reduce programs.
not gonna quote the rest because character limit. I didn't need paranoia. The moment I started handling my own money I made sure any money I saved was done so effectively. Why would anyone put away thousands in an account they know nothing about? Genuine question since you did it
Because it was my first job, i did a "medium risk" plan that was in the vanguard portfolio and then 3 years later loss most of that. When you're told in a poor family that houses always appreciate and markets always go up, its just something you do and expect it to work out.
>seriously? It doesn't need to be all at once. Read about REITs while you're on the bus. Read about the difference between Roth and traditional IRAs on your lunch break. Everyone has free time and what I said just now actually resembles how I learned. I never sat down for hours to do it, I just said you could do it as a hyperbolic example
You're expecting people to know about these things to even read up on them in the first place. To quote colin powel, things you don't know that you don't know
>I don't think it will ever be feasible to take away a lot of things like social security, minimum wage, etc *first* and then implement a UBI next. Like I said earlier a fair tax system is a totally realistic measure to start off small and gradually reduce programs.
yeah I was talking about universities my friend. We spend way more because of thinks like groundskeepers, gender and diversity staff, student unions and so on. They added almost nothing to my college experience and certainly added nothing to my education. Cut the fat then talk about subsidizing people who want to use it
>Because it was my first job, i did a "medium risk" plan that was in the vanguard portfolio and then 3 years later loss most of that. When you're told in a poor family that houses always appreciate and markets always go up, its just something you do and expect it to work out.
my parents told me absolutely nothing about finance without me asking (and I did that as an adult). I didn't learn how much my parents made, how their savings were structured, how much equity they had in their house, etc until I was 19. To be fair I wasn't told anything misleading either I suppose
>You're expecting people to know about these things to even read up on them in the first place. To quote colin powel, things you don't know that you don't know
See I still disagree. My research started with credit cards because I was applying for one. Then interest rates, then mortgages, and so on until I had a generally well-rounded financial 'education'. If you're saying learning about credit cards before applying for one is too high a standard then I have no clue what to say
Investopedia in particular is easy reading and often has links to other articles. No need to know REITs exist if they're mentioned in an article about diversification. You're making a lot of excuses for what amounts to laziness. Ignorance doesn't exist in a vacuum
>All money will go back into the economy
Why not just redistribute all money then.
>More effective than welfare
Why not replace welfare altogether. We didn't always have to rely on welfare for money during hard times.
youtube.com
oh and markets do always go up. That's just qualified with the fact that it always goes up over long periods like a decade. In the scheme of things a decade isn't very long. You are either still working because you're young and don't need the savings anyway or you're old and have a large enough portfolio that you can sell off bonds and shit until the market turns around. Of course if you are less employable (not necessarily through any fault of your own) it's very possible that your savings might be wiped out and there's nothing you can do. This is a problem but I don't think UBI is the solution
my father got a meme degree and started working as a door to door salesman of printers iirc. He never got a job because of his degree so he may as well have just graduated high school. He still managed to save enough to bleed money for 10 years while my sister and I went through high school and college and still have enough to retire in his mid 60s. He didn't inherit anything either. I don't buy into this helpless poor people narrative. My father's family was dirt poor and he managed to become middle class. I started at lower middle class and am now on track to be a millionaire by 50 if I don't go full retard or get cancer
dont talk or vote if u don't know economics.. like srsly, don't comment if ur not above an IQ threshold.
Don't worry this zipperhead never will be president.
Make it so. Based Andrew
>Annually this is 3.6 trillion dollars
he's so smart! let's meme him /pol!!!! he totally has a chance to get elected and we're basically at star trek levels of technology so let's do it!!!!!!
Has Everyone learned nothing from Native American Reservations, when we give away money why would anyone work when it's being handed to you, why do people say that you never leave the Rez why do natives have the most drug abuse
Trump wins