$1000
Yes, $1000 would be the new $0. Literally worth nothing.
>1k =0
Sadly we're already there.
In fact it's not just minimum wage either, any attempt to force money to have different value through policy always fails because the market always re-balances this interference. So minimum wage doesn't work, that's why minimum wage has to go up every few years because all that value is inflated away. But it also doesn't work with redistribution through taxing people.
Most countries have a progressive tax system where you pay a greater percentage of tax the more you earn, but most businesses in those countries have a progressive wage system as well. When you're a newbie and you're earning £18,000 you might expect your next raise to be maybe £500-£1,000. But when you're a director on say £50,000 then your next raise is more likely to be £5,000-£10,000.
Businesses have to increase incentives for staff who are more productive or they leave, and employees don't care about what they're paid before tax, they care about their take home after tax and that's how raises are decided.
Redistributing money cannot work, in a relatively free economy all that happens is it all re-balances through market forces, normally inside a few years and you're right back where you started. All that offering money to people does is buy votes.
Do companies raise prices when taxes get cut?
Their margins increase so they gain in the end even if the sticker isn't raised. Do they CUT prices when they get a tax break? Oh fuck no.
If the tax cuts lower their bottom line and increase their profits then the tendency is to LOWER prices. Because most of the time these business operate in a competitive market, they're not in isolation and competing with another business means lower your prices to undercut them. Or sometimes that additional profit is invested into making the product better so maybe the price stays the same but the gambit is, we'll sell more if we offer a better product so do some market research and then some R&D and all that stuff to improve.
It's not so much prices will go up. Jewish landlords will know you are $1000 fun bucks richer and will raise your rent $1000 dollars.
>Poor people don't want more money,
The problem is they do. I completely agree that what's needed is more value, but the average person doesn't think this through thouroughly.
This is why people are freaking out so badly about Trump vs. China. They aren't interested in looking at any kind of long term plan.
The number of Americans who would qualify for the plan is, ballpark, around 210 million. At $12,000 a year that works out to be $2.5 trillion in spending, just on this one program. Social Security ($1.1 trillion), Medicare ($680 billion), and Medicaid ($420 billion) are all part of mandatory spending and don't change under Yang's proposal. Interest on the national debt ($500 billion) is also mandatory.
If you're counting, that puts us at $5.2 trillion just with Yang's UBI plan and the four largest mandatory spending costs, and it's already double the total mandatory spending costs outlined in the FY2020 budget. That's not including a single cent for the other mandatory programs (~$600 billion), defense, education, energy, science, infrastructure, agriculture, housing, etc. If discretionary spending were locked, you'd be looking at a total budget in the neighborhood of about $7.2 trillion. If you gutted discretionary spending by half (which would be cause for open, armed rebellion in most counties), you could get it to just over $6.5 trillion.
The notion that UBI will "pay for itself" is laughable and the idea that this will accomplish anything but completely sinking the US economy for the sake of gibs is ludicrous.