Jump to content
WillFranklin

So Who Are We Going To Support In 2020?

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, WillFranklin said:

 

My primary concern is health care.

 

And yes let's focus on the poor equally.

 

Biden and Warren have good ideas. Biden would make Medicaid more accessible. That's in his plan.

 

Nobody I check posts how Bernie's Medicare For All would handle current Medicaid recipients though. I want to know how they are rolling those folks in. Would they start having premiums, and deductibles, for example?

 

The ACA's biggest deal was offering up Medicaid dollars from the Federal Government, and yet sadly too many Republican Governors refused it. I think the ACA was a great thing.

And I also believe it was only a first step.

 

Peace!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, TheOldBarn said:

I grew up in the sixties, my oldest sister was the fist in our family to go to college. She is a retired high school principle. She's seventy five now. I've seen some change and then you go back again. It's a fight always, this isn't anything new. The right always leads with big fear campaigns. Just you watch, they will do it again and again. Most folks are not slackers. What you get

with immigrants trying to get into this country is blow back from colonialism - archaic hegemony perpetrated solely for greed.

 

The immigrants come here and work hard.

 

I am a retired teacher and only fifty years old. I am working part time in retirement and love what I do.

 

I just worry about health care. I need to make sure my coverage is right.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, WillFranklin said:

 

The immigrants come here and work hard.

 

I am a retired teacher and only fifty years old. I am working part time in retirement and love what I do.

 

I just worry about health care. I need to make sure my coverage is right.

 

 

I posted this earlier. I think it's important to understand the hidden cost.

 

Are Voters Willing to Pay 18 Percent of GDP on Health Care?

JON WALKER

AUGUST 7, 2019

The raw numbers behind the Medicare for All debate

 
ap_19212040272340.jpg?itok=05MNTnW4
Paul Sancya/AP Images

South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg, Senator Bernie Sanders, and Senator Elizabeth Warren participate in a Democratic presidential primary debate on July 30, 2019, in Detroit. 

 

One thing American health care does very well is hide what we actually pay for care, and most of the Democrats running for president actually want to keep it that way. The most important question in the Medicare for All debate is whether they have a point.

The Peterson-Kaiser Health System Tracker created a useful tool to highlight this. It estimates that, for the typical single worker making $50,000, out-of-pocket care, premiums, and state and federal taxes for health care, combined with what their employer spends on premiums, totals $11,500. Even that underestimates the total figure, since it doesn’t count other types of insurance (homeowner, auto, workers’ compensation) whose premiums are higher than they would be due to medical liability. Still, the number represents over one-fifth of the median income, which shouldn’t be surprising, since nearly 18 percent of our gross domestic product (GDP) is spent on health care.

The double-edged sword for Medicare for All is that it inherently makes this hidden cost mostly public. Without employers paying insurance premiums, and with out-of-pocket costs eliminated in favor of up-front direct taxes, the full weight of health care spending becomes immediately visible. Backers believe making this cost public can potentially make how we decide to pay it much fairer. But it also can make people angry.

Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are hoping for a two-step process for success: First, make the hidden cost well known, and then get people to accept large new taxes, since they will manage to come in lower than the hidden costs. Sanders summed up the message in last week’s presidential debate: “Yes, they will pay more in taxes, but less in health care for what they get.”

Everyone else in the field assumes that this strategy is either impossible or foolish. They think the only path forward is to play games to keep the hidden costs hidden. 

In the debate, Joe Biden claimed, “My plan costs $750 billion. That’s what it costs. Not $30 trillion.” Importantly, his plan would not result in less national health care spending than Sanders’s, or in the average individual paying less on health care overall.

In addition, by effectively nationalizing a large portion of Medicaid, billions of dollars would move onto the federal budget under Biden’s plan. And if the Congressional Budget Office follows its past practice and counts premium payments to the public option as federal revenue and claims payments as expenditures, hundreds of billions more dollars would surface, especially if his public option is as good as he is promising. This could result in an “official” number much larger than the $750 billion Biden is claiming. Even an allegedly modest plan like Biden’s, which tries to hide its costs, would inevitably reveal them.

Similarly, in the debate Beto O’Rourke claimed, “The middle class will not pay more in taxes in order to ensure that every American is guaranteed world-class health care.” This is technically true of the plan he supports, Medicare for America. But the bill requires you to pay an income-adjusted “premium” up to 8 percent to the public option or a private insurer, and requires your employer to spend a set amount on your insurance or pay the government an 8 percent payroll fee. Together this would approximate what workers currently pay for health insurance. And for most people choosing the Medicare option, the income-based premium they send the government would be pretty close to what they would pay through Sanders’s proposed 7.5 percent employer payroll tax.

In one of the debate’s most honest moments, Pete Buttigieg answered the question of raising taxes to pay for his health care plan this way: “Look, this is a distinction without a difference, whether you’re paying the same money in the form of taxes or premiums.” Yet it should be noted that his plan very purposely calls the payment a premium, leaning on our current structure.

The general hope is that, by requiring the astronomical sums spent currently on health care to be redirected to the new system using the same terminology and cost structure, what is now hidden can remain hidden. Whether the media, or importantly the CBO, will play along is a big question.

Kamala Harris’s recent break with Sanders on health care can mainly be attributed to coming to the political conclusion that trying to educate the public about what they really pay for health care is too difficult. Her decision to build a ten-year phase-in for her plan allows her to claim that it “will decrease the overall cost of the program compared to the Sanders proposal.” But this does not make her plan any less expensive once fully implemented. It just puts full implementation just outside the CBO’s ten-year cost estimate window.

Harris also claims her plan doesn’t have a tax or premium on those making under $100,000 a year. But the ten-year phase-in means that, during the budget window, her plan will heavily rely on covering people via what she called the “buy-in provided in Senator Sanders’s Medicare for All bill.” Well, that buy-in option requires people to pay a significant income-based premium.

The big question among Democrats is whether trying to hide costs actually works.

While Sanders has learned from other countries about how to design a health care system, it is possible his opponents better learned the lesson about the politics of health care financing. Voters abroad don’t have to tolerate spending so much on care.

Canada has a pure single-payer system for basic care, with strong province-level control. Last year, it spent 10.7 percent of GDP on health care. Japan’s system has significant cost-sharing for care and uses a complex mix of employer-paid funds and local public programs. They spend 10.9 percent of GDP. Australia has its own Medicare for All to cover everyone, combined with a large private insurance system that the government encourages people to spend their own money on if they think it is worth it for faster care or more provider choice. They spend 9.3 percent of GDP. The United Kingdom, Denmark, Sweden, and Norway all have socialized medicine with tiny private-insurance markets. They all spend between 9.8 percent and11 percent of GDP.

American health care spending was comparable to international norms until the early 1980s. In 1975, President Nixon’s health care cost controls were lifted. Soon after, the medical industry defeated President Carter’s proposed hospital cost-containment legislation. While most industrialized countries were adopting price controls, government-run hospitals, or stronger standardization for private insurance, the United States under President Reagan embraced deregulation. Now, despite the United States’ relatively low levels of utilization, we spend roughly 18 percent of GDP on health care, mainly due to the extremely high prices drugmakers and providers charge private insurers.

In all health care systems, people have some modest complaints: cost-sharing in Japan, lower-than-average doctor salaries in Sweden, lack of public drug coverage in Canada, lack of coverage for certain expensive medications in the U.K., etc. Almost all of these complaints could be addressed by upping government spending on health care by 2 percent to 3 percent of GDP, but that isn’t happening. It seems across countries and types of health systems, as long as the government is actively paying a role in determining overall spending there is a remarkably consistent view of how much spending voters think is acceptable. And the United States missed the boat in the early 1980s when we embraced deregulation, leading to a rapidly growing health care industry full of for-profit entities with more money and political clout.

Replacing all these hidden health care costs with government revenue requires large taxes that voters immediately notice. When Vermont explored single-payer a few years ago, the funding mechanism for the state’s share would have included an 11.5 percent payroll tax plus an income-scaled premium of up to 9.5 percent. Vermont is a small enough state that Bernie Sanders, its pro-single-payer governor, and its numerous pro-single-payer state legislators could have gone individually to every citizen to make the case that these large taxes only replace current private spending. Yet these large numbers played a major role in killing support for the plan.

This, I think, is the biggest challenge for Medicare for All. Even if you can fully educate the public about our current hidden costs, instead of embracing the large taxes needed to shift spending onto government budgets, voters might simply reject any plan that consciously chooses to spend at such a high level. It might seem irrational, but quietly ignoring how much you are being ripped off likely feels better than consciously voting to keep being ripped off.

One way to deal with this problem is to have Medicare for All dramatically cut prices charged by providers. It would actually be possible to provide universal health care without any new middle-class taxes while getting rid of all premiums and deductibles if we were willing to cut U.S. prices to Canada/Belgium/Netherlands levels. Yet effectively no one in the single-payer movement is calling for this. In fact, Sanders, Warren, and everyone else in the field has actively gone out of their way to avoid talking about our insane hospital prices.

This has left primary candidates with an interesting choice. Do they try to sneakily redirect our current hidden spending into a better public system? Or do they peel back the curtain, hoping that Americans will actively support a level of government spending unacceptable to voters anywhere else? Much of the contentiousness you see on the debate stage reflects this problem, because pushing either one of the strategies makes the other harder.

 

Many people worry about single-payer, because the truth is complicated. We pay too much and not everyone is covered. Why is it that the US pays so much more than most other countries and has so many people who can't afford good healthcare?

I think that is a good question to ask - Warren Buffet

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

8 minutes ago, TheOldBarn said:

I posted this earlier. I think it's important to understand the hidden cost.

 

Are Voters Willing to Pay 18 Percent of GDP on Health Care?

JON WALKER

AUGUST 7, 2019

 

 

Very informative.

 

Would you believe I want more information?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Biden the Gaffe Machine may be the humor I need for this whole thing.

 

I just need to lighten up.

 

This whole ride could be a lot of fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really like Andrew Yang's vision for America.  He lays it all out, very clearly, on his website

https://www.yang2020.com/policies/

Like other candidates, if elected, his work would just be getting started, pursuing his agenda.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, bludog said:

I really like Andrew Yang's vision for America.  He lays it all out, very clearly, on his website

https://www.yang2020.com/policies/

Like other candidates, if elected, his work would just be getting started, pursuing his agenda.

 

YES! The Freedom Dividend!

 

LOVE IT!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/10/2019 at 10:08 PM, TheOldBarn said:

I posted this earlier. I think it's important to understand the hidden cost.

 

Are Voters Willing to Pay 18 Percent of GDP on Health Care?

JON WALKER

AUGUST 7, 2019

The raw numbers behind the Medicare for All debate

 
ap_19212040272340.jpg?itok=05MNTnW4
Paul Sancya/AP Images

South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg, Senator Bernie Sanders, and Senator Elizabeth Warren participate in a Democratic presidential primary debate on July 30, 2019, in Detroit. 

f.

One way to deal with this problem is to have Medicare for All dramatically cut prices charged by providers. It would actually be possible to provide universal health care without any new middle-class taxes while getting rid of all premiums and deductibles if we were willing to cut U.S. prices to Canada/Belgium/Netherlands levels. Yet effectively no one in the single-payer movement is calling for this. In fact, Sanders, Warren, and everyone else in the field has actively gone out of their way to avoid talking about our insane hospital prices.

This has left primary candidates with an interesting choice. Do they try to sneakily redirect our current hidden spending into a better public system? Or do they peel back the curtain, hoping that Americans will actively support a level of government spending unacceptable to voters anywhere else? Much of the contentiousness you see on the debate stage reflects this problem, because pushing either one of the strategies makes the other harder.

 

Many people worry about single-payer, because the truth is complicated. We pay too much and not everyone is covered. Why is it that the US pays so much more than most other countries and has so many people who can't afford good healthcare?

I think that is a good question to ask - Warren Buffet

 

 

 

 

one way to cut costs down is to examine how much the drug companies charge and how to improve those numbers. warren supports that too,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, WillFranklin said:

 

YES! The Freedom Dividend!

 

LOVE IT!

 

Yang has a detailed, comprehensive agenda.  It's all laid out on his website and it fits together like a crossword puzzle.  He explains what he would like to accomplish in detail and gives well thought out rationales.  And at each stage, explains how it will be paid for ...  No stone is left unturned.

His site is like a progressive jigsaw puzzle ...  assembled.

It's a great read    https://www.yang2020.com/policies/

 

Yang is definitely attracting attention despite how little time he got in the first two debates.  It's unclear how far he can go, but he has qualified for the third debate and should get more time on-air than previously. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, bludog said:

Yang is definitely attracting attention despite how little time he got in the first two debates.  It's unclear how far he can go, but he has qualified for the third debate and should get more time on-air than previously. 

 

Awesome.  I thought he had a great second debate.  I perceive him as sharper than Biden and less angry/emotional than Sanders and Warren.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, bludog said:

 

Yang has a detailed, comprehensive agenda.  It's all laid out on his website and it fits together like a crossword puzzle.  He explains what he would like to accomplish in detail and gives well thought out rationales.  And at each stage, explains how it will be paid for ...  No stone is left unturned.

His site is like a progressive jigsaw puzzle ...  assembled.

It's a great read    https://www.yang2020.com/policies/

 

Yang is definitely attracting attention despite how little time he got in the first two debates.  It's unclear how far he can go, but he has qualified for the third debate and should get more time on-air than previously. 

 

If the Freedom Divided ever catches on GOOD DEAL!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/14/2019 at 2:59 PM, bludog said:

I really like Andrew Yang's vision for America.  He lays it all out, very clearly, on his website

https://www.yang2020.com/policies/

Like other candidates, if elected, his work would just be getting started, pursuing his agenda.

Here is a good comparison regarding the Free Trade the US Corporations currently bargain for and Trade that Northern European Countries actually enjoy. One thing to keep in mind about the stock market in the US is that it has nothing to do with the economic picture regarding US jobs and what most folks encounter in their daily lives.

The people who invest the most in the stock market do so only in regards to corporate profits. It doesn't mean anything if that Corporation lays off more workers, or pays their workers less.

The only thing that matters is that corporations profits - now, today, and possibly not too far off into the future. 

Trade policy in the US wasn't ever dumb like Trump likes to state. It is always incredibly smart regarding profit and that means protecting intellectual property - not yours or mine, not the government as a whole, but that of the Corporation to the benefit of their shareholders.

 

https://prospect.org/article/trade-war-anomaly-why-northern-europe-sells-more-china-proportionally-we-do

 

And yes, I like Andrew Yang too. I'm not at all sure a UBI would work now, or if it is even necessary at this juncture in time, but I'm not saying it would not place demand in the hands of the people who struggle just to get by. Basic economics holds that when you have a tax cut that puts money into the hands of people that will spend it, you have then, created demand.

When you give money to the rich, it bolsters the stock market, where the richest invest, and as we've seen, the corporations do their utmost to give it right back to their biggest shareholders 

immediately with only a very modest trickle downward that never lasts.

 

Peace!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/16/2019 at 10:12 PM, TheOldBarn said:

 

Good article.

 

On 8/16/2019 at 10:12 PM, TheOldBarn said:

And yes, I like Andrew Yang too.

 

Yang's UBI might be extremely hard to implement, even with a Democrat-controlled Congress.  And if it should be passed into law, it would probably be challenged by multiple law suits and, most likely be struck down by the Conservative-dominated Supreme Court.  So, in the President Yang political atmosphere of the near future, the only way to make it happen would be through constitutional amendment.  In that scenario, the legislatures of at least 38 states would need to ratify a UBI to make it an amendment.  But, stranger things have happened.

 

On 8/16/2019 at 10:12 PM, TheOldBarn said:

I'm not at all sure a UBI would work now, or if it is even necessary at this juncture in time,

 

Why not?  See below.

 

On 8/16/2019 at 10:12 PM, TheOldBarn said:

but I'm not saying it would not place demand in the hands of the people who struggle just to get by. Basic economics holds that when you have a tax cut that puts money into the hands of people that will spend it, you have then, created demand.

When you give money to the rich, it bolsters the stock market, where the richest invest, and as we've seen, the corporations do their utmost to give it right back to their biggest shareholders 

 

Yang's UBI would have enormous benefits.  By creating demand, it would give industry a huge boost.  And it would do much to reverse the wealth gap which has been accumulating for the last 40 years.  And it would set a precedent for a near future in which robots dominate the labor pool.  So $12,000 a year should be just a starting number, to be adjusted as conditions change.

 

Social Problems Addressed By A Universal Basic Income:

-  Many American stuck in the wrong jobs because of a need to survive would be able to consider other options.

-  Due to automation, Americans are working harder for less.

-  Gives aid to 40 million Americans living below the poverty line.

-  Those living above the poverty line are empowered to contribute more to a create a robust consumer economy.

-  Many Americans would be freed up to take care of a child or sick loved one.  Or do volunteer work.

-  Technology is quickly displacing a large number of workers, and the pace will only increase as automation and other forms of artificial intelligence become more     advanced.  One third of American workers will lose their jobs to automation by 2030. This has the potential to destabilize our economy and society if unaddressed.

 

Here is a comprehensive explanation of the Freedom Dividend, on Yang's website, including how it will be paid for.

https://www.yang2020.com/what-is-freedom-dividend-faq/

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

KAMALA HARRIS NO LONGER SUPPORTS BERNIE SANDERS' MEDICARE FOR ALL PLAN

Quote

 

California Senator and 2020 presidential candidate Kamala Harris is backing away from Medicare for All, just two years after she co-sponsored the bill in the Senate.

 

Speaking at a Hamptons fundraiser to corporate executives and one-percenters, Harris explained that she has "not been comfortable" with the healthcare plan written by her 2020 competitor Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders.

 

"I think almost every member of the United States Senate who's running for President and many others, have signed on to a variety of plans in the Senate. And I have done the same," she said at the fundraiser, according to her campaign. "[A]ll of them are good ideas, which is why I support them. And I support Medicare for All. But as you may have noticed, over the course of many months, I've not been comfortable with Bernie's plan, the Medicare for All plan."

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This may be a problem for Biden:

 

Poll: Dems more likely to support candidate who backs Medicare for All over fixing Obamacare

As the Democratic presidential field continues to grapple with plans to address health care, a significant majority of Democratic voters are more likely to back a 2020 primary candidate who supports “Medicare for All” than building on the Affordable Care Act, a new poll found.

 

According the POLITICO/Morning Consult poll out Wednesday, 65 percent of Democratic primary voters would be more likely to support a candidate who wants to institute a single-payer health care system like Medicare for All; 13 percent said they’d be less likely to back a candidate based on that support.

 

“Democrats are increasingly more inclined to back a 2020 candidate who supports Medicare for All versus revamping Obamacare,” said Tyler Sinclair, Morning Consult’s vice president. “In January, 57 percent of Democrats said they would be more likely to vote for a candidate who backs a Medicare for All health system over expanding the Affordable Care Act. That number has now risen to 65 percent.”

 

Biden’s front-runner status thus far has come close to being threatened by only Sens. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, two of the most vocal proponents of Medicare for All, while some of the idea’s most vocal detractors have failed to gain traction in the race or have already dropped out.

 

Meanwhile, Sen. Kamala Harris’ faltering in recent polls has coincided with greater scrutiny and wavering when it comes to the role of private insurers in a potential Harris administration. Her plan has drawn criticism from both ends of the spectrum even as it’s been praised by health policy experts and former Obama administration officials.

 

Overall, 53 percent of voters support Medicare for All, though fewer — 45 percent — say a candidate’s support for Medicare for All would make them more likely to vote for that candidate in a general election over one who would prioritize improving on Obamacare. The survey suggests a level of public support for single-payer health care that could take some sting out of Republicans’ plans to make Medicare for All a four-letter word they can wield against Democrats up and down the ballot in 2020.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Biden's health care plan is lacking. Medicaid for Workers With Disabilities ends at age 65 currently and that coverage gap mostly remains in Biden' s plan. He left workers out.

 

I am hoping for transformational change on health care.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/20/2019 at 10:25 AM, bludog said:

 

Good article.

 

 

Yang's UBI might be extremely hard to implement, even with a Democrat-controlled Congress.  And if it should be passed into law, it would probably be challenged by multiple law suits and, most likely be struck down by the Conservative-dominated Supreme Court.  So, in the President Yang political atmosphere of the near future, the only way to make it happen would be through constitutional amendment.  In that scenario, the legislatures of at least 38 states would need to ratify a UBI to make it an amendment.  But, stranger things have happened.

 

 

Why not?  See below.

 

 

Yang's UBI would have enormous benefits.  By creating demand, it would give industry a huge boost.  And it would do much to reverse the wealth gap which has been accumulating for the last 40 years.  And it would set a precedent for a near future in which robots dominate the labor pool.  So $12,000 a year should be just a starting number, to be adjusted as conditions change.

 

Social Problems Addressed By A Universal Basic Income:

-  Many American stuck in the wrong jobs because of a need to survive would be able to consider other options.

-  Due to automation, Americans are working harder for less.

-  Gives aid to 40 million Americans living below the poverty line.

-  Those living above the poverty line are empowered to contribute more to a create a robust consumer economy.

-  Many Americans would be freed up to take care of a child or sick loved one.  Or do volunteer work.

-  Technology is quickly displacing a large number of workers, and the pace will only increase as automation and other forms of artificial intelligence become more     advanced.  One third of American workers will lose their jobs to automation by 2030. This has the potential to destabilize our economy and society if unaddressed.

 

Here is a comprehensive explanation of the Freedom Dividend, on Yang's website, including how it will be paid for.

https://www.yang2020.com/what-is-freedom-dividend-faq/

 

I like Yang, but like many in Silicon Valley these days, he preaches on and on about technology stealing away jobs. While this is partly true, actual productivity rates have remained flat since the 1980's. If technology starts spilling over and taking more jobs, wouldn't that require capital investment - and yet we don't see that. 

In the past, when productivity is raised, wage growth follows. We've seen some wage growth as of late, however, inequality is currently very high in the US. 

 

I like the idea of a BI for a lot of folks at the bottom rung, because yes, it helps drive the economy by putting money that will be spent for living back into the economy. But the problem is how do you pay for a UBI, and then will it be enough to allow for the massive spending that is required today to rebuild our infrastructure - chiefly what is required now is a new energy grid

which is vital to fight off climate change. And then of course the mitigation of climate change that is too late to stop. 

I think universal healthcare done rightly actually saves money for this country. I also think we need to rethink patent law.

 

So I like Yang - but I'd like some debate on how to pay for a UBI - or if a BI would be a better way to go. I of course feel that by granting a BI you are not paying for someone not to work. Instead you are giving them a lift up. 

 

And along those terms - we do not spend enough as a percentage of our GDP. Now today, while the federal debt is high, we are ahead of the curve compared to most countries. We have very low interest rates and the payment on the debt is almost as low as it was in the fifties and sixties. I like the idea of a financial transaction tax, I like the idea of a lot of taxes pulled from the top, and tax cuts for the people just getting by. 

 

John Maynard Keynes was right... The EU took the opposite approach after the great recession in 2008. And in the US, we should have spent more. Dumb tax cuts for the rich don't ever work. Supply-side economics is a revisionist theory at best. It don't work, no way, no how.

 

The EU did the worst thing by employing mandated spending cuts in places like Greece, Italy and Spain. Now Germany is asking more countries to do their fair share - what, become consumers when you have no balance in trade? How are you supposed to get out of debt if you can't produce? I like olive oil. I like olive oil a lot.

 

Here is a great article I just read in the New Yorker. Great article about the history of inequality in the US - the book, the Economist Hour, sounds like a good read.

This is why I support Warren, and I also support Sanders, because they are right in my opinion!

 

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/09/02/the-rich-cant-get-richer-forever-can-they

 

Peace!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, TheOldBarn said:

So I like Yang - but I'd like some debate on how to pay for a UBI - or if a BI would be a better way to go. I of course feel that by granting a BI you are not paying for someone not to work. Instead you are giving them a lift up.  

 

Please read Andrew Yang's website.  It's a great read.  He leaves no stone unturned.

 

Your answer below.

Quote

How would we pay for the Freedom Dividend?

It would be easier than you might think. Andrew proposes funding the Freedom Dividend by consolidating some welfare programs and implementing a Value-Added Tax (VAT) of 10%. Current welfare and social program beneficiaries would be given a choice between their current benefits or $1,000 cash unconditionally – most would prefer cash with no restriction.

A Value-Added Tax (VAT) is a tax on the production of goods or services a business produces. It is a fair tax and it makes it much harder for large corporations, who are experts at hiding profits and income, to avoid paying their fair share. A VAT is nothing new. 160 out of 193 countries in the world already have a Value-Added Tax or something similar, including all of Europe which has an average VAT of 20 percent.

The means to pay for the Freedom Dividend will come from 4 sources:

1.  Current spending.  We currently spend between $500 and $600 billion a year on welfare programs, food stamps, disability and the like.  This reduces the cost of the Freedom Dividend because people already receiving benefits would have a choice but would be ineligible to receive the full $1,000 in addition to current benefits.

Additionally, we currently spend over one trillion dollars on health care, incarceration, homelessness services and the like.  We would save $100 – 200+ billion as people would take better care of themselves and avoid the emergency room, jail, and the street and would generally be more functional.  The Freedom Dividend would pay for itself by helping people avoid our institutions, which is when our costs shoot up.  Some studies have shown that $1 to a poor parent will result in as much as $7 in cost-savings and economic growth.

2.  A VAT.  Our economy is now incredibly vast at $19 trillion, up $4 trillion in the last 10 years alone.  A VAT at half the European level would generate $800 billion in new revenue.  A VAT will become more and more important as technology improves because you cannot collect income tax from robots or software.

3.  New revenue.  Putting money into the hands of American consumers would grow the economy.  The Roosevelt Institute projected that the economy would grow by approximately $2.5 trillion and create 4.6 million new jobs.  This would generate approximately $800 – 900 billion in new revenue from economic growth and activity.

4.  Taxes on top earners and pollution.  By removing the Social Security cap, implementing a financial transactions tax, and ending the favorable tax treatment for capital gains/carried interest, we can decrease financial speculation while also funding the Freedom Dividend.  We can add to that a carbon fee that will be partially dedicated to funding the Freedom Dividend, making up the remaining balance required to cover the cost of this program.

 

 

However, he has far more to say than how it would be paid for:---

Wouldn’t the VAT just get passed on to consumers, “cancelling out” the UBI?

What is the Freedom Dividend?

Why does Andrew Yang want to implement the Freedom Dividend in America?

Who would get the Freedom Dividend in Andrew Yang’s plan?

How would we pay for the Freedom Dividend?

What are the benefits of the Freedom Dividend?

Would it stack with Social Security or Veteran’s Disability benefits?

Is there evidence to support the case for the Freedom Dividend?

I’ve never heard of the Freedom Dividend and Universal Basic Income. Where did it come from? Who supports it?

Why do we need the Freedom Dividend now?

 

Go on Yang's website and you can click on any one of these headings for a detailed explanation.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...