Name: There is No Policy Proposal More Progressive than Andrew Yangs Freedom Dividend
Uploaded: 2020-01-12T19:01:11.000Z
Duration: 27 min 47 s
Description: Thousands of YouTube videos with English-Chinese subtitles! Now you can learn to understand native speakers, expand your vocabulary, and improve your pronunciation...

There is No Policy Proposal by Any 2020 Presidential Candidate More Progressive than Andrew Yang's

Primary season has begun and as Trump marches toward a possible second term, a list of Democrats

over 20-candidates-long is vying for the honor of being the one who prevents that from happening.

One of those candidates, Andrew Yang, has proposed a universal basic income of $1,000

per month that he calls a “Freedom Dividend.”

As a longtime advocate of UBI, I have something to say about this, and the details of his

This article is meant to be a detailed response to anyone claiming Yang “doesn't care

about the poor,” or that “a VAT makes the UBI regressive,” or that Yang's plan

“increases inequality” and is a “neoliberal Trojan horse meant to destroy the safety net.”

The reality is that while Yang's proposal can certainly be improved, if signed into

law as proposed, the Freedom Dividend would be the single most progressive policy advance

ever signed into law in American history.

To understand why this is true, we need to dive into the details, so here we go…

The Freedom Dividend as proposed is an unconditional cash transfer of $1,000 per month that would

go to every American citizen age 18 and up.

The dividend is unconditional in that it carries no requirements, including any of the typical

work requirements imposed on standard benefits.

Do you have to prove you're looking for a job?

You are free to use it in any way you want, to buy anything you want.

Well, there are some asterisks involved that people tend to miss, or misunderstand, and

these can spread either accidentally with no ill intent, or maliciously with the full

intent of eroding support through the spreading of disinformation.

The most common inaccuracies being spread tend to revolve around the funding and the

opt-out structure being proposed which offers people the choice of keeping their welfare

benefits or receiving $1,000 per month in basic income, whichever is preferred.

Here's a partial list of programs that people would voluntarily opt out of in order to receive

the Freedom Dividend: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), Supplemental Nutrition

Assitance (SNAP), Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), Supplemental Security Income (SSI).

These programs provide less than $1,000 per month on average, even when combined.

Here's a partial list of programs that would exist on top of the Freedom Dividend that

no one would have to opt out of: Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI)

— aka Social Security and SSDI — unemployment insurance (UI), housing assistance, VA disability.

These programs provide more than $1,000 per month on average.

For those concerned about health care, that's a separate issue.

People on Medicaid would only lose it if and when replaced by Medicare for All which is

one of Yang's two other core policy proposals alongside the Freedom Dividend and Human-Centered

As a rule of thumb, programs that are considered entitlements because they are contribution-based,

will be earned as additional income to the Freedom Dividend.

Programs that are considered welfare because they are based on low income, will mostly

be offered as an alternative to the Freedom Dividend.

As one example, Anna is a single mother receiving $336 in TANF (median for household of two)

and $247 in SNAP (average for household of two) for a total of $583 per month.

Opting for $1,000 per month instead, she would effectively get an additional $417 per month,

a 72% raise in income, unconditionally, and the conditions for her original $583 would

Question: So why provide people a choice between existing programs and the Freedom Dividend?

Consider another recipient of existing benefits.

Let's call him Tom, and he receives $750/mo in TANF and SNAP combined.

Tom is offered a job that pays $2,000/mo.

Accepting this job will mean losing his $750/mo.

His net income increase would thus be $1,250.

Now, let's say Tom opts for the Freedom Dividend instead of TANF and SNAP, and gets

Instead of $750/mo, he has $1,000/mo as a starting point that doesn't disappear with

Going from $1,000/mo to $3,000/mo is an increase of $2,000, or 200%.

Finally, let's say Tom gets to keep his TANF and SNAP on top of his Freedom Dividend

In this case, in accepting the job, he would go from $1,750 to $3,000, which is an increase

Between these three scenarios, there are three key takeaways.

First, the scenario where the Freedom Dividend is instead of TANF and SNAP results in the

Employment makes Tom in that scenario three times better off, financially speaking.

Second, the scenario with the worst incentive to work is the scenario where Tom keeps TANF

and SNAP in addition to the Freedom Dividend.

Tom actually has a better incentive to work in the scenario that exists today, than he

would with everything stacking, because his relative increase with everything stacking

Third, in the everything stacking scenario, in absolute terms, Tom is no better off than

in the pure Freedom Dividend scenario and is objectively worse off.

He still ends up with $3,000/mo, but he has to do a lot of paperwork and dehumanizing

bureaucratic hoop-jumping along the way to maintain conditions compliance.

To emphasize this point, because it needs emphasizing, those who believe the entire

existing welfare state should exist on top of the Freedom Dividend are demanding that

we make everyone's incentive to work even worse than the existing system already does.

Because people would be lifted higher with the dividend, but then dropped the same distance

upon losing their benefits as they are now, there's even less reason to accept any form

Instead of eliminating the welfare trap, it would be made into an even bigger trap.

Fewer people would earn additional income, which would only serve to reduce instead of

Subtitles ListPlay Video

There is No Policy Proposal More Progressive than Andrew Yangs Freedom Dividend

scenario

deserve

improve

average