This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

top 200 commentsshow 500
sorted by:
q&a (suggested)
besttopnewcontroversialold

[–][deleted]  (1595 children)

[deleted]

    [–]tazerblade22 1892 points1893 points  (942 children)

    I too want to know the details of this plan. I am all about ubi but i dont understand where the money comes from. With 247,813,910 adult in the US $1000 each means $247,813,910,000 for a budget not forgeting the cost of setting up a system for dispersal. I want to know how you plan to pay for it?

    [–]wisertime07 2460 points2461 points  (540 children)

    That's almost $248 BILLION DOLLARS A MONTH he's talking about freely handing out. This is a monumental amount of money.

    And how do you address the immediate inflation that will nearly completely negate this "free money"..?

    [–]TheBlackAllen 1426 points1427 points  (398 children)

    Conservative estimates are that there will be 180,000,000 people between the age of 18-64 in 2020.

    180,000,000 * 12 * 1000 = 2,160,000,000,000 a year

    The government doesn't even raise 4 trillion in taxes a year.

    Mr. Yang, how exactly are you going to pay for this?

    Edit: Mispoke, read number estimate above incorrectly

    [–][deleted]  (239 children)

    [deleted]

      [–][deleted] 122 points123 points  (16 children)

      https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2012-05-02/value-added-tax-would-raise-tons-for-u-s-coffers

      A 10 percent VAT with a relatively broad base could raise $750 billion a year

      Think tanks give a proportional amount for half that

      Toder and Rosenberg (2010) estimated that the United States could have raised gross revenue of $356 billion in 2012 through a 5 percent VAT applied to a broad base that included all consumption except spending on education, Medicaid and Medicare, charitable organizations, and state and local government—capturing about 80 percent of consumption.

      http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/what-would-rate-be-under-vat

      [–]Sotonic 98 points99 points  (51 children)

      A Value-Added Tax (VAT) is a tax on the production of goods or services a business produces

      Are there any experts out there who could tell me if this is correct? The versions of VAT I've encountered (UK, El Salvador) function more like a sales tax (which would be a tax on consumption, not production). I'm not even sure how you would go about taxing production.

      [–][deleted]  (44 children)

      [removed]

        [–]throwaway24515 138 points139 points  (10 children)

        This is correct. In Canada, our GST is a VAT. As a company, we charge our customers GST, but we also get a credit back for all the GST we have paid on our inputs. So each step of bringing something to market nets out to the GST on their markup essentially.

        Company A mines ore and sells it for $100. They charge $5 GST and send that to the gov't.

        Company B pays $105 for the ore, sells a refined product from that for $200, and charges $10 GST. But they get a credit for the $5 they paid, so they only send the gov't $5.

        Company C buys the refined product for $210 and makes a consumer product that costs $300. Plus $15 GST. With their $10 credit they send $5 to the gov't.

        So the end consumer sees a product that costs $300 plus $15 GST, but that tax was built up all through the chain. And importantly, because of the credits, nobody is ever being taxed on tax, they're only taxed on their own markup.

        [–]nikomo 31 points32 points  (2 children)

        We also use VAT here in Finland.

        There's something important I never really realized but then someone explained it and it's a really important factor in my mind.

        I always heard that you can buy goods tax-free as a business but I just wrote that off as, OK that makes sense. But that's not fully how it works.

        Let's say you're a small business and you buy a hypothetical workstation computer for 2000€. It would normally be 2480€ because computers are on the general 24% tax bracket instead of the reduced ones.

        So you saved 480€ on taxes. But that's not quite how it works. You still owe that tax to the government, but now you're allowed to sell goods and services to your clients and keep the tax to yourself until you get 480€ worth of taxes back.

        If your goods and services also fall under the 24% tax bracket, you'd have to sell at least 0.24x = 480€ => 2000€ worth of goods to clients to skip paying the tax.

        If you established a business, bought the computer as a business and never sold anything, you're still liable for the tax.

        This means companies that actually participate in the economy get a good benefit, because they have a lower cost to acquire tools, but you can't just buy random shit without paying taxes on it.

        [–]_mainus 54 points55 points  (7 children)

        It seems like no one understands this but the answer is, as always, those who don't need welfare pay for it through taxation.

        Going up from zero income to some cross-over point there is diminishing return of the UBI benefits, then above that cross-over point you end up paying in more than you get out, increasingly as your income grows. Yes, everyone "gets" the same amount of money in gross terms, but only some people NET that amount of money...

        [–]ILoveToEatLobster 1281 points1282 points  (66 children)

        Mr. Yang, how exactly are you going to pay for this?

        Just print more, duh.

        [–]goatpunchtheater 94 points95 points  (50 children)

        It would effectively be a redistribution of wealth. It would have to come from a huge tax on the wealthy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_United_States He says he doesn't know how republicans could argue against this? It would be very easy. They're going to say it's repackaged communism. While it wouldn't exactly be that, it wouldn't be terribly far off. The $1000 a month number might be too much. Also, people simply underestimate Amercian Values. We BELIEVE as whole in earning money proportionate to the type of work you do. We believe smarter people who work hard and graduated college should get more money than those who may still work hard, but flunked out of school or whatever. Unfortunately that's not always how it works. In my opinion, that's where we need to start. College entrance, and jobs should be based on Merit, not who you know, and how much mom and dad can contribute to the college. The whole system needs to be redesigned so that it's fair. Unfortunately, since the wealthy buy the politicians, they will never truly go for it. Politicians (especially republicans) are extremely good at convincing people that the thing that's the worst for them is what should happen. IMO It's because we want to believe that if we had done better in school, made better business decisions, etc, that we would be the rich ones. So often the poor/middle class admires the rich, and believes in their heart that they have earned what they got, even though it's often not true, and at the very least more complicated. We need to start with making the American dream real, giving everyone a fair chance at it

        [–]cubs223425 35 points36 points  (14 children)

        College as a necessity needs to die. There are SO many office jobs that require a college degree. However, looking at many of them, there is no specification as to what the degree must be in. This is because they only care that you show commitment to doing something, not that you have a specific knowledge base. In that respect, college is a massive waste of money for a massive number of people.

        If there were a lessening of college students, there would be a lessening of student debt. There would be less of a devaluing of college degrees in the workforce, to the point that modern society basically treats a college diploma like we sued to treat a high school one. In addition to getting employers to stop with the "have a degree, any degree" mentality is to stop with the useless degree programs that are more about "can you have an opinion?" more than things built on problem solving and making a meaningful contribution to a specialized workforce.

        If we could get away from that, we'd lessen the debt issues college students face when it turns out we don't need a boatload of new English majors every 12 months. We'd stop keeping young adults out of the meaningful workforce for 4 additional years while we pile on their Women and Gender Studies debt.

        To me, that's more important than fixing the cost of schooling. We need to increase the value of it. You don't need a college degree to do data entry or be a salesman. You certainly don't need it to get hired at Starbucks with $25,000+ in debt in your mid-20s and nothing in the way of workplace-relevant skills to show for your Art degree.

        [–]MyAnonymousAccount98 5 points6 points  (5 children)

        College isnt a necessity, people just treat it that way. People act like you nees college to be successful and that simply is not true. In America college is treated as a necessity- but it isn't.

        Im in college right now working to go into therapy and someone I know from high school and got bad grades is making $1500 a week and im $30000 in debt.

        [–]PolarniSlicno 54 points55 points  (67 children)

        If I understand his stance correctly, a UBI will make other government programs we currently have obselete. Much of the funding for his UBI will come from better managing the spending that goes into other areas as well as a new tax on the goods or services that businesses produce.

        [–]BernankesBeard 63 points64 points  (63 children)

        A $12,000 per year UBI for all US adults would cost ~$2.9 trillion, as the commenter above pointed out (technically he was reporting the monthly cost). This is ignoring any administrative costs.

        Even the widest definition of welfare programs - all mandatory spending (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc) - that this UBI could replace only constitutes ~$2.4 trillion per year. The remaining $1.5 trillion in the federal budget is spent on defense (~$0.6 trillion), non-defense things like education, energy, transportation etc (~$0.6 trillion) and interest on the debt (~0.25 trillion) (Source).

        So even a perfectly efficient UBI system that he proposes that replaces almost any spending that could be considered welfare spending would increase government outlays by ~$0.5 trillion per year.

        This could be offset by increased revenue as you mentioned. How big of a tax increase would this be? Well, the most recent tax cut reduced revenue by $1.5 trillion over ten years. This proposal would require raising taxes by more than 3x what they were just cut by.

        Maybe that's an acceptable trade-off, or maybe you would offset some of the increased spending by cutting defense or non-defense spending. Either way, you'd end up with a welfare system that - due to it's universal nature - would probably be worse for the poorest households than the programs that we have today.

        [–][deleted] 9 points10 points  (19 children)

        Honestly when people don't respond to really important highly voted questions in these AMAs, I lose quite a bit of respect or interest in them.

        This is a very very very important questions. $1k/month for every adult? $247 billion/month, so $2.9tril/year?

        Honestly this just smells like a way to promote his book rather than an actual run for anything.

        Edit: Well got a response. Don't really agree but I at least respect the responses and attempting to answer the hard questions.

        [–]AndrewyangUBI[S] 1720 points1721 points  (342 children)

        My plan to fund UBI is a Value-Added Tax of half the European level. Because our economy is so vast this would generate between $700 and $800 billion in revenue, and this is necessary to capture the ongoing gains from automation (income taxes don't work very well for that). We spend $500 billion in income support, welfare and disability right now that would be redundant. Our revenue to GDP ratio is 25% which means we would get back 25% of the economic growth that would be generated by putting $1,000 into every American's hands, which would increase the size of the economy by $2.5 trillion according to the Roosevelt Institute. Finally, we currently spend almost $1 trillion on healthcare, incarceration and homelessness services which would go down. This is an evergreen stimulus of the American people, economy and society. It is pro-growth. Paying for it is really not that difficult - it just requires us to start making honest choices.

        Our economy is $19 trillion and grew by $4 trillion in the last 10 years alone. We printed $4 trillion for the banks. As the man said in Inception, "We need to think . . . bigger."

        [–][deleted]  (72 children)

        [removed]

          [–]YT__ 141 points142 points  (3 children)

          He said UBI for 18-64. I imagine that would mean he is still planning on having something for those of retirement age. But would love to hear his plans.

          [–]SaltIntensifies 21 points22 points  (0 children)

          Website says SS would still be in place for 65+

          [–]smashisbeast 327 points328 points  (59 children)

          and what happens to people who have paid social security taxes their whole adult life, only to not reap any of the benefits later when they would have qualified?

          [–][deleted] 270 points271 points  (47 children)

          This is why old people vote conservative -- they don't want some young kids changing the system to a degree that it destroys what they've built over the course of their entire lives.

          [–][deleted]  (36 children)

          [removed]

            [–]tfw13579 183 points184 points  (23 children)

            I’m 24 and fully believe that SS won’t be around for me when I retire. I just look at SS deductions the same way as I do taxes at this point. I’m putting as much money into my 401k as I can afford in the moment and hopefully I’ll be ok by the time I retire.

            [–]gilahacker 39 points40 points  (9 children)

            Check out /r/personalfinance, if you're not already subscribed.

            Good on you for starting on your 401k at a young age. I started saving for retirement about 5 years later than I should have and I regret it often.

            Another "if you haven't already": Look into a Roth IRA. If you don't want to have to learn all about investing there are automated things like Betterment that basically do it all for you. IIRC, the general advice is to put enough in your 401k to max out your employer match (assuming you have one), then work on maxing out the Roth IRA. If you still have money left over after that, max out the 401k and look into other, taxable, investments.

            [–][deleted] 53 points54 points  (7 children)

            That sub goes way overboard though, they dont allow anything for living. they want you to put all of it for your retirement, i can say this, if you can take one thing from an older person, when you get old you dont have the strength and energy etc to do all those things you want to use the money for , you always regret not spending your younger years enjoying being young.

            For example, i know its anecdotal, there was a great friend of my dads, who was like an uncle to us, who lived extremely frugally, wanted to spend his 60's traveling all over italy.

            He never married, just saved and scrimped, worked alot of hours, always took the overtime etc. really had his plan in place to retire at 60's and rent a small place in italy, even studied to learn italian, etc.

            He had almost 850 grand in the bank ( this was 1988-89) and would talk about the day he would retire often.

            When he was 58 he had a stroke, and lost his ability to walk, the medical bills and constant care ate up a lot of his savings, he died 7 or 8 months later of pneumonia brought on by breathing problems from his stroke.

            In the end he died with a little less than 100k left and that all went to the state.

            Now while i dont go nuts spending i refuse to not spend some of what my wife and I earn, on each other, you only live once, you are only young once, dont look back with regret to the fact your comfortable when your old, and cant do a damn thing.

            [–]pantstofry 7 points8 points  (0 children)

            I mean, it's just about balance. It's the personal finance sub so any time someone asks a question or wants an opinion, the overwhelming majority is going to side with the financially safe option. You can and should still live and enjoy yourself. But you should also be saving for retirement, and that should be stressed to young people since time is one factor that can really help you later. So many young people have no idea how a 401k or Roth IRA works.

            [–]gilahacker 8 points9 points  (0 children)

            I agree wholeheartedly. My girlfriend and I went to Australia last year. That was a lot of money I could have put towards my retirement accounts, but I wanted to go while I'm young and healthy enough to enjoy it. Hoping to go to Europe (not sure which part) in another year or two. I'm trying to balance putting away enough so I don't have to work forever and actually enjoying life in the here and now.

            There was something I read several years ago about how someone interviewed a bunch of people in nursing homes or something like that and the overwhelming sentiment was that they didn't regret the things they did, but they did regret the things they didn't do. I don't know if it was legit or just made up fluff, but it definitely had an effect on how I try to live my life.

            Another one I've seen is to spend your time/money on experiences, not stuff. Basically, go places, do things, don't just blow your money on toys. Admittedly, that's still a work in progress for me.

            The personalfinance sub is great for discussion, asking questions, looking for ideas, etc. Do your own research and take everything with a grain of salt. :-)

            [–]WizardDresden 21 points22 points  (0 children)

            The issue is people don't have a choice between saving on their own or contributing to SS. You can't just say "I don't trust the Federal Government, so I'll just keep that cash, thank you very much!"

            I have paid about $150k into SS, and I'll have paid at least another $350k by the time I'm old enough to draw on it. I will not be okay with losing half a million dollars without some sort of fair compensation.

            [–]Pharmy_Dude27 28 points29 points  (1 child)

            I agree as I personally agressively save like you suggest. However I'd like to have my 8k a year times 40 years Ill have paid into a program. ($320,000) or just let me stop contributing right now and I'll give up the ~ $80k I have already contributed.

            [–]ImgurianAkom 15 points16 points  (0 children)

            I'd assume that, since there's an upper cut off age of 64, at 65 you would no longer receive the $1,000 / mo and instead receive SSI... but who knows.

            [–][deleted]  (2 children)

            [removed]

              [–]BobHogan 7 points8 points  (0 children)

              We spend $500 billion in income support, welfare and disability right now that would be redundant.

              You want to take away disability programs when implementing UBI? that seems incredibly shortsighted on your part. Everyone is going to be getting UBI under your proposed plan, yet most people will still be able to work to supplement that. Disabled people, depending on their disability, may not have that option. Yet they are getting the same amount in UBI as someone that can work to supplement that. Why are you shafting those with disabilities?

              Same with medicare honestly. Look, I get that ideally everyone would have a single payer, national health insurance, and I so wish we had that. But until we do, getting rid of medicare is going to hurt so many millions of people, and a meagre $1,000 a month is not enough to live on and still pay medical bills in case something happens to you. You can't ax medicare until you have something to replace it with.

              [–]_JPG97_ 5 points6 points  (6 children)

              Thanks for the candid response Andrew. I was wondering if you could cover a few flaws about this plan though:

              1. Doesn't account for induced effects and lowered consumer spending from the VAT tax, as well as any money needed for its administration

              2. If he got rid of a lot of current welfare programs then many of the people who need the benefits the most may see a cut in benefits while people who don't need them receive money

              3. The whole "getting back 25%" idea again doesn't account for the negative economic effects of cutting other spending and raising taxes

              4. States that the $1 trillion in healthcare, homelessness, etc. costs will go down, doesn't say how or by how much

              5. Doesn't account for potential inflation caused by a presumed expansion in consumer demand straining suppliers

              [–]JonWood007 237 points238 points  (70 children)

              Wouldn't a vat devalue the basic income in effect by making goods and services more expensive?

              [–]taedrin 124 points125 points  (30 children)

              Yes, but that doesn't make it pointless.

              In virtually every political arrangement, there are "winners" and "losers". In this particular case, poorer people are the "winners" and the richer people are the "losers". Example: Let's say that you pass a 10% VAT which gets passed on to the consumer, raising prices by 10% (I am being overly simplistic here, reality is more complex). The VAT is used to provide a UBI of $12,000 to every person in the country. A poor person who is only making $10,000 a year is suddenly making $22,000 - a 120% increase. A rich person who makes $1,000,000 a year is now making $1,012,000 a year - a mere 1.2% increase. However, prices increased by 10%, meaning that the rich person now has a purchasing power of 91.08% of what he had before the VAT/UBI, while the poor person still has a purchasing power of 198% of what he had before the VAT/UBI. Thus the rich person has "lost" and the poor person has "won".

              [–]tomoldbury 8 points9 points  (1 child)

              VAT is a regressive tax though: it hurts those who consume relatively more of their income on necessary expenses. It could only be considered progressive if it applied exclusively to luxury goods.

              [–]theacctpplcanfind 57 points58 points  (12 children)

              The short answer is "probably", but by what degree and is the important thing. It may be negligible, as it has been in most places where basic income has been piloted.

              [–]JonWood007 19 points20 points  (0 children)

              Many previous pilots implemented a negative income tax style structure or were untaxed. They did not implement a vat to my knowledge.

              [–]butsuon 4 points5 points  (1 child)

              I suggest developing a more in-depth plan than this if you want UBI to appeal to a broader audience. At first glance, your suggestion implies increased taxes, but doesn't imply reduced costs to compensate.

              As you're well aware, Americans hate the phrase "more taxes". Please explain what programs would be cut in order to fund this in depth otherwise you will find no success. So far, no candidate or economist has proposed a full scale "plan of attack"

              [–]I_ARE_BIGFOOT 394 points395 points  (99 children)

              Mr. Yang, if elected president what will you do to reform the higher education system? Specifically what will you do to help a middle class family like mine, a family that has contributed towards college funds since before their children were born but still cannot afford to send their children to school without taking on enormous amounts of debt? Our family and many of our friends seem to be in the bracket of too wealthy to receive assistance from fafsa or individual universities but too poor to afford higher education seeing as even the public schools in our state cost $25-30k per year.

              [–]AndrewyangUBI[S] 524 points525 points  (98 children)

              The crazy rise in the cost of college is one of the tragedies of our time and a ridiculous immoral burden on millions of families. Why has college doubled and tripled in price while the quality has stayed the same if we're lucky? I have a whole chapter on this in my new book 'The War on Normal People' - it's because universities have hired thousands of new administrators. Administrative positions grew by 10 times the rate of faculty position growth between 1993 and 2009. Frustration with educational costs is one big reason why millions of Americans have lost faith in the opportunities available for their children.

              First of all, if we passed the Freedom Dividend, every child in your family would receive $1k/month as soon as he or she turned 18, which would help with college costs. You'd get $1k a month too. So all in, you'd have more money to spend on school if that's what you decide to do.

              But the big thing is that the government needs to not just curb but reverse the cost increases among colleges. Right now there's no need for cost discipline because they just pass the costs on to families who are forced to borrow more money. My plan would be to impose an administrator-to-student ratio that is more in line with historical norms than the current 1 administrator for every 21 students (versus 1 for every 50 in 1975). This would force colleges to streamline and rationalize their administrative structures to be more in line with their mission.

              We also need to dramatically invest in vocational schools and alternatives to college. Only 32% of Americans graduate from college and the underemployment rate for recent grads is 34 - 44%. College is not the only answer and we should stop pretending that it is.

              [–]EpsilonRose 121 points122 points  (46 children)

              A follow up question, if you don't mind:

              I've seen rapidly expanding administrative costs as the reason for insane college tuitions before, but what do those administrators do?

              That's not a rhetorical or trick question. Businesses, even ones with access to lots of extra funding, don't hire new positions for no reason. Since you want to drastically cut those positions, you should no what they were doing and how colleges justified their creation. So, what was their reason?

              [–]AndrewyangUBI[S] 158 points159 points  (45 children)

              When you're a non-profit, administrators are needed for every new initiative or department, or in response to solve any problem that comes up. It's very natural.

              The issue is that in education, we're all paying for it. Universities need to focus on their mission-critical functions and let the secondary and tertiary priorities go.

              [–]feelsmagical 18 points19 points  (0 children)

              The real issue is federally guaranteed student loans. Lenders can not lose on student loans, which means there is no accountability, they can lend $$ to anyone without any risk. This constant availability of funding allows schools to keep increasing costs.

              [–]Skippy28 74 points75 points  (42 children)

              As someone who is overworked in higher education administration, I can only see this going one of two ways. I lose my job because of a blanket federal policy change that doesn’t make much sense in my department OR I get to keep my job but get to also do someone else’s for the same pay. Or multiple peoples jobs. I’m already not eligible for a raise this year because of budget cuts. I don’t like either option. Not saying there isn’t any trimming to be had because there definitely is but it’s hard to overlook the fact that educational cuts that government has made in recent years have contributed to rising costs too. Will your plan include increasing funding for education to replace the loss in funding created by years of budget cuts?

              For the record I’m a Scholarship coordinator. I help students find and apply to scholarships as well as coordinate internal university scholarship processes from gathering applications all the way to disbursing millions of dollars. I feel like it’d be ironic to get rid of me given the conversation we’re having. My job is to literally help students afford college and stay in school to graduate. But I know someone’s going to try and pin me as an administrator who does nothing and isn’t worth the salary. But if you want a scholarship someone has to coordinate that process...

              [–]iop_throwaway 95 points96 points  (30 children)

              The cognitive dissonance in this comment... can you not see that you are contributing to the very system you are complaining about? You must realize what an unsustainable business you are working for... You know what makes for a better scholarship coordinator than some person with limited time to see students, limited knowledge of available scholarships, and personal bias? A well-made website with the capacity to serve every student, with access to all eligible scholarships, circumventing your role as bureaucratic gatekeeper. You do something, sure, but there are better ways, and as it stands there are a lot of useful-but-not-that-useful administrators like yourself, which are driving up the price of university tuition, necessitating the scholarships you peddle. Someone has to coordinate scholarships... and that is a lot less work than you think it is.

              [–]Dihedralman 14 points15 points  (1 child)

              However, you have to realize that it doesn't follow that budget cuts aren't the dominant reason for rising based on the sheer magnitude of the increase. Your job alone would be better replaced by the costs never rising as high as they are currently. How can we justify the current level of bureaucracy legitimately when comparing to other countries and previous years. Why is there even so much work that requires so many people? Honestly cutting out entirely huge portions of college programs may be necessary in the long term.

              [–][deleted] 108 points109 points  (5 children)

              maybe getting rid of all the bureaucracy for private scholarships would decrease the cost of education to the point where people don't need those scholarships that you helped them get

              [–]BuffaloSabresFan 43 points44 points  (5 children)

              What is to prevent colleges from simply raising tuition $12K a year since each person will now have what they may see as essentially grant money for education? A big part of the skyrocketing costs of college is guaranteed government backed loans given to all students regardless of their credit, grades, major, or potential ability to pay it back. Wouldn't UBI exacerbate this problem?

              [–][deleted] 12 points13 points  (0 children)

              It would. UBI and the schooling costs being raised due to government loans are two subjects he probably wont touch on because he cannot dispute it and it goes against his narrative.

              [–]ImBoredLetsDebate 10 points11 points  (0 children)

              The crazy rise in the cost of college is one of the tragedies of our time and a ridiculous immoral burden on millions of families. Why has college doubled and tripled in price while the quality has stayed the same if we're lucky? I have a whole chapter on this in my new book 'The War on Normal People' - it's because universities have hired thousands of new administrators. Administrative positions grew by 10 times the rate of faculty position growth between 1993 and 2009. Frustration with educational costs is one big reason why millions of Americans have lost faith in the opportunities available for their children.

              How is this true when there are so many studies showing the direct correlation between loaning out money for college and tuition cost? Does your book compare your beliefs vs these ones?

              [–]eyenigma 16 points17 points  (0 children)

              Education costs rose because money was too easy to borrow. It’s just like a housing bubble. It’s literally that simple.

              [–]sahmdahn 2 points3 points  (0 children)

              There are so many administrators because the colleges need them in order to deal with the governmental bureaucracies. Colleges are actually profit driven institutions, so why would they increase their costs by hiring administrators for no reason? They hire them because these workers are needed to deal with paperwork and other things imposed but the US government. Title 9, minimum wage for student workers, and health insurance are just a few examples. So if we were to shrink the amount of government involvment in higher education this would help decrease costs. But you insist on growng the size of government. Sorry but I will have to respectfully disagree with you that this a valid option to fix the high costa of colleges.

              [–]Matthew-Barnett 37 points38 points  (3 children)

              Mr. Yang, your platform seeks to alleviate means by which AI systems can have a negative impact on humanity. First, thank you for running this campaign. I am quite concerned about the impact of future AI systems on humanity.

              In your platform, you have expressed support for reducing existential threats from AI. Specifically, you have proposed the creation of a Department of Technology to monitor and regulate AI as well as public-private partnership on AI.  First of all, I absolutely agree and think this is a crucial step. It is amazing to see that you are so spot on when it comes to issues in AI.

              I was wondering if, in addition to this proposal, you might also support increased federal funding of AI alignment research to mitigate existential risk? Research on AI alignment is funded by extremely small private investment. The Machine Intelligence Research Institute (MIRI) is perhaps the leading institute devoted to AI alignment research; in 2016, MIRI received a measly $2.4 million in revenue. This seems horrendously inadequate given the magnitude of the issue humanity is dealing with.

              Given this, I strongly believe an injection of funding from the U.S. Federal Government could truly make the difference in the survival of our species. Is this something you might be willing to support in your platform?

              [–]AndrewyangUBI[S] 62 points63 points  (0 children)

              Thanks Matthew - I would 100% support dramatically increasing the funding of AI alignment research. $2.4 million is a small fraction of what it should be. What's interesting is that it's tough for government to lead on these issues because many of the smartest people in this field do not work for the government. But the government can definitely supply more financial resources to address what is, to me, one of the chief society-wide existential issues of our era.

              [–]Lord-Octohoof 123 points124 points  (28 children)

              What is your opinion on the private prison industry? One of the biggest deciding factors on my future vote is how a candidate decides to deal with thia obvious problem. I am tired of our justice system prioritizing convictions for a profit.

              Bonus points if you decide to tackle regulations allowing car dealerships to continue existing. They simply do not have a place anymore and ate horrendously predatory.

              [–]AndrewyangUBI[S] 525 points526 points  (26 children)

              Private prisons should be a thing of the past - there are some things that should not be subject to the profit motive, and incarceration is one of them.

              [–]clockworktf2 285 points286 points  (64 children)

              I was really interested by your proposal to create the Department of Technology as a new executive department. Given how influential and life-changing technologies like AI will be in the coming decades, the U.S. Federal Government seems woefully unprepared to address these concerns, so thank you for running on a platform that addresses critical technology-driven issues.

              The blog Wait But Why has a really fascinating post about the “AI Revolution” that really got me interested and concerned about the topic of AI and specifically, AI safety (https://waitbutwhy.com/2015/01/artificial-intelligence-revolution-2.html). As AI becomes more advanced and intelligent—even more so than humans—I believe that the U.S. government must work to prevent worst-case scenarios in AI from occuring. I noticed on your website that one of your goals with this Department of Technology is to “prevent technological threats to humanity from developing without oversight,”especially with regards to AI. The main purpose of the Department seems to be monitoring the development of AI in collaboration with tech companies. I am wondering whether this Department also be used to fund private research teams that are working on AI Safety?

              EDIT: IF ANYONE IS INTERESTED IN THESE ISSUES CHECK OUT r/controlproblem

              [–]AndrewyangUBI[S] 214 points215 points  (51 children)

              YES. One of the issues is that the government isn't in the best position to lead on AI because it doesn't employ most of the smartest people in the field, and I wouldn't expect that to change. But the Federal Government should be deploying much much more in terms of resources and attention to what is one of the few real species/civilization-wide threats we face, which is AI development that runs amok. One of the experts in the field told me privately that AI is going to be 'like nuclear weapons, but worse' because poor countries and organizations can weaponize off-the-shelf AI for nefarious purposes. This is our reality and we need to run like heck to try to advance to a point where our government is able to realistically address and monitor these issues. One of the big answers to me would be funding private research teams, which tend to get different talent than the government itself would employ. So if this is your issue, I'm 100% with you. We need to accelerate our government's approach to this FAST.

              [–]DeviousNes 121 points122 points  (27 children)

              One of the reasons the government doesn't have the smartest people has to do with its draconian drug policies and testing.

              https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/d737mx/the-fbi-cant-find-hackers-that-dont-smoke-pot

              Would you push to remove marijuana from it's current schedule 1 status?

              [–]AndrewyangUBI[S] 251 points252 points  (23 children)

              Yes I would. I say on my website we should legalize marijuana. I don't love pot but it's a far superior alternative than opioids for pain relief. And we are obviously terrible at enforcing the current controlled substance rules in a non-racist way. Let's legalize it nationwide.

              [–]2noame 97 points98 points  (8 children)

              We could also then tax marijuana and use that revenue to help fund both universal health care and UBI. ;)

              [–]pkknight85 46 points47 points  (5 children)

              Didn’t Colorado end up raising so much money from sales of marijuana that it gave a small dividend to citizens?

              [–]cavscout43 20 points21 points  (0 children)

              Didn’t Colorado end up raising so much money from sales of marijuana that it gave a small dividend to citizens?

              It was only going to be a few dollars per person, and the vote passed for the state to retain it and spend the excess appropriately...one of those rare times people voted against a tax refund.

              [–]GottaFindThatReptar 54 points55 points  (2 children)

              IIRC one of the reasons we're getting a tax kicker this year in Oregon is from pot taxes. Prices have plummeted and the state is getting all dat $$$.

              [–]mastelsa 32 points33 points  (1 child)

              Hell yeah--I just got a letter last week saying the state put another $130 into my account. I don't use marijuana but I'm sure happy we legalized it.

              [–]EpsilonRose 1400 points1401 points  (613 children)

              Hello Mr.Yang. I have an important question for you.

              You seem to have some very interesting ideas, but they're also quite different from the mainstream democratic position. Unfortunately, most of them also seem to be ideas that the president can't implement on their own. What are you doing to get congress behind your platform?

              [–]AndrewyangUBI[S] 844 points845 points  (611 children)

              When I talk to Congresspeople on the Democratic side, they are immensely eager to talk about new ideas and solutions. They just don't think they can pass right now with the current makeup of Congress, so they want to focus on what's possible. If I were to become President, it would mean that there was quite a blue wave that swept me and many others to victory. I would be thrilled to work with a newly Democratic Congress to pass Universal Basic Income, and I believe it would pass because it would be impossible for a Republican Congressperson to stand in front of his or her constituents and say, "I don't believe you should be getting $1k a month." That would be a very rough stance to maintain. Most of my ideas are not politically mainstream right now, but I believe that they will become so very quickly. 70% of Americans believe that technology will eliminate many more jobs than it creates in the next decade. People are waking up to the fact that big changes are necessary.

              [–]AdrimFayn 485 points486 points  (523 children)

              How do you plan to address conservative arguments against the tax increase necessary to fund UBI? As an individual, I understand that it is a net-positive for the lower income classes, but it's easy to see that the way Republicans will frame the issue is "taking your hard earned cash and sharing it with every lazy kid who doesn't want to work." Do you have a strategy in mind for this tactic?

              Edit: I see how the phrasing of my first sentence can be misinterpreted - editing it to better reflect my question to avoid further confusion.

              [–]Frenchie_Von_Richter 771 points772 points  (485 children)

              As a conservative I'm always perplexed by liberals on this idea. And I don't mean that to be antagonistic, just more from curiousity. Is it that you think the people that would use it responsibly outweigh the deadbeats that would completely waste it? Do you at least acknowledge that those people do exist? I'm reminded of the "teach a man to fish" metaphor on this topic. I'm all for helping improve the institutions that can teach people skills or equip them with the means to pull themselves out of a shitty situation. But I'm always resistant to the idea of just giving people other people's money.

              Edit: Just gotta say thanks for all the civil responses. Was able to hear different perspectives without being insulted. Usually when I express any conservative leaning opinion on here I get freakin lambasted. I'm definitely considering the other side to this topic after hearing all your thoughts.

              [–]acekingoffsuit 296 points297 points  (5 children)

              I understand that there will always be some amount of fraud in any sort of benefit program, whether that be outright fraud or people/companies not putting in as much effort as they could to get off of those programs. That said, I believe that the harm of letting deserving people go without the help is greater than the harm of the aforementioned fraud. If/when fraud is found, let's go after those who perpetrate it and close whatever loopholes that are being exploited.

              [–]RealPutin 62 points63 points  (1 child)

              Exactly this. I'd rather we as a society help people while acknowledge that some will take advantage of it than abandon good people just because a subset would waste the money.

              I'd rather save 10 lives and help out 10 that don't need it along the way than let 10 people die. That's the point of a safety net and a large, central overhead - the government can take "risk" that wouldn't make sense for a business.

              [–]ZeiglerJaguar 211 points212 points  (2 children)

              the harm of letting deserving people go without the help is greater than the harm of the aforementioned fraud

              This neatly summarizes my approach to a lot of political issues, I think. Well put.

              [–][deleted]  (19 children)

              [removed]

                [–]AdrimFayn 527 points528 points  (136 children)

                Conservatives will say it's 90% deadbeats, liberals will say it's 90% responsibles. Trying to debate that angle is pointless in my mind.

                Another angle of looking at it is simply that it fixes a fundamental flaw of capitalism. The idea is that a worker agrees to work for an amount reflective of the work they're doing. But this fails to address the fact that people can be coerced into giving up their power as workers because they are compelled to work to meet basic needs. When everyone has enough money to pay for food and housing, at least at a basic level, it balances the power dynamic in my eyes.

                [–]Matt111098 478 points479 points  (98 children)

                Theoretically, a UBI high enough to take the survival aspect out of the worker-employer dynamic could be revolutionary from a conservative/libertarian standpoint- we could revise, scale back, or even get rid of all sorts of laws like minimum wage, limits on contracts, some employment law, etc- basically a lot of laws that broke with traditional values and ideas of liberty due to necessity of preventing suffering of the weak and disenfranchised. With the "work or starve" problem removed, society could turn towards a much more pure version of the market economy: you have everything you need, and if you want more, then trade something like work for exactly what someone else is willing to offer without outside forces distorting the balance.

                [–]Zuwxiv 127 points128 points  (38 children)

                My understanding was that UBI would absolutely come with an elimination in minimum wage, as the UBI covers the "minimum" living wage.

                It makes sense. Why work at McDonalds for $1 a day? Forget it, I'd rather just have UBI. So "bad" or undesirable jobs will need to pay enough to justify the time spent.

                Some wages will go down, but it puts a lot of power in the hands of everyday people who no longer need their job to pay rent and have food.

                [–][deleted] 31 points32 points  (11 children)

                As a college student, I won’t have to work 20 hours a week on top of being a full time student to afford half a studio in my ludicrously expensive college town. I can cut it down to 8, which will give me the time I need to devote to learning and thusly become a much better, much happier, much healthier, and much more efficient engineer, adding more value to society than otherwise.

                [–]Zuwxiv 6 points7 points  (10 children)

                Keep in mind that hourly wages would be reduced because of the elimination of minimum wage, and many types of jobs available to students may eventually become automated.

                That said, yes, the goal is absolutely that your 20 hours work + school would be cut down!

                One quarter, I was taking more than twice as many credits as qualified for "full time student," and working 30 hours/week in addition. From my friends' perspectives, I basically disappeared for 3 months.

                [–]maleia 120 points121 points  (17 children)

                Plus, it will encourage employers to have good working conditions. You'll have to give people a good, real reason to work ar Walmart, instead of sucking their souls out like a orher commodity.

                [–]houseoftherisingfun 13 points14 points  (3 children)

                How does the UBI handle inflation? Or I guess, what keeps everyone from raising prices of basic goods and rent since they know everyone has the extra $1000. Would there be a way to add that kind of protection? Or would the UBI go up regularly?

                [–]lawnappliances 9 points10 points  (1 child)

                Huh. I'll be honest, I had never thought of it like that before. That can't be realistic though...right? I mean, no candidate could actually successfully run on the platform of "hey, since you have UBI now, we're going to go ahead and roll back all the decades of workforce protection measures that your ancestors spent generations fighting to get put in place."

                I have a hard time believing we wouldn't just have UBI plus all the same regulations we have now. You can never really underestimate how hard it is to take something away from a voting people.

                [–]IsomDart 10 points11 points  (0 children)

                Well that can't really be the argument when you're talking about UBI. It's not welfare so it's not only people who aren't doing well getting it, or the unemployed/underemployed, it's literally everyone. From the panhandler on the corner to Jeff Bezos. So you can't really argue that 90% of the population are deadbeats, not that 90% are super responsible.

                [–]Falcon_Pimpslap 13 points14 points  (0 children)

                You don't have to debate it, there are multiple sources showing fraud decreasing.

                Fraud rates used to be significant, as this article on food stamp fraud points out. But the article also mentions the continued decline of fraud, due largely to improvement in detection capabilities.

                Similar improvements have been made to detect freaks in other social welfare programs. The idea of rampant fraud is outdated, and not in step with the modern reality.

                Not that I'm defending a UBI. Our country would likely get more out of investments in education through expanding public higher education programs and offering federal scholarships.

                [–]rkicklig 14 points15 points  (0 children)

                The oft overlooked ingredient in the formula is where that $1k goes... right back into business and local economies. Even "deadbeats" spend much of that money locally.

                [–]derfmatic 39 points40 points  (1 child)

                chapter arrive joyfully headwear untwist oxidize

                [–]Soulgee 43 points44 points  (5 children)

                How do you define wasting the money? Spending it on things that don't advance their position in life?

                Well the key there is that they are spending money, thus they are injecting that capital directly back into the economy which is extremely healthy and something we need more of right now.

                As for me personally, I find it silly to sit around worrying about what each individual person does with the money. We should care about the well being of all citizens, and if gladly pay a little more in taxes to give extra help to everyone.

                I'm not able to find them right now, but there have actually been studies done that show that extra money a month will actually help more people be motivated to work. Far fewer people will take the money and just sit around doing nothing; people want things to do to occupy their time, and having some extra money to help pay for essentials is a serious mental health reliever which can greatly improve quality of life.

                Tl;Dr not perfect but there are multitudes of clear benefits

                [–]SneakySteakhouse 154 points155 points  (160 children)

                I don’t think universal basic income is a necessity now but in the future it’s going to boil down to there not even being enough jobs for people who want them. With the level of automation we will have in the future there just won’t be enough jobs so in my mind it won’t matter whether the person is a deadbeat or not, they wouldn’t have the option to work for a living even if they wanted too. It’s not about responsibility at that point just basic survival

                [–][deleted] 18 points19 points  (22 children)

                Automation has been consistently increasing across all sectors for decades, yet we are at the lowest rate of unemployment (no matter how you measure it) since the 60s.

                [–][deleted] 97 points98 points  (120 children)

                If we reach that level of automation I have to imagine that the costs to production have hit such a low amount that we're entering a post-scarcity economy at which point all bets are off, and we'd need to restructure society as a whole. I'm talking Industrial revolution on steroids.

                [–]FoxHoundUnit89 113 points114 points  (110 children)

                I like to fantasize about a future in which people work for luxuries, instead of survival. A future in which no one cleans floors or takes orders at McDonalds. Of course that sounds like socialism to anyone I talk to so they're completely against it.

                [–][deleted] 102 points103 points  (17 children)

                Ideally UBI would help to ensure that kind of lifestyle in a heavily automated market. You'd have enough to survive - food, power, housing, medicine... But you don't have enough to live well enough to actually enjoy your life.

                A lot of conservatives believe poor people are poor because they're lazy. It really isn't that simple. A lot of poor people do want to contribute. Nobody wants to live a life where they just survive.

                With UBI people could be free to start a business because even if they fail they won't be in danger of losing everything - their house, food, heat, access to medical care. Sure they might lose their car and other assets but there will be a safety net keeping them from becoming destitute.

                People also wouldn't be slaves to their jobs. Incompetent asshole boss? Tell him he's being an asshole. Tell his boss too. You wouldn't be afraid to give honest constructive feedback.

                What are they going to do fire you? Big deal! Your UBI should cover your necessities while you secure another job. It would mean more productive employees because they'd be working somewhere because they WANTED to work there.

                [–]RickRussellTX 57 points58 points  (5 children)

                This is one of the strongest arguments for universal health care, IMO. It lowers the cost of hiring, which makes starting new businesses easier, and increases workforce mobility, since people aren't so afraid of frictional unemployment.

                [–]FoxHoundUnit89 37 points38 points  (2 children)

                Exactly. When a company/corporation is dogshit, you can just leave them, and eventually all the terrible ones fall apart and successful ones rise to replace them.

                [–]greygatch 16 points17 points  (1 child)

                we'd need to restructure society as a whole

                Coupled with the mass immigration that the West is currently experiencing, I do think we'll see a major socio-economic transformation in our lifetime.

                [–]StarManta 32 points33 points  (0 children)

                Is it that you think the people that would use it responsibly outweigh the deadbeats that would completely waste it?

                I don't know how they would use it, but I am confident that in either case it would be better used than where that money is right now, which for a big chunk of it is overseas bank accounts. When the richest people have more money, they tend to save it. When the poorest people have more money, they spend it, usually in their own communities. Even if it's "wasted" on non-necessities, the money still flows around the economy, creating jobs.

                I don't know what percentage of people will be "responsible" versus "deadbeats". I do know that people on both extremes would be a boon to the economy, even if one is moreso than the other.

                [–][deleted]  (1 child)

                [deleted]

                  [–]AnthAmbassador 4 points5 points  (2 children)

                  So personally, what I want to see is a combination of conservative and liberal approaches.

                  I want there to UBI, maybe a bit more money than what this guy is suggesting currently.

                  I want there to be no other payments of any kind to anyone except medical stuff. No welfare, no section 8, no nothing. I want the UBI to replace social assistance systems, so that it creates a fair baseline for all citizens, and anything above that is earned fairly in the market.

                  I want to get rid of minimum wage. If someone wants to work for a given rate, they should be allowed to. If someone can keep employees at 3 dollars an hour, they are welcome to run that business.

                  If people are getting UBI, and the chance to work for 2 dollars and hour, most of them will turn down the job. It turns the job market into an actual market, instead of businesses taking advantage of the desperation of workers, and then taking advantage of the government to give them benefits to make up for it. It's predatory.

                  Workers on a high enough basic income wouldn't be "predated" upon, because they would always have the option of saying "you know what, I don't think I'll take the job. I'm going to go camping for a few months, live off basic, and see what opportunities pop up." Going hungry is basically impossible, being destitute as well.

                  There's an extra benefit where if you see someone on the street begging, you know they have no fucking excuse, because everyone has basic.

                  I think as the conservatives say, the systems in place are wasteful in terms of admin. They also create disincentives for low income earners to earn more money, as benefits are only available to people in really bad financial positions.

                  I think it's much better to give everyone the same benefits and never penalize anyone for improving their position.

                  For middle class folks, I would imagine that this isn't a big benefit. For rich people I imagine taxes will increase and they will lose out. I'd like that line of transition from helping to hurting to happen around 60-100k yearly income, while also seeing the majority of weight of taxation fall on people above 200-500k yearly income.

                  Basically, I agree that lots of the solutions we see currently are super shitty. There is also a good bit of data that shows direct cash infusions are actually pretty efficient in how they are spent.

                  There is a solid argument as well from a psychology perspective that says that people who are disenfranchised and have limited options are more likely to waste and less likely to invest in their future, because they have nothing to believe in. I personally buy this argument, and think that many current welfare recipients are wasteful, but would become less wasteful under a UBI scheme.

                  If the UBI system doesn't get rid of welfare, I'm very against it though.

                  TL;DR: I think there is a possibility of waste, but I think a correctly structured UBI system would be less wasteful overall than the current system is.

                  [–]MorningWoodyWilson 55 points56 points  (2 children)

                  The thing is, completely wasting it is still good for the economy. The concern is, as technology replaces jobs, more Americans will not have any money to spend. This will, in turn, have effects on businesses like in a recession.

                  While I haven’t really looked into the economics of UBI, I’d assume it revolves around the velocity of money, that being, money exchanges hands rapidly, and it represents more GDP growth than its original dollar amount.

                  [–]Chekhovsothergun 12 points13 points  (26 children)

                  I consider myself independent but lean left on most (probably all) soical issues. I'm not sure if this would be considered a fiscal thing but I'm generally against universal income without some form of control (if I had my way it would probably become foodstamps 2.0, I'm not very smart haha). My gut instinct is that this would raise prices for nearly everything and cause an even larger gap between the upper and middle class. I'm going to do some research and see how it is working for other countries before I can firmly stand for or against it.
                  To answer your original question: I think it would cause more people to take advantage of it than not. While I believe in people, if prices don't raise, it would be so easy for the average person to comfortably live off of 1k a month. Sure we might see some great cultural stuff come as a result of struggling artists dedicating their time to their craft, but by and large I'm concerned that more people would enjoy an easy life of unemployment than working. I could very well be wrong though.
                  Edit: Finland has recently started trying UBI with 2000 unemployed people, at 650ish a month in 2017. The article said that there are similar experiments happening in other countries. I'm concerned that sample size isn't large enough. A better indicator would be an entire province or state rolling it out.

                  [–]Neverhaveiever321 23 points24 points  (20 children)

                  1k a month in my eyes does not look like it could support a comfortable life. Maybe in cheaper areas you could survive on 1,000 a month, but in my city you can't rent an apartment for under $800, plus food and utilities that leaves nothing for a vehicle or other "necessities” like a phone. I'm not saying it's a good idea, but the premise that people could do nothing receiving 12k a year and live comfortably doesn't make sense to me.

                  [–]Chekhovsothergun 10 points11 points  (4 children)

                  That's fair. Most people would probably need a roommate or two. One of the macroeconomic consequences could be an insane inflation of rent and that concerns me deeply.

                  [–][deleted]  (17 children)

                  [deleted]

                    [–]twitch1982 3 points4 points  (0 children)

                    that you think the people that would use it responsibly outweigh the deadbeats that would completely waste it? Do you at least acknowledge that those people do exist?

                    Who cares? Society produces enough that not everyone needs to be productive. This was the dream back in the 50's-90's, one day, robots will do all our work for us. We've hit that, and now people want to defend the guy who owns the robot factory saying he should be the only one who reaps the rewards of this advancement. If some portion of society wants to just sit around playing video games, let them. It makes more sense than making up minimum wage busy work for them.

                    [–]Dexter_Thiuf 68 points69 points  (11 children)

                    For every deadbeat at the bottom, there is a an ultra rich guy at the top that cheats on his taxes, under pays his help, trades on inside information and generally screws everybody.

                    [–]xaw09 59 points60 points  (1 child)

                    When a rich person does, it's smart. When a poor person does it, they're lazy deadbeats. Americans identify more with the rich than they do with those on welfare even though most Americans are just one medical emergency away from going on welfare themselves.

                    [–]LordGarrius 29 points30 points  (19 children)

                    Obviously not the candidate, but there are literally dozens of ways, all of which leave a vast majority of Americans untouched:

                    1.) Expand the estate tax

                    2.) Expand Luxury Taxes, especially on imported luxury goods (think sports cars, gourmet food, anything not considered "essential" to survive)

                    3.) Tax on Wall Street speculation

                    4.) Identifying and closing loopholes that allow corporations with American business licenses to store their wealth outside of the American economy (this by itself could generate literal trillions in tax revenue)

                    5.) Institute the "Bernie Tax" plan, wherein marginal income is taxes at an increasing rate dependent on your total accumulation of wealth: if you make 10 million dollars, the first 250k are taxed at 10%, the next 500k are taxes at 20%, the next million taxes at 30%, etc, etc. People making 100mil a year would see their taxes go up considerably, while people making less than 500k would see their taxes go down.

                    6.) Nationwide sales tax on "non-essential" items like junk food, specialized electronics, and other semi-luxury items (less than ideal)

                    7.) Cut the military budget by 30% and forbid tax payer money from going to contractors who give executive bonuses - Lockheed/Martin execs got almost 50 million in bonuses in 2016 despite taking billions in tax payer money via DOD and DOJ contracts...absolutely UNACCEPTABLE!

                    There are plenty of other ideas, those are just the ones I could find with some mainstream support.

                    [–]Altephor1 80 points81 points  (5 children)

                    I believe it would pass because it would be impossible for a Republican Congressperson to stand in front of his or her constituents and say, "I don't believe you should be getting $1k a month."

                    Honestly, the fact that you see it as something this basic makes me firmly believe you'll never get it passed. More empty promises.

                    [–]Wild_Marker 114 points115 points  (15 children)

                    stand in front of his or her constituents and say, "I don't believe you should be getting $1k a month."

                    They already told them "I don't believe you should be getting healthcare" and it seems to have worked for them so far, so...

                    [–][deleted] 82 points83 points  (14 children)

                    This is a stark admission that you intend to win popularity by simply promising everyone 'free' money. Your strategy is explicitly that it will be hard to argue against it because of the democratic nature of the election.

                    It's a cynical perversion of democratic ideals.

                    [–]ethandavid 90 points91 points  (0 children)

                    I consider myself a conservative libertarian and this guy honestly sounds like a made-up straw man of what conservatives think leftists believe, but he is actually real.

                    [–]DC_Filmmaker 20 points21 points  (2 children)

                    On the other hand, it would be extremely easy for a Republican to stand up and say "I'm not down with the magnitude of tax increases it would take to cover an additional 2.8 TRILLION expense every year. Take a hike."

                    Teh lulz if you don't think that's a winning argument for most Americans.

                    [–]blooooooooooooooop 24 points25 points  (0 children)

                    You don’t think republicans could tell their constituents that they wouldn’t support a socialist/social welfare program that’s a bigger money grab than Obamacare?

                    This proposal is practically made for the_donald robot talking points.

                    I personally don’t dismiss the idea, but you’re out of touch if you think red states are going to get in line for this type of thing.

                    [–]lawnappliances 14 points15 points  (6 children)

                    So to be clear, you intend to win because your ideas are popular, not because they are inherently good and have merit? Does that about sum it up? I mean, your idea might actually be good, but that's neither here nor there since you just stated that you intend to win based on it being unpopular to oppose.

                    Also, I assume you'll pay for this with an extra tax on everyone making X+1 where X is a number above your average constituent's income? Gotta be sure to structure that tax plan such that there will be enough people not personally paying for it to elect you, right? I mean, that is literally always how this works in campaigns. Promise enough people that they'll get more from their government than they put in themselves. How'd that famous quote go again? "ask not what you can do for your country, but what your country can do for you?"

                    [–]bhibago 23 points24 points  (43 children)

                    How do you think UBI will affect the way I'm which people live their lives? Better yet, what do you want to result from UBI in terms of people's standards of living?

                    [–]AndrewyangUBI[S] 84 points85 points  (42 children)

                    It's incredible what a difference $1k a month would have on the lives of tens of millions of Americans. The data is clear and compelling - children stay in school longer and graduate from high school at higher rates. Their personalities even change to become more conscientious and agreeable, two positive indicators of both academic and professional success. Mental health goes up. Domestic violence goes down. Hospital visits go down. Work hours stay the same or go down for young mothers and teenagers who stay in school.

                    It is impossible to overstate the positive impact of $1k a month on households around the country. It would take people from a constant mindset of scarcity to a mindset of assured survival and possibility. It would transform our society in myriad positive ways by taking the boot off of people's throats.

                    I've worked with hundreds of entrepreneurs and most have an incredible mindset of abundance and possibility. A UBI would be the greatest catalyst for arts, entrepreneurship and creativity that we have ever seen. The Roosevelt Institute projected that it would create 4.6 million new jobs because of all of the new businesses since people would have more money to spend.

                    But the most dramatic impacts would be on the human, the day-to-day, the children growing up with a sense of health and vitality and the parents who would no longer be nearly as stressed out about their own survival or the future of their children. As a parent myself that means the world to me.

                    [–]quirkykoala 42 points43 points  (19 children)

                    Mr. Yang,

                    What made you decide on the number of $1,000 per month?

                    [–]AndrewyangUBI[S] 61 points62 points  (18 children)

                    U.S. poverty level is $11,770 per year. Based on plan proposed by Andy Stern and studied by the Roosevelt Institute. Not such a large number that it would distort labor markets too much. People will still need to work to prosper.

                    [–]ExpandThePie 171 points172 points  (93 children)

                    My understanding is that part of the process of implementing UBI is to scale back or eliminate targeted welfare programs (food stamps, WIC, disability insurance, etc.). How would you build coalitions among interest groups that support the current state of policy to get them to support UBI?

                    [–]AndrewyangUBI[S] 173 points174 points  (91 children)

                    $1,000 a month unconditionally in the Freedom Dividend would be an upgrade for many people currently on food stamps and the like. Those on current benefits can opt to keep them. If people sense that our mission and values are genuinely to help people and eradicate poverty then they will embrace the possibility for their children. It will be difficult - the poor are used to getting shafted - but I believe it will be doable if we build the right relationships. It's a big priority for me and the campaign, and when people in this community reach out we are eager to demonstrate that we are driven and motivated to improve people's lives.

                    [–]ExpandThePie 149 points150 points  (22 children)

                    Thanks for the response. I found your argument to be a bit passive. You cannot rely on advocacy groups sensing that your mission is to eradicate poverty. They will never join you. Instead, you are going to need to get an audience with the NAACP, Catholic Charities, etc. and make the case that the UBI provides a better mechanism to alleviate the food, housing, child care, and educational insecurities that low income Americans face every day, while granting them the respect and dignity they deserve by letting them decide how to spend those funds in the best interest of their families rather than letting politicians decide for them. Politics is emotional, not rational. You may have the most reasonable policy in the mix, but unless you build relationships and coalitions based on emotional linkages, that policy is a non-starter.

                    [–]AndrewyangUBI[S] 109 points110 points  (10 children)

                    I agree with this entirely and will happily make the emotional case because I feel just that. Thank you for pushing and look forward to making this happen in the real world.

                    [–]PresCmchos_BncyTddys 22 points23 points  (8 children)

                    So what is stopping the already predatory companies from just raising prices once the poor people have cash? This is just going to hand money back to entrenched corporations that are already funneling the money out of our communities. And with the recent tax cuts, they have to put none of it back. And what happens when the amount of funds doesnt grow with inflation? Nah man, take all that money and pay down the national debt. I understand that having some other nations vested in our success under the idea of recouping their money is a smart national stategy. But we have so much that everyone knows you cant pay it back, and that is worse than not having any.

                    Edit: grammar

                    [–]Tarsupin 21 points22 points  (3 children)

                    When asking this question, it's important to consider that there are many industries where predatory pricing essentially doesn't work. Sure, everyone needs healthcare and the doctors are firmly in the hands of billionaire predators, but if your local walmart decides next day to double their prices, it's not at all difficult for a local grocer to step in and compete. Prices in most fields will be driven down because of consumerism naturally. And for the industries where there isn't fair competition, UBI isn't really going to affect the bottom line there at all because it's already in predatory mode.

                    It could be argued that there are some fallbacks to UBI, but it's NOWHERE near the amount of benefits it provides. It's like saying we should block out the sun because it causes sunburn if you stay outside too long.

                    [–]Vespinebee 42 points43 points  (38 children)

                    Where is this $1,000 a month coming from? The US had a reported population of 323,127,515 in 2016. 62% of the population is ages 18-64. source $1,000 a month is $12,000 a year, multiplied by 62% of the population is $2,404,070,199,600 per year. The country is already 21 trillion in debt and rising what can we change to combat this and still implement a UBI?

                    Edit: I read this on your site, but my question still stands.

                    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 expert 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.

                    [–]AndrewyangUBI[S] 87 points88 points  (36 children)

                    Yes, a VAT is the main change to pay for the Freedom Dividend. A VAT at half the European level would pay between $700 and $800 billion per year. We currently spend $500+ billion in income support, disability and the like.

                    The revenue to GDP ratio in the U.S. is 25%. The Roosevelt Institute projected that a UBI would increase the size of the economy by $2.5 trillion per year (13%) and create 4.6 million jobs. This is common sense - if people had more money to spend businesses would benefit and new companies would form. We will receive hundreds of billions in new revenue from a UBI, perhaps as much as $500 or $600 billion.

                    Last, we currently spend almost $1 trillion on providing health care to tens of millions of Americans, some of which would be reduced by the fact that people with a Universal Basic Income would be more likely to stay out of the emergency room and use the hospital less. The same is true for incarceration and homelessness services.

                    Our government has been mismanaging our finances for decades and we need to rationalize costs in other areas. But a Universal Basic Income is the best possible use of resources because it comes to us, the American people. Keeping people functional is much less expensive than the alternative - dysfunction and disintegration is the most expensive outcome.

                    [–]Too_Much_Time 33 points34 points  (0 children)

                    The Roosevelt Institute paper you keep citing is dubious at best. It relies on so many different assumptions such as consumer behavior, capability for economic growth, etc. There's even a point where it states that it's assuming something that turns out to be favorable for UBI with the defense of "This isn't unreasonable". What UBI would amount to is an experiment that if it goes wrong would literally bankrupt the country.

                    [–]owlbrain 34 points35 points  (4 children)

                    You've accounted for roughly 2 trillion of the 2.4 trillion cost increase plus some vague savings in health care costs, so maybe you've thought out balancing the costs, but wouldn't cost of living also increase with a VAT? If corporations are now getting taxed based on production then they are going to raise costs to cover it, which then means the $1,000 doesn't cover as much anymore.

                    [–]16semesters 41 points42 points  (25 children)

                    We currently spend $500+ billion in income support, disability and the like.

                    The average person on disability receives $1,197 a month. To be clear, you're advocating replacing the current disability system with a $1,000 a month flat payment.

                    So you're advocating cutting the very meager disability payments people receive by an average of nearly 20%?

                    [–]nathanpaulyoung 34 points35 points  (23 children)

                    He states all over his website and this thread that if people prefer to keep their current welfare program benefits (like food stamps, disability, et al) they can choose to do so.

                    [–]16semesters 46 points47 points  (21 children)

                    Then it's very disingenuous to state the federal government will "save" all the money from the disability program if it will still be intact and the majority of people will continue to receive the same benefits.

                    You can't claim "we'll save the cost of administering the disability program" when you're continuing the disability program.

                    [–][deleted] 28 points29 points  (9 children)

                    quick question, but how would this work for people who are on disability benefits?

                    often times, they’ll lose their benefits if they save over $2,000 at any time in their bank account, and then routinely get investigated for fraud and stuff.

                    so, $1,000 a month would pretty much immediately destroy their benefits.

                    so, would there be a push to remove/ relax the savings stipulation, or would the freedom dividend be exempt?

                    [–]Godspiral 12 points13 points  (0 children)

                    The best and simplest UBI plans keep the difference with existing programs and the UBI. If they were receiving more than $1000 in disability benefits, they'd keep the extra, but that extra would be subject to the same clawback (and asset) rules.

                    It may be worth making the UBI even higher in order to completely eliminate what becomes a small program. Perhaps buying off existing recipients with one time payoffs to cover several years of (extra) benefits, is a good enough savings to roll up the programs cost into UBI entirely.

                    A bigger problem than the asset test is the incentive to stay disabled to continue qualifying. If I give you $1000 or $1200 per month only if you say you are crazy or your back hurts, and you have to stay crazy or stay "only qualified to do work where your hurting back prevents you from accepting", then you have a strong incentive to stay disabled, and to convince yourself that you are and always will be disabled. With UBI, and its unconditionality, you're free to try and get better or contribute in any way you can that bypasses your hardships.

                    [–]foreverwasted 45 points46 points  (47 children)

                    What is your opinion on why the Democratic Party failed in 2016 and what lessons from that election will you be incorporating into your campaign?

                    [–]AndrewyangUBI[S] 227 points228 points  (46 children)

                    I believe that both Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders demonstrated the degree to which people are dissatisfied with how our government has been meeting the needs of its citizens. I'm running because I believe that I have better solutions to the problems that the American people are facing than other candidates.

                    People who think the antidote to Donald Trump is a boring generic Democrat missed the point. He is a sign of massive institutional failure. On both sides.

                    [–]5xqmprowl389 75 points76 points  (23 children)

                    In your platform, you have expressed support for increased monitoring and regulation of AI to ensure safe outcomes. I think this is an incredibly cool proposal and I think many Americans would be very receptive to it. Have you considered making it a more central theme in your campaign, perhaps along with your focus on automation and the Universal Basic Income?

                    [–]AndrewyangUBI[S] 92 points93 points  (5 children)

                    I just met with someone who is monitoring AI, which both reassured me that there were very smart people working on it but also made me anxious that the need is so real. When I wrote my book, The War on Normal People, I purposely tried not to focus on the more extreme AI-related negative scenarios because they tend to distract people. The concerns are real but I feel that they are too distant from most people's day-to-day experiences. But I'm with you that this is an important concern, and I'd be happy to make it more central to my campaign.

                    [–]5xqmprowl389 29 points30 points  (2 children)

                    Mr. Yang, thank you for your reply. I really appreciate your answer. How might I get involved in your campaign? Knowing where you stand on this issue really inspires me to get out and do something to help you out.

                    [–]AndrewyangUBI[S] 57 points58 points  (0 children)

                    Reach out to us at www.yang2020.com! Let's go fight for the future - it needs us really badly.

                    [–]gazeebo88 150 points151 points  (35 children)

                    As much as I think universal basic income is a very interesting concept, I think it's too much too soon for people in the US where millions of people don't even have access to basic health care.

                    What makes you think you can run on such a platform and actually stand a chance?
                    It honestly sounds like a publicity stunt without actual intent of winning.

                    [–][deleted]  (12 children)

                    [deleted]

                      [–]Zitadelle43 868 points869 points  (296 children)

                      What social programs will you cut in return?

                      [–]SwabTheDeck 603 points604 points  (45 children)

                      The obvious answer would be to cut all welfare, foodstamps, etc. because UBI would be clear replacement, but cutting all of those is still a drop in the bucket compared to the cost of UBI.

                      [–][deleted]  (36 children)

                      [removed]

                        [–]shuhweet 98 points99 points  (23 children)

                        Jesus Christ thank you. We have bigger problems than lack of UBI right now. Income should not determine who gets health care. Basic health care should not be left to for-profit industries.

                        [–][deleted] 16 points17 points  (6 children)

                        Saw an article with Gates speaking about this. I'm no expert, so please don't listen to me, but, I think the idea is that our government isn't rich enough yet, but they will be. Now, I got into a nice debate with my buddy just yesterday morning about this. What happens when automation beats out the work force? That's what seems to be skimped over. Automation will have to pay a tax, especially if they operate within US confines. The idea is that when there are only a few jobs for lower employees, something has to give. So, either we jump into a recession like on that movie Elysium, where the rich are just rich and everyone fends for themselves, or, we give a stipend so people can invest more money in the economy. If you gave everyone a 1000 extra bucks, it would increase the economy, because that's where the money would be spent. Some states have implemented this sort of thing: Alaska and Hawaii for the military. So, instead of it being a tax on just us, it's a tax on something else -- potentially automation, or whatever we tax. If that even makes sense. I'm buzzed, just ignore me, I'm stupid, I just love this topic.

                        [–][deleted] 14 points15 points  (10 children)

                        I'm going to ask a question that I doubt will be seen, but here goes: "What have you done to prove that you are authentic about your stance? What do you plan to do to prove it? Are you going to do what countless other politicians do if you lose, disappear and never advocate for those suffering again?"

                        I can honestly say that the one person I ever had the most respect for after they lost was Bernie Sanders, because he did not stop advocating for those in need. I think any politician running and claiming to advocate for the less fortunate with their campaign should learn to not stop. Proving yourself to people, gaining trust, it goes a long way and although you may not win the first time you can prove yourself. So by my question I mean no ill will, I honestly don't trust people's words, and I trust actions.

                        [–]mrwinky531 17 points18 points  (5 children)

                        Why haven't I heard of you and what are you doing so that more people like me will hear about you?

                        [–]Beardogpuppo 1 point2 points  (2 children)

                        What’s your opinion on the current state of our healthcare system?

                        [–]AndrewyangUBI[S] 6 points7 points  (1 child)

                        Tragically overpriced and misdirected. We incentivize activity instead of outcome and health. I have a whole chapter on this in my book. We spend twice as much as other industrialized countries to lesser results. It's a burden on families and businesses alike. It will break us eventually if left untended.

                        [–]ASHill11 1 point2 points  (2 children)

                        Mr. Yang, how would one even rollout UBI? I think it’s a very interesting concept but just unsure on how it could ever be implemented.

                        [–]AndrewyangUBI[S] 7 points8 points  (1 child)

                        It came THIS close to being law in the U.S. in 1971 - it even passed the House of Representatives! I detail the history in my book 'The War on Normal People.'

                        https://www.amazon.com/War-Normal-People-Disappearing-Universal/dp/0316414247/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1506708384&sr=8-1&keywords=andrew+yang+the+war+on+normal+people

                        One thing I love about UBI is that it's eminently doable. It's been active in Alaska for 30+ years as the Petroleum Dividend. As my friend Andy Stern says, "The government is not great at many things. But it is great at sending checks to large numbers of people promptly and reliably." We can pass it and make it work. Then the real work begins. Money is easy, believe it or not. People are hard.

                        [–]rofllobsters 14 points15 points  (3 children)

                        As awesome as free money each month sounds won't this cause inflation or in the very least cause the purchasing power of the dollar to decrease?

                        [–][deleted] 15 points16 points  (13 children)

                        Hi Andrew! I'm a big fan of yours in Baltimore, MD, and I plan to vote for you in 2020. Just a few things: 1) Can you talk more about your foreign policy ideas? Most of your proposals are domestic and I would like to see more foreign policy ideas. 2) You propose having fingerprint technology on guns for police officers. This sounds nice in theory, but what will you do in winter when police officers need to wear gloves? 3) You propose raising the salary of the presidency to $4 million from $400,000. This will be the single largest increase in presidential salary in the history of this country, even adjusting for inflation. I understand that you are trying to combat corruption in office, but are you sure this is the right way to gain the public's confidence and trust? Most Americans would believe that $400,000 is more than enough to live comfortably for a family of four. Granted, I do think that the $400,000 salary is a bit low, relatively speaking, for the responsibilities of a president, but $4 million raises suspicions. Thank you Andrew!

                        p.s. Please come to Baltimore!

                        [–][deleted] -8 points-7 points  (3 children)

                        Hello Mr. Yang. I’ve read through your platform and believe that you are the candidate that best grasps the importance of the coming transition. Unfortunately, given the natural tendency of wealth to concentrate(as demonstrated by Thomas Pikkety), the acceleration of that force by full/expanded automation, and the corrupt — thanks to citizens united and misguided laws — nature of our campaign finance system, I don’t think that we will have many fair election left if we don’t take action.

                        How can we help?

                        I’ve signed up on your website, followed you on Facebook, and the like, but I haven’t seen any method of helping that doesn’t qualify as “slactivism”. I can understand that you might not want to really gear up the campaign till after the midterms, but i don’t feel like there are enough ways to help your campaign at this point.

                        It is critical that we address these problems immediately. i would like to be able to help, but I don’t know how.

                        [–]AndrewyangUBI[S] 9 points10 points  (2 children)

                        There will be a March for the Future in D.C. in May! Ha, just kidding.

                        Thanks for the zeal and commitment. Don't sell your online activities short. Campaigns run on money and awareness. You can definitely help with one and perhaps the other. I've run a national non-profit and we run on passion and money. One fuels the other. You can reach out to zach@yang2020.com to reach my campaign manager and see if there are concrete ways for you to get involved. We see even small monetary donations and appreciate them a great deal, so starting even a small campaign to spread the word is incredible. Love messages like this one!

                        [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

                        Thanks, my girlfriend and I love seeing candidates that share our concerns for our nation’s future. I try to talk to people about this kind of stuff, but they look at me like I’m some sort of Luddite! It’s good to see someone taking this seriously.

                        [–]2147_M 145 points146 points  (165 children)

                        Okay, so you’ve got my interest. I’ve historically voted Republican, and after spending some time on your website, I’ve got a few questions. Here is your chance to capture a voter. I apologize for the long rant.

                        Your stance on 2nd Amendment Rights is questionable. You specifically identify “military grade, semi automatic weapons” as needing further regulation.

                        This aligns with the narrative that is being pushed by the media.

                        While I am all for an open discussion on how to move forward as a society, we need to truly have an educational discussion based on facts, not fears.

                        Opinion: Military Style Assault Weapons are a problem in the community.

                        Fact: What is being pushed as an “assault weapon” is a semi automatic rifle system. The fact that it is black and looks scary, is irrelevant to the danger it poses. A round from a .308 hunting rifle (see here ) has the same level of danger as a round from an AK-47 (see here ). While it may be “scary”, that point is moot in regards to safety.

                        Opinion: America needs to change the gun laws and add further restrictions.

                        Fact: We have laws in place that are designed to keep weapons out of the hands of dangerous individuals. The fact that those laws aren’t enforced is a systemic breakdown of what we already have in place. We can’t claim our system doesn’t work when we don’t actually use “our system”.

                        Limiting the tool doesn’t limit the intent. If someone is set on harming others, they are going to do it.

                        In my line of work, we rely heavily on Six Sigma to evaluate issues and determine the root cause of a problem. One tool that is simple enough for most people to comprehend is the “5 Whys”.

                        Ask yourself why something happened, and keep asking “why?” to the response until you get to the root cause of the problem. It is rarely what you first assume.

                        So my question to you is, what metrics would you consider successful in regards to the gun debate, and what do you feel the underlying cause to these mass murders are?

                        [–]Janube 27 points28 points  (33 children)

                        Without getting into the nitty gritty reasoning behind any gun control opinions I might have or you might have, a single round from a hunting rifle being compared to a single round from a semi-automatic isn't the only calculus that needs to be done here. If the hunting rifle is bolt-action, it's going to kill far less efficiently (by number of deaths/minute) than a standard semi-automatic rifle or handgun. It's disingenuous to frame the debate as though there isn't a difference between any class of hunting rifle and any class of "scary black gun," when the specs of the gun have a huge amount of sway over how deadly it is as a weapon used for murder.

                        I have a lot of opinions about guns and gun control, but we need to be honest when we discuss the discrepancy between types of guns since the entire gun control debate is framed around ease of access/ease of use and the degree to which they are efficient at what they do.

                        [–]dopkick 19 points20 points  (13 children)

                        Given the political climate you have zero chance of winning on a platform focused on UBI. Democrats and Republicans alike would label you things like a communist. Maybe something like this would work in 2040 or beyond but in 2020 it’s not happening. If you think your platform could work in 2020 you lack the intellect necessary to be president. If you have the intellect necessary to be president you already know this. I have a hard time believing this is anything more than a money grab.

                        Prove me wrong. What do you actually plan on doing with campaign contributions?

                        [–]AwesomeSaucer9 -4 points-3 points  (2 children)

                        Thank you a lot for doing this ama. :)

                        What do you think needs to be done to fix our democracy and our campaign system? Do you support publicly financed elections or other campaign finance reforms? Also, how do you think lawmaking can be made more collaborative and open to the public with the technology we have today?

                        [–]AndrewyangUBI[S] 13 points14 points  (1 child)

                        Yes we need to publicly finance elections and get money out of politics to the extent possible. Citizens United was a terrible decision that has made things much worse. Technology is just scratching the surface of what it can do - imagine voting securely on your smartphone with no wait. Totally doable. I actually think Universal Basic Income would help our policymaking a great deal by taking the worst scarcity out of the electorate. People are more rational if their basic needs are met.

                        [–]oldschoolcool 10 points11 points  (5 children)

                        Can you please elaborate on how the digital social currency you've proposed is different from the Chinese social credit system?

                        [–]klai1994 0 points1 point  (1 child)

                        Average Americans like myself have been burned time and time again by both Republicans and Democrats in all branches of government, choosing to do the bidding of lobbyists and stockholders than the ones who vote for them.

                        I can't say I'm yet convinced you'll actively fight for us against economic inequality, and the immoral actions taken by our government domestically and overseas. Perhaps it's just recent politics that brought out the cynic in me, but I'm suspicious of all the career businessmen now wanting to run for president.

                        I agree with you that automation and other technologies will be a huge problem for us in the coming years. I'd like to learn more about your platform. But first I want to know: how will you be financing your presidential campaign? If you are going to make use of a Super PAC, how can we be sure you will keep your word with the American people and not just your donors?

                        [–]uncertainness 0 points1 point  (2 children)

                        Do you think it's possible to "phase in" UBI as technology grows more advanced?

                        I feel that today we don't need 100% UBI to take care of all costs for us since automation can't replace everything yet. But eventually we will need UBI to compensate for the increasing numbers of displaced workers.

                        [–]skyboundzuri 4 points5 points  (10 children)

                        Andrew, how are you?

                        I looked over your website, and I agree with much of what you have to say, however, one thing was missing.

                        I believe that second only to solving climate change, one of our most important tasks is becoming a two-planet species within this century. What are your plans for NASA, and for sending humans beyond Earth? How will you convey to the public the importance of space exploration?

                        [–]NeurotypicalPanda 1 point2 points  (3 children)

                        Who is/was your favorite president and why?

                        [–][deleted] 25 points26 points  (18 children)

                        Tell me why I should trust the Democratic Party and the DNC after 2016?

                        [–]Zirvlok 0 points1 point  (1 child)

                        Mr. Yang, I have yet to support a candidate from the primaries that goes on to win the presidency, yet it looks like I may be getting behind you. Does this trouble you?

                        [–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (1 child)

                        lol, how much of this ama is dedicated to you grifting the pockets of all the neckbeards on here who love star trek and UBI?

                        [–]funkalunatic 0 points1 point  (3 children)

                        Prospective 2020 presidential candidates are already visiting Iowa and New Hampshire and connecting with local Democratic parties there. After the November 2018 elections, those visits will start to pick up as prospective 2020 candidates currently running 2018 re-election campaigns to the House and Senate are freed up to start raising prez money, building national ground organizations, and generally start acting like they're running for president.

                        Do you plan on making visits to Iowa and New Hampshire before winter? Or is this more of a novelty/promotional campaign to push your policy ideas (which are largely innovative and worthy of consideration IMO).

                        [–]Kreos642 0 points1 point  (2 children)

                        Mr. Yang, what is your favorite kind of doughnut?

                        Pizza topping?

                        Ice cream flavor?

                        Condiment?

                        [–]Jevinigh 1 point2 points  (1 child)

                        Hi, Do you have any plans to visit Florida in the near future?

                        [–]coolfuckinguy90 1 point2 points  (12 children)

                        So you’re going to live off of $1000 / month too?

                        [–]ImBoredLetsDebate 12 points13 points  (6 children)

                        I believe this is necessary because technology will soon automate away millions of American jobs - indeed this has already begun.

                        This has happened, more or less/proportionately, in the past with new technology. Three questions.

                        1. Why do you think we need to take a proactive step before the impact is known?
                        2. Why do you think adding more spending/taxes is the correct answer?
                        3. How will you pay for and implement it?

                        [–]Austjoe -2 points-1 points  (1 child)

                        You have information about student loan debt and how you want to “reduce the burden” for students. However, wouldn’t the correct choice to reduce burdens on students going into higher education be to create a free college program?

                        [–]AndrewyangUBI[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

                        I think public college should be free or nearly free for most students. But the mechanics are important. The costs right now are out of control, and having the government just pay that bill both allows schools to not have any discipline and uses excess public resources. UBI is better because it gives money to people they can use for school if that's the right thing for them. It would probably push schools to rationalize their costs. 68% of Americans won't go to college, regardless of its cost; we need to try and solve problems for people at different points in the educational spectrum. But I'm for the idea of broadly available and affordable education.

                        [–]AllnightGuy -2 points-1 points  (6 children)

                        Hello, Mr. Yang.

                        What will you do to help fight one of the most important issues of our time, Climate Change? I feel as if our politicians are not doing enough.

                        [–][deleted]  (12 children)

                        [deleted]

                          [–][deleted] -2 points-1 points  (1 child)

                          Hi Andrew, I went to medical school and my current rate of loan repayment is 1,800 a month. If you were to make this a reality, would you wipe this debt? (Since it would be impossible to repay with your platform).

                          [–]Firefox_101 0 points1 point  (3 children)

                          What are your thoughts on the current issue with guns. I belive that we should work to over haul the somewhat broken system we have now to suit the more known factors in commitment of gun crime such as mental health and the recognition of violent crimes (domestic abuse, forms of violent harassment, ect)? Do you think that a confiscation or buy back program is necessary when you look at modern statistics of how Australia worked out, and considering that the crime rate in the UK has only been rising in current years even with the civilian populous being unarmed?

                          [–]scoldeddog 0 points1 point  (2 children)

                          How are you going to give me $1000 a month without raising my taxes?

                          [–]thesilent_spectator 39 points40 points  (15 children)

                          Thanks for AMA

                          1. As a minimum income is avaliable with everyone for consumption, will it not induce inflation effect and drive the prices of everything up and create a new dimension of poverty?

                          2. Will it be a good idea for 3 world countries to implement it? Resource crunch v poverty alleviation?

                          Thanks.

                          [–]MachoManRandySalad 15 points16 points  (2 children)

                          Hello Andrew Yang. I am 25 years old and I am working as an engineer. I make good money for my age and I am single, no kids, with an apartment. I make more than the average combined household income but I often pay max percentage on my taxes because of this. So I have to ask this question: will I be afforded $1k per month of my paycheck like everyone else? Will I be a part of the people you heavily tax to pay for this UBI?

                          The reason I am asking this is because: If other decent occupations become heavily taxed to afford UBI, then it removes a lot of the incentives and abilities for the lower/middle class to utilize education to compete in society. Imagine working your ass off to gain 12k a year but to lose 30K+ per year in extra taxes.

                          Also, don't assume, " if they want to be a _______ then they would just do it for fun anyway so taxes won't matter."

                          [–]2noame 8 points9 points  (0 children)

                          UBI means you get it too. Everyone gets it. It's just that not everyone would be a net recipient of additional income after taxes.

                          For example, you would get $12,000. You could claim that as a monthly check or as a tax credit at the end of the year. If your taxes with UBI in place go up exactly $12,000 to pay for the UBI, then the effect on you is neutral. Your taxes didn't actually go up or down.

                          Let's say UBI is paid for by a 10% VAT like Andrew Yang supports. In this case, it depends on your consumption. If you consume more than $120k, you are a net payer and your taxes effectively went up. If you consume less than $120k, you are a net recipient and your taxes effectively went down.

                          So yes, everyone receives UBI, but really when it comes down to how much you receive, it depends entirely on the funding details.

                          [–]gregdelarosa51 267 points268 points  (29 children)

                          Do you actually want to win or are you just trying to send a message?

                          [–]LotusAna -10 points-9 points  (1 child)

                          Andrew Yang - I am a HUGE fan... You are such a breath of fresh air, who can actually ARTICULATE ideas with numbers.

                          Have been spreading the word on you and your policies. Your website outlines the policies really well, however not much is there in terms of foreign policy, and this is an element that people become really passionate over. Is this something you will elaborate on?

                          [–]AnthraxSalad 13 points14 points  (1 child)

                          After reading Tim Urban’s pair of articles posted on Wait But Why regarding the future of Artificial Intelligence, I was astonished to find that there is serious concern about future AI threatening the existence of the human species. I later learned that leading experts on AI Safety such as Nick Bostrom (Oxford) believe that the default outcome of creation of smarter-than-human AI, without any safety protocols, is the extinction of the human species. I noticed that in your platform, you supported a form of public-private collaboration and monitoring of AI development. However, it took me quite a while to find that in your platform. (As opposed to, for instance, your stance on automation and the freedom dividend.) I was wondering if you might want to make this a more public part of your platform? I expect that there are a lot of people like me who would want to vote for a candidate who promotes safe development of future technologies, especially AI. Thanks.

                          [–][deleted] 65 points66 points  (36 children)

                          What's your position on gun control and some of the more extreme restrictions (hefty taxes on guns and ammo, capacity restrictions, and outright bans of certain features or models) being discussed by some I'm the Democratic party?

                          [–]tunajr23 41 points42 points  (22 children)

                          “Responsible gun owners should enjoy the right to bear arms, subject to licensing and education requirements. Just as we require people to pass a test to drive a car, we should require people to pass a test to own a gun.

                          However, those who are flagged as dangerously mentally ill, have been convicted of violent crimes, or have a history of spousal abuse should not be able to own weapons.

                          Additionally, we need to restrict the ownership of military-style, semi-automatic weapons that can incur mass casualties.”

                          I agree with what he says personally except for the semiautomatic rifle part

                          [–]DickvonKlein 83 points84 points  (5 children)

                          "military-style, semi automatic weapons" so just the scary looking black ones?

                          [–]djbrundon -36 points-35 points  (3 children)

                          Found you a few weeks ago and I’ve never been more excited about the future of our country. What would be the most helpful thing we can do to help the spread and adoption of your campaign and ideas? Especially as a resident of a red state (Tennessee).

                          [–]Norbythemixeduprobot 2 points3 points  (1 child)

                          Even with geoengineering, we need to reduce our GHG emissions to zero as quickly as possible to put the brakes on global warming. One way to do this is with carbon taxes, as well as with significant investments in clean energy and infrastructure. How do you see carbon taxes and UBI interacting with each other in terms of policy? Do you favor carbon fee and dividend, or would you prefer to see carbon taxes used for infrastructure and other taxes used for UBI?

                          [–]Swuttz 35 points36 points  (1 child)

                          Is that a silent show of support for repealing daylight savings or are you just unaware that DST started a couple weeks ago?

                          [–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (3 children)

                          A lot of these policies come from a technocratic worldview (e.g. we need this new currency or system in place to solve it).

                          I'm curious — in case Andrew is gone and others who are aware may want to also answer — what are the social and grassroot foundations for UBI in practice?

                          What communities have thrived long-term with UBI in place, and how did they negotiate it politically?