Giving everyone $1000 unconditionally...but making those on assistance already choose is regressive. When the benefits disproportionally go to higher income, that is regressive.

And anyone on assistance would be far better served to keep their assistance AND get the same UBI everyone else is getting. That would be more empowering and more progressive and just make a lot more sense.

I am also under the impression that UBI would be at least partially funded through sales tax which is regressive...but maybe I am remembering wrong.

Again, I'm not downplaying what "a stack" could do for your friend, etc. I didn't mean to be flippant.

My point is that if I get a x amount in UBI, certainly everyone in a worse position should.

This isn't means testing either. Its the opposite. If Yang's proposal says "if you make over 200k" or whatever you don't get/need it...thats means testing.

At the end of the day there is nothing you can say to convince me that everyone should get UBI on top of their current income...EXCEPT anyone on assistance, they have to choose....is a good or progressive policy.

It isnt.

UBI should be UBI not "Universal unless you are already getting handouts why should you get to double dip?" shit. Which is basically what that is.


Take Booker's Baby Bond idea. What if it was "every child born gets a $1,000 bond (or whatever it was)...unless the mother is on assistance. Her baby only gets the bond if she gives up her assistance"


That is...fucking weird and not right. I HATE the message of demonizing or whatever people who require assistance. It is some Reagan shit.


Again, I'm not saying $1,000 to your friend wouldn't be life changing.

I'm saying, your friend shouldn't have to choose. And if UBI works, then she will be off assistance on her own in due time because of what UBI could afford her.

>and a woman (and thus more statistically likely to have to
>sacrifice wages/earnings, advancement, FT labor participation,
>etc - or abandon them entirely - to perform reproductive
>work). If someone can't relate to that (and tbf, maybe you
>can, I don't know you lol), I'm not going to be surprised if
>they don't get where I'm coming from.
>
>Respectfully tho, that still doesn't put you in any position
>to dictate what I (or somebody like me) should consider
>'truly' empowering. To some, the extra cash/mth might just be
>a 'stack', but in the life of the friend I mentioned it would
>have been transformational in contrast to the assistance she
>(is still grateful to have) received.
>
>I think we might have gone back and forth on this before, so I
>already know we disagree and that's totally ok (and at least
>you don't hurl insults to communicate your disagreement lol).
>
>
>But ya I do think the concern about choice (in this context)
>is overblown and paternalistic. And if the disagreement really
>boils down to universality v. means-testing... I'm not wedded
>to either approach bc the population in question definitely
>matters as does the scope, context, goals, and financing of a
>program. I think both approaches have advantages and
>disadvantages. So maybe that factors in to my clash with yall
>on this as well.
>
>I mean if you guys think it's stupid for people receiving
>prescribed gov benefits to choose whether they'd instead
>prefer 1000/month in cash, are you also outraged that people
>earning above the FPL cutoff can't access benefits?? Because
>the means-testing kinda works both ways, no? It's not like
>food insecurity disappears once folks clear that cutoff.
>
>Also: he proposed taxing the most capitalized corporations on
>the planet, capital gains, and high-earners to redistribute
>money to Americans - this is regressive?? lol come on. Yall
>are just throwing around these words (libertarian, regressive
>etc) like they don't have definitions
>
>
>>If I get an extra stack from the Fed, so should anyone who
>is
>>worse off than me. Regardless of what other benefits they
>get.
>>
>>
>>That would be truly empowering. To get the same benefit
>>everyone else gets without having to choose.
>>
>>
>>Making them choose is not empowering. That is some bullshit
>>right wing bootstrap talk.
>>
>>If its universal, make it universal.
>>