Can we stop acting like all UBI activists (including Yang) want to dismantle all welfare?

 So, it happened again, Emma Vigeland, the cohost on Sam Seder's show, basically started claiming Yang wanted to cut welfare again, specifically mentioning how he wanted to cut social security and medicare to pay for it. Vigeland, and the Seder show in general, have never been particularly charitable to Yang or his supporters, and this comes off as alienating as FUDGE to me. 

I mean, again. As you can tell, I'm not very charitable to leftists and progressives these days, and a lot of it is about UBI. As I said when discussing west's position on it a lot of them are very UBI-curious, but the second any plan is put to paper, they turn against it in a flaming white hot ball of rage claiming it would destroy welfare and usher in a new era of neoliberalism but worse. And uh...that's BS.

Discussing Yang's position on welfare

Yang's actual position on social security is the following:

Those who served our country and are facing a disability as a result will continue to receive their benefits on top of the $1,000 per month.

Social Security retirement benefits stack with UBI. Since it is a benefit that people pay into throughout their lives, that money is properly viewed as belonging to them, and they shouldn’t need to choose.

Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) is based on earned work credits. Supplemental Security Income (SSI) is a means-tested program. You can collect both SSDI and $1,000 a month. Most people who are legally disabled receive both SSDI and SSI. Under the universal basic income, those who are legally disabled would have a choice between collecting SSDI and the $1,000, or collecting SSDI and SSI, whichever is more generous.

Even some people who receive more than $1,000 a month in SSI would choose to take the Freedom Dividend because it has no preconditions. Basic income removes these requirements and guarantees an income, regardless of other factors.

 So basically, SSRI and SSDI would be protected. Only SSI (supplemental security income), which is a means tested welfare program not based on previous contributions, would be axed. Yang would effectively force people to choose between SSI and welfare, but hey, guess what, SSI tops out at $914 a month for an individual, and $1371 for a couple. meanwhile, UBI would be $1000 given away free and clear to an individual, and a couple would get $2000. And you wouldnt have any of the trappings of SSI otherwise. You would be able to work if you wanted, whereas SSI has a steep effective 50% tax if you work for every dollar earned. And other stuff like disability and unemployment would actively just phase out SSI anyway. UBI would just render SSI unnecessary and unneeded, by replacing it with a SUPERIOR program.

As for healthcare, Yang wanted some version of comprehensive healthcare reform. I admit his position was never consistent and he was all over the place, but it seemed obvious that he supported SOME form of universal healthcare ON TOP OF and SEPARATE FROM UBI. I mean in 2020 he originally ran on medicare for all combined with UBI, and I have trouble imagining he would just axe medicaid and medicare for UBI, or force people to choose between the two. That would be stupid and counter to his goals. And regardless of whatever deevolution he has had on the issue, it seems clear that he clearly understands that some government solution is needed on healthcare separate from UBI. He is unclear about what that is, but I doubt he would force some right wing wet dream on everyone of pulling the rug out from under people by making them choose between health coverage and $1000 a month.

As far as other welfare, yes, Yang to my knowledge did say you would have to choose between welfare and UBI. And he outright said, if your old programs are better for you, you can keep them. He actually did this as an attempt to compromise with welfarists. Welfarists worry about UBI activists cutting SOME welfare and how this might hurt SOME people, so yang took the "easy" way out by saying that if you prefer your existing programs you can keep them, but then you won't get UBI.

This might sound cruel, until you realize that most of the remaining programs are less generous. I've discussed that before. To quote the research I did with this year's UBI plan:

One more thing that should be mentioned. You might wonder about the excessive gains among people at the bottom. Well, those would often be blunted by the reduction of welfare itself. I don't expect the poor to be worse off on UBI than welfare, especially given how I implement the idea. But it would help blunt the gains. 

Supplemental security income would disappear. It has a maximum benefit of $914 a person, less than the $1250 my UBI offers, but still substantial. But we would lose all of the income and asset limits that accompany that. 

SNAP would disappear to, but you're talking, at most, $281 per individual, and $197 on average. Given my UBI gives $1250 per adult and $450 per child per month, it's clear to see what's the better deal.

TANF offers a benefit of $498 on average for a family of three, but with insane time limits, and all kinds of work requirements and asset limits. Yuck. 

WIC seems to give food directly, but with UBI you can buy all the food you want, so it's probably better. 

EITC can give benefits of up to $560 a year for an adult, $3733 for one child, $6164 for 2 children, and $6935 for three children. That's about $3200 for the first child, $2400 for the second, $800 for the third. My UBI gives $5400 per child, and $15000 for the first adult. It clearly wins here.

 The Child Tax credit gives $2000 per child. Again, I give $5400.

So, are people better off on welfare? Or are they better off on UBI? I seriously think most people would be better off on UBI. Even if you got like, every single program above, and you just edged out my UBI plan, i dont think it would be worth it. Because you would be subject to insane asset limits, income limits, work requirements (or alternatively restrictions), and time limits. And as Scott Santens would tell you, like a majority of people eligible for these programs don't even get them. Welfare is a mess, and leftists shouldn't defend it. it was created by people with the backwards mindset, that we had to simultaneously care for the poor, but also force them into the work force. That's not freedom.

  Now, to be fair, this is mostly in reference to MY OWN UBI plan. Which is more generous than Yang's. I'll get into my position later, but you can understand what it is just based on this. 

But yeah, most of those other hodge podges of programs are a mess. They have a very low income ceiling, they're less generous than UBI, you would need several programs combined to beat out even Yang's UBI, and honestly, most of them are also full of time limits, means testing, asset limits, complex sign ups, and honestly, even in the short run, if some are better for some people, UBI would inevitably help more people and it would help them directly. Only a handful of people would be better off on welfare, and Yang basically said "whatever, it's cool, you can stay on that, you just won't get the UBI". I know progressives love to beat their chests moralizing about the deserving poor, but it's honestly just virtue signalling that isn't based in reality.

Honestly, the only program not really addressed that might be impactful to discuss here is section 8 housing. THAT can be a generous program. But as Scott Santens pointed out in the article referenced above, only "24 percent of those who qualify for housing assistance get it, and getting it can mean years of waiting on lists." Yeah. That's not an acceptable solution. The other 76% could use a UBI NOW. 

So yeah, that's Yang's position. It's NOT perfect, but it's a HELL of a lot better than Vigeland made it out to be. Stacks with social security, presumably stacks with healthcare, there are a few complications, but anyone unhappy with UBI can just opt out of the program and stick with what they got. And honestly, given the temporary nature of many of those other programs...let's face it, most of those guys would shift to UBI within 5 years I'm guessing. The fact is, the welfare these guys are defending just sucks that much. There's no reason to defend it and demonize UBI unless you're a vapid moralistic virtue signaller. Which most people who talk like this are. They're not on social programs themselves. They dont know what it's like to be poor, and they're like those upper class suburbanites donating their expired cheerios that've been in the cupboard for the past 5 years to the soup kitchen and how they'll be grateful and LOVE them. Nah man, your food sucks. And your social programs do too. Please read Theresa Funiciello's A Tyranny of Kindness. 

My own position on welfare vs UBI

Now, I'm going to be blunt. This is going to be an inevitable reality that a lot of welfarists don't like, but UBI and welfare likely can't exist at the same time. The numbers don't work. And honestly, UBI renders a lot of the safety net redundant. Do we really need these weird means tested programs like SNAP and TANF on top of UBI? No, we don't.

At the same time, there are some aspects of the current safety net that would do a better job for SOME people. Again, social security does a better job. Unemployment does too. They often offer benefits superior to UBI. Like Yang, I support some variation of stacking the benefits, BUT, with a caveat. I would tax the benefits, in lieu of reducing them in order to compensate with UBI. We're gonna need to change the structure of benefits for those on social security. Otherwise everyone just gets an extra $1k a month and that might be a bit too much. Still, we want to ensure everyone is AT LEAST as well off as they are now. Given the maximum social security benefit is around $4,555 a month, and my UBI is $1250 a month, and the taxation I propose is 20%, uh...do the math. The maximum beneficiary would lose $911 a month and gain $1250 a month, so he would gain $339 a month. So monstrous, that I would take $900 from a social security beneficiary in exchange for giving them $1250 back. Completely inhuman of me. /s

The same thing applies to unemployment. The max benefit is $1015 a week, for a total of 26 weeks. That's $4398 a month. Similar math as social security. Do the math. Take all the time you need. They'd lose $879 and gain $1250. They'd come out $371 ahead. AND they'd still have a lifeline if unemployment ran out. It is temporary, and based on contributions after all. Again, these are both the most extreme situations too. Your average benefits for both social security and unemployment are much lower. So those guys make out like bandits under my UBI program. 

Yeah, some programs I'd axe, SSI, SNAP, TANF, WIC, etc. WHO CARES. As I explained above, they suck and pay far less than UBI does anyway. 

Section 8 I'd keep.

Healthcare, well, I aint touching medicare or medicaid UNLESS I'm doing healthcare reform. Then I'd likely reform those programs into some form of public option like medicare extra for all or single payer.

 Conclusion

People don't seem to realize that just like a public option or single payer would be such an improvement it would render current programs obsolete, that UBI would do that to welfare. The new programs, done right, would be BETTER. Full stop. This shouldn't even be a debate. Yet i keep having to deal with the same nonsense about how Yang wanted to cut welfare and screw people. it's such nonsense.

Welfarists, this is you. You're like that possum saying "don't touch my garbage" when you attack UBI supporters, it's ridiculous. 

I'm not saying that the stereotype you attack doesn't exist. Sure, there are SOME right wingers who would basically implement UBI very badly in order to force austerity on the poor. But that isn't even a common position on the right. UBI supporters on the right in US discourse are rare, and that policy hasn't been mainstream since at the latest the Reagan years.  UBI is generally speaking the modern right's worst nightmare. They see it as communism and crap. You might get some weirdo CATO think tank people occasionally coming out with some UBIesque reform of welfare, but most just wanna cut it and sabotage it and undermine it. It's not the 1970s any more. The mainstream thought on welfare on the right is to try to undermine it through their starve the beast initiatives. The last thing they want is a multi trillion dollar EXPANSION of the safety net. 

Most UBI supporters are actually on the LEFT these days. They want some version of UBI coexisting with SOME ASPECT of the existing safety net. That's not to say we don't want compromises. But let's face it, most compromises dont come from a position of screwing the poor, they come from a position of wanting to reconcile the existing safety net with UBI since it just doesn't make sense to have both in some areas. 

UBI critics need to educate themselves as to what UBI supporters are actually for. Most of us are closer to you progressives on the left than you think. We actually want similar things, we just...very clearly, have different ways to get there, and different ideological goals. This is more one of those weirdo leftist infighting/the left eating their own thing rather than UBI supporters being "right wing." And I'm just so sick of bad faith leftist criticism of UBI. m

About that Yang video...

Now, I understand the whole point of the above video that sparked this to be for Emma Vigeland to criticize Yang's position on the McCarthy situation, and yeah, that's fair game. Yang does try to do this comrpomise thing too much, because he's afraid of a civil war. But yeah, I'm currently in the camp that ousting McCarthy was the right move, he didn't do himself any favors, and going after Yang for thinking the democrats should've saved mccarthy is fair. I agree with her on that part and I think Yang sometimes needs more of an ideological backbone at times rather than just trying to get along with everyone. There's a reason I criticize the dude and this is why.

I just find the character assassination on UBI to be distasteful and find Emma's take to be horrifically ignorant. ANd sadly it's a misconception I find myself having to defend Yang/UBI from the left on WAY too often. it's literally a meme that yang wants to destroy all welfare and eat your babies and you shouldnt support him because he's pure evil and a right winger. It's nonsense. yang's UBI isn't perfect, but it's also not terrible. And if you want my honest take on Yang's UBI going in more detail than just this issue, read this.