Thread replying to claims that "Andrew Yang wants to gut the safety net and eliminate all other social programs" and "His UBI is Regressive"

Here is Yang directly replying to the first claim https://twitter.com/i/status/1317714502067097602

It is true that the Freedom Dividend didn't stack with all social programs mostly cash like programs such as SNAP, TANF, SSI, and WIC. But the Freedom Dividend is opt in so if someone prefers to keep their current benefits then they can choose to do so.

Here is a list of some current social programs that the Freedom Dividend would stack with: Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) aka Social Security and SSDI — unemployment insurance (UI), housing assistance, VA disability,Healthcare, etc

Some new social programs he wanted to introduce that would be in addition to UBI:Universal Healthcare,Universal Pre-K, guaranteed childcare, Free financial and marriage counseling, mandatory paid family maternity and sick leave, Carbon Dividend, and more

Now for the second claim "The Freedom Dividend is regressive"

The Freedom Dividend is a UBI of $1000 per month to citizens over 18 until death. It is funded in a number of ways:10% VAT, .1% financial transactions tax,Removing social security cap, treating Capital Gains as ordinary income,$20 per ton carbon tax, welfare overlap, and savings

The "Its Regressive" comment is mostly due to the Value Added Tax, so I'll focus on that. Since a VAT is a consumption tax it is considered regressive, meaning lower income people pay a larger percentage of their income than higher income earners.

Why a VAT then? A Value Added Tax is able to bring in large amounts of money while being incredibly efficient at reducing tax evasion. 166 of the 193 countries have a VAT and it accounts for roughly 20% of those country's total tax revenue.

How UBI takes a VAT from regressive to progressive Part 1
A VAT alone is regressive, but it isn't alone, it is being used to fund UBI and a VAT funded UBI is extremely progressive

How UBI takes a VAT from regressive to progressive Part 2

Why universal/unconditional? Why give to the rich? Universal policies ensure that everyone who needs help is able to get help. Means tested programs often miss people who desperately need help. It is not a problem to include the rich because they will be taxed a far higher amount

The Freedom Dividend is not perfect, there is much that can be improved but it is an incredibly progressive policy. Yang acknowledges that UBI doesn't solve every problem and there is much more we have to do

"I see the Freedom Dividend as a foundation or a floor and you dont stop building a house at the floor thats a crummy house 1k a month is just foundation theres a lot of work to do on top of that, we have to do so much more I would never suggest 1k is going to do the work for us"

The End! feel free to add more if you'd like and a special shoutout to @scottsantens @AndrewYang @MaxGhenis @jdcmedlock u/modern_football (on reddit if they have a twitter please tag them) and lots of others