Tuesday, April 2, 2019

Forty Reasons Why Libertarians Should Consider Voting for Andrew Yang in 2020 (Incomplete)

Table of Contents



I. Five Reasons Pertaining to Electoral Politics
1. Yang Acknowledges that Government is Unresponsive and Ineffective
2. Yang Supports Ranked Choice Voting, Which Will Help Third Parties Like the L.P.
3. Yang Opposes Getting Rid of the Electoral College
4. Yang Wants to Lower the Voting Age to 16
5. A Libertarian-Democratic Coalition Makes Sense When Republicans Are in Charge

II. Fifteen Reasons Pertaining to Issues Aside from the Freedom Dividend
6. Yang Supports "Automatically Sunsetting Old Laws"
7. Yang is Anti-War and Supports Reducing the Military Budget
8. Yang Supports Statehood for Puerto Rico
9. Yang Supports Two Pieces of Gun Control Legislation Which Compensate Gun Owners
10. Yang Supports a Gun Control Policy Which Defers to States
11. Yang's Call to Hold Gun Manufacturers Liable is Not Unreasonable
12. Yang Supports "Medicare for All, But Opt In", Making Medicare Voluntary
13. Yang's Criticism of Circumcision Shows an Understanding of Parents' Rights
14. Yang Understands Technology, and Doesn't Blame Immigrants for Job Losses
15. Yang Focuses on Economics and M.A.T.H. (Make America Think Harder)
16. Yang Supports Legalizing Marijuana and Pardoning All Non-Violent Drug Offenders
17. Yang is Open to Natural Resource Dividends, Including Those Backed by Cannabis
18. Yang Understands That Income and Wealth Aren't Ideal Things to Tax
19. Yang's Policies Will Result in a Simplification of the Taxation System
20. Yang's Policies Will Result in Lower Taxes and Increased Economic Responsibility

III. Twenty Reasons Pertaining to the Freedom Dividend
21. The F.D. Won't Grow the Welfare State, It Will Shrink Government
22. The F.D. Returns the Responsibility to Manage and Spend Money to We the People
23. Since the F.D. is Universal, it Fulfills the General Welfare Clause
24. The F.D. Renders the "Transition from Welfare to Work" Conversation Moot
25. The F.D. is Not a Stimulus, it Will Create Jobs and Grow the Consumer Economy
26. Any Inflationary Effects of the F.D. Will Be Unnoticeable, and Offset by Poverty Reduction
27. The F.D. Won't Disincentivize Work, It Will Help People Get By Whether They Can Work or Not
28. The F.D. Will Increase Wages and Small Business Creation, Not Increase Joblessness
29. The F.D. Will Cause Interest Rates to Fall, and Without Government Intervention
30. The F.D. Will Make Money a Public Good, and Increase Awareness of Monetary Policy
31. The F.D. Will Increase Personal Wealth, Private Property Ownership, and Save Capitalism
32. The F.D. is Similar to the Negative Income Tax, Which Milton Friedman Supported
33. The F.D. is Very Similar to Thomas Paine's Proposal of an Annual Stipend to All Adult Citizens
34. The F.D.'s is Very Similar to the National FairTax's "Prebate"
35. The F.D.'s Value-Added Tax is Very Similar to the National FairTax Supported by Gary Johnson
36.The F.D. is Not "Free Money" So Much As a Refundable Tax Credit
37. The F.D. Will Function as a Replacement for Minimum Wage Laws
38. The F.D. is Not a Mainstream Idea, So We Know He's Not Controlled by the D.N.C.
39. If You Don't Like the F.D., You Can Opt Out of Receiving It, So it's Voluntary
40. If Andrew Yang Wins and Implements the F.D., You Can Help Save Costs by Opting Out





Content




I. Five Reasons Pertaining to Electoral Politics




1. Yang Acknowledges that Government is Unresponsive and Ineffective

     Andrew Yang admitted in a video interview that "Government does most things badly". According to Yang, the one thing government does right is "sending a large number of checks to a large number of people", an advantage which he plans to utilize in implementing the Freedom Dividend. His admission that government, for the most part, doesn't work, makes him one of the most libertarian candidates in the Democratic field for president in 2020.






2. Yang Supports Ranked Choice Voting, Which Will Help Third Parties Like the L.P.


     Andrew Yang supports enacting Ranked Choice Voting (also called Ranked Preference Voting or Ranked Preferential Voting), a type of instant-runoff election system which relies on simple majorities and a ranking system, rather than a supermajoritarian system or a first-past-the-post system.
     Ranked Choice Voting affords runners-up and third parties greater chances to get elected. With Ranked Choice Voting, Democrats and Republicans whose second choice is the Libertarian candidate, can vote for multiple candidates, including the L.P..
     Ranked Choice Voting would allow anyone who is interested enough to assign L.P. candidates any level of rank, the opportunity to vote for Libertarian candidates without caution, even if only as an afterthought. Thus, nothing about Ranked Choice Voting stands to negatively impact the Libertarian Party, nor any other third party.

Source: http://www.yang2020.com/policies/rankedchoice/







3. Yang Opposes Getting Rid of the Electoral College


      Andrew Yang has stated that he opposes getting rid of the Electoral College and opposes replacing it with a popular vote system. He tweeted that replacing the Electoral College with the popular vote would discourage presidential candidates from visiting anywhere but the highest-population areas. This means, for the most part, the highest-population cities; especially the Bos-Wash corridor in the northeastern United States, and the top 25 or so most highly populated urban areas.
     Yang's endorsement of the Electoral College shows that he understands why the framers of the Constitution laid out the system they did, and Libertarians who appreciate the pragmatism and workability of the Constitution should be able to appreciate that.

Source: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/kamala-harris-open-to-the-idea-of-killing-the-electoral-college








4. Yang Wants to Lower the Voting Age to 16



     Yang's proposal to lower the voting age is arguably libertarian. It acknowledges that many 16- and 17-year-olds - many of whom are already working - are mature enough to make decisions that affect who decides what laws govern our nation. After all, those laws include labor laws, health insurance laws, financial laws, etc., which affect their relationships with employers, health insurers, student loan agencies, and others.
     Only half of the states in the country allow 17-year-olds to vote in primaries that will affect elections in which those same voters will be 18, and thus old enough to vote, on the General Election Day of that same election. It does not make sense that 17-year-olds should be denied the opportunity to influence the outcome of the election throughout the entire election. So why not let 17-year-olds vote?
     If that makes sense to you, then why not extend that to 16-year-olds? Just like 17-year-olds, 16-year-olds drive in all states, and many of them have jobs at that age. Sixteen-year-olds have the right of contract, and even of marriage, in some states. They have to attend public schools, too, and deal with public school teachers, which are paid for with our tax dollars. Shouldn't they have some say how the institutions with which they interact every day are run?
     Strategically, though, Libertarian Party supporters skew young, and it's likely that a large number of 16- and 17-year-olds becoming eligible voters will result in an uptick of enrollment in Libertarian Party membership. For Libertarians to support Yang on this issue can only help libertarians who want to increase political involvement. And for those libertarians who say they advocate increased political involvement among young voters, this is a perfect opportunity to prove that they mean it.

     

Source: http://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/04/03/andrew-yang-wants-to-lower-voting-age-to-16/






5. A Libertarian-Democratic Coalition Makes Sense When Republicans Are in Charge

     The Republicans are the incumbents. Whether temporary or not, a coalition between Democrats and Libertarians just makes sense. Democrats and Libertarians have a mutual interest to stop Donald Trump from being re-elected. A coalition between Democrats and Libertarians will increase the chances that Trump will fail to receive a majority of votes in the states, and then in the electoral college (where it counts).
     Even if you end up voting for whomever the Libertarian nominee turns out to be in the general election, Libertarian candidates tend to have much more in common with each other than the candidates in the other parties, so choosing a Libertarian candidate in the primaries will be less likely to have an effect than a vote in one of the major party primaries. Think of how different many 2016 primary races would have turned out, if some Trump supporters who knew Trump was certain to win their states, had voted for Bernie against Hillary in the Democratic nomination. Five to ten percent of Trump supporters would have had nothing to lose by doing that; Trump would have still been the G.O.P. nominee, and Hillary would have been defeated.
     This is why - even if you don't vote Yang in the general election - you should consider voting for Yang in the primaries, against his most formidable opponents in the Democratic primary. They are almost certain to be less libertarian than Yang is, and Trump is almost certain to be nominated for the presidency in 2020.









II. Fifteen Reasons Pertaining to Issues Aside from the Freedom Dividend



6. Yang Supports "Automatically Sunsetting Old Laws"

     The "Automatically Sunset Old Laws" section of Andrew Yang's campaign website begins, "Congress is set up to pass laws. They're not set up to remove old laws." That statement - or at least the second half of it - is a quite libertarian statement, considering that many Libertarians are more interested in repealing old laws than passing new ones. But then, of course, passing new ones will be appropriate once we get rid of the old ones, and that is what Yang is interested in doing.

     About the issue of sunsetting old laws directly, Yang's website reads, "There should... be a sunset period defined - a time during which, barring Congressional action, the law will be removed from the books." Yang's website continues, "After the defined period, a Congressional committee could hear testimony about how the law has met its KPIs [Key Performance Indicators] and, if it's still relevant and has achieved its goals, can decide to reenact it for another period of time. If it is no longer relevant, or if it has failed to achieve its defined goals, it should cease to be law." Additionally, one of the goals on Yang's website reads "Automatically sunset harmful, useless, or underperforming laws".
     There is scarcely a libertarian alive who would call the automatic sunsetting and review of old laws a bad idea. Thomas Jefferson and Frederic Bastiat believed that if government programs must exist, then they should be temporary. Yang is not proposing a "Department of Eliminating Redundant Departments Department"; all he is proposing is a new congressional committee, which will be much less costly than creating a new bureaucracy.


Source: http://www.yang2020.com/policies/automatically-sunsetting-old-laws/







7. Yang is Anti-War and Supports Reducing the Military Budget

     Yang has said on multiple occasions, "End the forever-war". He said in an interview with Jimmy Dore,"it's clear to me that we've gotten ourselves entangled in military interventions that have not served clear American interests."
     He also said that "it's not America's place to decide what regime should be in charge of any given country, even if it's a country close to America". Yang has also said that military spending is going towards "things that may or may not be making us safer", and has advocated shifting "a lot of that military spending towards domestic infrastructure projects". He has even said that he would repeal the A.U.M.F. (Authorization of Use of Military Force) enacted after 9/11.
     He wants to reduce military spending by $200 billion, out of a $750 billion budget for the Pentagon, which works out to 26.7%. In 2016, Gary Johnson ran on reducing the military budget by 43%. Thus, Andrew Yang's military budget reduction is 62% of the reduction supported by the Libertarian Party's last presidential nominee. In at least that respect, Yang is nearly 2/3 of the way towards the L.P. platform, and that's not half bad.


Sources: http://www.yang2020.com/policies/rechannel-military-spending/
               http://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/what-does-andrew-yang-believe-where-the-candidate-stands-on-5-issues








8. Yang Supports Statehood for Puerto Rico

     On his campaign website, Andrew Yang states, "Puerto Ricans overwhelmingly want to be a state, and we should endorse this and make it happen." And he is right; 61% of Puerto Ricans voted for statehood in a 2012 referendum. Although the 2017 referendum was plagued with low voter turnout (in part due to anti-statehood advocates boycotting the election), a whopping 97% voted to support Puerto Rican statehood in that election.
     According to Yang, "Puerto Rico has been a part of the United States for over a century, and yet its people are still denied many of the rights of the full citizens because it is a commonwealth of the US instead of a full state." Yang is correct again; Puerto Rico has no representation in the U.S. House, only in the Electoral College. Puerto Rico does not even have a non-voting member of the House, like Washington, D.C. does.
     Yang says "Puerto Rico should be a state - they function as one right now without the political rights and bankruptcy protection". Libertarians ought to admire Yang's defense of Puerto Ricans' political rights, and right to self-determination, and representation of Puerto Rico's over three million people in the U.S. House of Representatives and in the Senate.
     If the Constitution remains the same under a Yang presidency, then Puerto Rico becoming a state will not cause the House of Representatives to grow (because the number of voting House reps is fixed at 435), but it will cause the Senate to grow by two seats. Although Libertarians may be concerned about Puerto Rican statehood potentially increasing the number of House members who belong to the Democratic Party, the Senate will grow as well, so the balance laid out in the Connecticut Compromise will still be preserved.
     The costs of two new Senate seats, and the bankruptcy protection which Puerto Rico would receive, may be a concern of fiscally conscious libertarians, but those costs pale in comparison to the benefit we will receive from finally acknowledging Puerto Ricans' full political rights as American citizens. Yang's attention to the issue of Puerto Rican statehood shows that he is thinking about how to help all Americans, regardless of whether they live in the fifty states, or in overseas American territories and commonwealths.


Sources: http://www.puertoricoreport.com/candidate-andrew-yang-supports-statehood-for-puerto-rico/#.XKYnqJhKhPZ

http://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/11/us/puerto-ricans-vote-on-the-question-of-statehood.html







9. Yang Supports Two Pieces of Gun Control Legislation Which Compensate Gun Owners


    Yang advocates "responsible gun ownership with reasonable restrictions". Staunch pro-gun libertarians might consider that too onerous already. But at least two of Yang's gun control policies recognize the need to defer to the freedom from takings without just compensation, which is recognized in the Fifth Amendment.
     According to Yang's website, he wants to "Implement a federal buyback program for anyone who wants to voluntarily give up their firearm." This policy fulfills the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment even under the most strict interpretation thereof. It does not amount to unlawful eminent domain takings, because the person who relinquishes his property does so voluntarily, and receives compensation.
     Gun buyback programs are perfectly voluntary, constitutional, and in keeping with the spirit of the clause in the Fifth Amendment, which prohibits takings from private owners, for public use, without just compensation. Not only will those licensed gun owners who relinquish their guns be compensated, the government won't be taking anything from them at all. This is one piece of gun legislation which is participated in on a totally voluntary basis.
     Not only does Yang advocate a gun buyback program that will compensate gun owners, he also supports giving current licensed gun owners in good standing a "tax write-off for the purchase of any equipment required to adhere to the new standards".
     Yang's gun buyback program, and his plan to compensate licensed gun owners for the costs they will incur conforming to other gun restrictions, demonstrate an understanding that the relationship between individual citizens and government is supposed to be mutually beneficial, and that the activities between them should involve exchange of equal value. Libertarians who understand the need for mutually beneficial voluntary exchange, and voluntary governance, should agree with Yang on at least these two gun control policies (even if not on others).

Source: http://www.yang2020.com/policies/gun-safety/





10. Yang Supports a Gun Control Policy Which Defers to the States

     Yang additionally supports leaving the issue of open-carry and concealed-carry laws up to the states. As far as admirers of the Constitution are concerned, this is a nod to both the second and tenth amendments. Yang's platform shows an admiration for the Bill of Rights which is nearly unrivaled among his opponents in the Democratic primary.

Source: http://www.yang2020.com/policies/gun-safety/







11. Yang's Call to Hold Gun Manufacturers Liable is Not Unreasonable



     Fining gun manufacturers "$1 million for each person killed by their weapons" doesn't sound like a very libertarian proposal, fair enough. But it would not be unreasonable to suggest fining gun manufacturers if they knowingly sell to disreputable gun dealers. It's likely that that's what Yang meant anyway.
     Nor would it be unreasonable to suggest that gun manufacturers potentially be held liable for wrongdoing. Yang did not mention this, but according to 42 U.S. Code Section 1981, "All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States, shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue", and other rights.
     Libertarians should be mindful of this fact, and consider what is more important to them: the government's responsibility to make sure that everyone in the country has access to the justice system, and its responsibility to ensure that people who victimize them be held accountable; or the alleged responsibility of the government to insulate certain companies, and classes of companies, from being held accountable for their crimes.
     Any Libertarian who believes in our right to sue, and the right of the courts to determine whether gun manufacturers should be held liable, has at least 50% in common with Andrew on this issue.

Source: http://twitter.com/andrewyang/status/1056334803501543426?lang=en







12. Yang Supports "Medicare for All, But Opt In", Making Medicare Voluntary

     In an interview with the Globe Post, Yang said "A robust public option, and move towards a Medicare for All system."
     Progressive Resistance Media (RPM) reported Yang as having said in an interview, "I'm in the 'robust public option' Medicare for All [category], but don't eliminate private health care right off the bat." Yang said this in response to a question about whether he is in the category of "Medicare for All, or bust", or favors some sort of public option.
     Although Yang has been criticized by progressives for being willing to support a public option, and temporarily continuing to allow private insurance to exist legally, these could potentially serve as reasons that entice Libertarians to consider Yang.
     Although progressives might be hesitant to support making Medicare voluntary at first, this will allow a single government health insurance cooperative to compete against private insurers. Thus, people will have the option to buy either Medicare, or to buy from a number of private insurance companies.
     That means that Medicare would be opt-in, and thus, a truly optional "public option". And most importantly, it would stop short of eliminating all competition in the health insurance market altogether, which would provide a market basis for the price competition that government health insurance planners need to refer to in order to make Medicare financially feasible.
     And, as it happens - since maximizing the degree of cooperative pooling of purchasing power is the best way to counter-balance the selling power of large health insurance companies - a Medicare for All system is the most economically efficient way for large numbers of people to purchase health insurance affordably.


Sources: http://theglobepost.com/2019/03/08/andrew-yang-ubi/
     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGfnRXt9mlo&fbclid=IwAR0BvmH3LDcTGEHnBGkmdmUK6TTPsaTEEQ5B83wFDKSceffRvMldP_4dZts&app=desktop








13. Yang's Criticism of Circumcision Shows an Understanding of Parents' Rights

     In an interview with the Daily Beast, Andrew Yang said regarding circumcision, "From what I've seen, the evidence on it being a positive health choice for the infant is quite shaky." Yang said that he wished to "inform parents that it is entirely up to them whether their infant gets circumcised, and that there are costs and benefits either way." He does not advocate banning circumcision.
     Yang's opposition to banning circumcision, and his belief that circumcision should be "entirely up to" the parents, both suggest that Yang's opposition to circumcision may be motivated by an intent to make circumcision as voluntary as possible.
     Although he doesn't go as far as to suggest that circumcision should be entirely up to the patient, Yang at least acknowledges that parents should be informed that it is up to them. As a matter of fact, the American Medical Association stopped recommending circumcision after birth about 32 years ago, and many people are unaware of that.
     Yang has said "I'm highly aligned with the intactivists" (a group of anti-circumcision advocates). Even if you support circumcision, Yang's enthusiastic support for parents' rights on this issue, shows that he understands that it shouldn't be the government's job to either ban anything outright, nor make anything mandatory either. And that seems to be a running trend in his campaign, alongside his other pragmatic center-left proposals.

     Source: http://www.thedailybeast.com/andrew-yang-the-upstart-democratic-presidential-candidate-comes-out-against-circumcision







14. Yang Understands Technology, and Doesn't Blame Immigrants for Job Losses

     Andrew Yang acknowledges that illegal immigrants didn't take 4 million American jobs, automatons did. Yang has said on multiple occasions that 4 million manufacturing jobs were automated away in the Midwest and the Rust Belt. That is why he has helped struggling small businesses in Chicago and St. Louis.
     Yang has said on multiple occasions that America is in the "third inning" of "the greatest economic and technological transformation in the history of this country". The economy, and the set of jobs available to humans, will not be the same two or three decades from now.
     Unfortunately, neither major party's leadership is prepared for the technological changes that are coming over the next several decades. The Republicans distract us from jobs lost to automatons and Amazon by fear-mongering about immigrants, while many Democrats are reticent to welcome technological change when it threatens job losses.
     Andrew Yang, on the other hand, understands what both party establishments lack in terms of how to confront the potential job losses posed by automation. His proposal of a "Tech Check" (a dividend paid to citizens, funded by taxing the profits of technology companies) anticipates, and aims to solve, these problems. Thus, a Yang presidency would ensure technological progress, alongside both economic opportunity and economic security, for all citizens.

Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_42TpbDD0Y








15. Yang Focuses on Economics and M.A.T.H. (Make America Think Harder)

     One thing that sets Libertarians apart from Democrats and Republicans is their understanding of economics. Libertarians pride themselves on having more knowledge of economics and economic history than the two major parties; especially in terms of 20th century American and Austrian economic policy.
     Yang gives a great degree of attention to economic and monetary policy (as well as for his attention to jobs, small businesses, and technology). One of Yang's campaign slogans is "M.A.T.H.", which stands for "Make America Think Harder". Yang is probably the only candidate in the Democratic field who can give Bernie Sanders a run for his money when it comes to citing statistics about the economy.
     That's why Libertarians should be able to admire Yang. Yang has said "The opposite of Donald Trump is an Asian guy who likes math". Truer words have scarcely been spoken. His appreciation of the facts about the economy is sure to inspire a lot of future economists attending our schools today. And more people studying economics, means more people studying Austrian economics.









16. Yang Supports Legalizing Marijuana and Pardoning All Non-Violent Drug Offenders

   


Source: http://www.yang2020.com/policies/legalization-of-marijuana/







17. Yang is Open to Natural Resource Dividends, Including Those Backed by Cannabis










18. Yang Understands That Income and Wealth Aren't Ideal Things to Tax

     Libertarians should be able to appreciate that Andrew Yang has said taxing wealth and income are bad ideas. About Amazon C.E.O. Jeff Bezos, Yang has said that when Bezos owns stock and doesn't sell it, that is not an "act" in any real sense, and thus should not be considered a "taxable event".
     Lately, libertarians and conservatives around the country have increasingly come to view increasing sales taxes and consumption taxes as preferable to both income tax and property tax hikes. That's why Libertarians who support sales taxes, consumption taxes, the FairTax, and Value Added Tax (V.A.T.) proposals, should consider Andrew Yang's V.A.T. of 10%.
    Yang has stated that adding a V.A.T. on business would "generate $800 billion in new revenue",. He says the Freedom Dividend will increase spending and economic activity, while that spending will also generate an additional "$500-600 billion in new revenue from economic activity" spurred by the increased disposable income brought on by the Freedom Dividend.
     If you think about it, Yang's V.A.T. is arguably more conservative than the FairTax - and thus more conservative than the last tax policy on which a Libertarian Party presidential nominee ran - because Yang's is a 10% tax instead of a 23% tax. Yang is not ashamed of this fact; he boasts on his website that his 10% rate is half of the 20% average rate seen in many European countries.
     Yang's 10% national Value Added Tax - which bundles all the taxes that went unpaid by the seller, distributor, and manufacturer - is paid at the point of sale. The 10% national V.A.T., alongside states setting whatever sales taxes they please, allow at least some degree of freedom as to where people make their purchases, and in effect, how much sales tax they pay, and whether they pay duplicative sales taxes.
     This will likely lead to states competing for economic activity by lowering their sales tax rates, which many Libertarians would probably find a quite favorable situation; if not perfect, then, at the very least, preferable to the current system. True, the 10% national V.A.T. on all items would be unavoidable, but at least you would still be free to decide where you make your purchase, what you buy, and how much.
     Even if a mere 10% V.A.T. serves as a deterrent against purchasing, it is a modest tax rate, and if it achieves its intended goals, Yang's V.A.T. will avoid the "regressive" possibility of making purchase into a difficult and expensive choice for the consumer (at least not for longer than would be bearable). That's because it will have the effect of decreasing the number of needlessly expensive items which are purchased, because the V.A.T. adds the highest costs to the most expensive items. Conveniently, this unites the incentive to economize with the incentive to avoid taxes! And what Libertarian doesn't want that?
     Moreover, the V.A.T. is intended to provide an incentive to sellers, distributors, and manufacturers to pay their fair share of taxes. As a reminder, these are firms which have much more purchasing power than ordinary consumers, and which purchase a lot more items than ordinary consumers. With the V.A.T. tax in place, if a company tried to externalize their share of taxes onto the next company in the chain (and, eventually, onto the seller, and finally the lowly purchaser), then they would suffer decreased sales.
     Think of it as a sort of automatic punishment, visited upon them by the market, for the crime of unsound financial planning. We don't want to reward companies for avoiding price competition, now, do we?
   
Source: http://www.yang2020.com/policies/value-added-tax/






19. Yang's Policies Will Result in a Simplification of the Taxation System

     Andrew Yang has plenty of criticism for our taxation system on his website, which libertarians can appreciate.
     He writes, "At the beginning of each year, Americans dread the coming of tax season. The specter of needing to figure out the complex rules of the tax code hangs over each of us for the first third of the year, and most of us rush during April to come in under the deadline." He continues, "most of us dread paying taxes for good reason. None of us has time to figure out where the receipts are and what we owe, and we're constantly stressed that we're screwing things up or leaving money on the table."
     Yang also says that "75% of Americans receive refunds. For those Americans, they've been (essentially) giving the US Government an interest-free loan through most of the year. They'd be better off having access to that money at the time they earn it. For the other 25% of Americans, needing to find the money to pay their tax balance adds unnecessary stress to their lives."
     "Turning us into a nation of tax experts", writes Yang, "is a ridiculous waste of citizen time and energy." Yang's statements show that he understands that the taxation system is complex, and that it is a time-consuming burden on ordinary people. But additionally, he is the rare Democrat who recognizes that the government is not simply "holding onto our money for us"; we're lending the government money by letting them tax us. Essentially, the government is making money off of us. Can you name any other Democrat who has said such a thing?
     Although Yang's solution to the complexity of taxes is arguably not as libertarian as his diagnosis of what the problem is, he does not recommend additional layers of bureaucracy (nor more government employees) to solve the problem.
     Yang writes on his website, "The IRS should be able to tell us how much we owe and automatically file our taxes for us. Every time we do something that we think is tax-relevant, we should just forward it to a particular email address or account and it gets added in. Taxes are a perfect candidate for automation and artificial intelligence because there are clear rules to follow. Let's use technology to simplify all of our lives and focus on more important things."
     In regards to taxation, as well as other issues, Yang's dedication to allowing automation and individual autonomy solve part of the problem, while government solves the rest, show that he is consciously advocating for a drastically reduced role of government in planning our finances for us. That is something that should earn him respect in libertarian circles, as advocates of self-government and economic freedom.

Source: http://www.yang2020.com/policies/filing-income-taxes/







20. Yang's Policies Will Result in Lower Taxes and Increased Economic Responsibility

     It is unfortunate that conservative economists tend to downplay the extent to which tax revenue paid by ordinary people funds our governments; some even say that poor people pay no taxes whatsoever. That is far from the truth.
     Aside from people who hunt and forage to survive, most low-income Americans do not work, but have to pay sales taxes on everything they buy. The same would be true if we had a $1,000/month Freedom Dividend and a 10% Value Added Tax. That means that the highest taxes which would be paid by the poorest Americans, would be no lower than 10% of whatever they can't afford to save and have to spend, and no higher than 10% plus the sales tax rate in the state with the highest such tax (which in 2017 was just under 10%).
     If Yang becomes president and enacts a 10% Value-Added Tax, then any state that figures out how to eliminate (or significantly reduce) sales taxes, will help the very poor pay a tax rate that is almost as low as it is now. If the poor do not see lower taxes, then at the very least, in many states, they will see roughly the same level of taxes.
     But then, of course, if someone deems those taxes too high, then they can opt into receiving the Freedom Dividend for a little relief. What is a cash payment (or "subsidy"), but a "negative tax"? If you think in these terms, about the total amount of money changing hands between the consumer and the government, you realize that the effective tax rate for the very poor is lower (after the subsidy).
     By providing direct monetary relief payments to the poor, their effective tax rate will decline. The more the poor earn - with the opportunity to work, take the Freedom Dividend, or both - then the more the responsibility to provide for the poor's needs will fall to the poor themselves. Not only does this help the poor "pick themselves up by their bootstraps", it helps them afford to do so in the first place. And when they're done helping themselves, they'll help others, and invest in the community that invested in them long enough to become independent.
     The people in the best position to help the poor, are the poor themselves. Not because it's easy for them to do a lot of things, and afford what they need; it certainly isn't. The poor are in the best position to help themselves, because they know what they need the most, and know what they need to buy on a day to day basis better than a bureaucrat in Washington does.
     Andrew Yang understands that his plan will restore autonomy to people who have spent years navigating through complicated government assistance systems. His Freedom Dividend and Value Added Tax will put homeless people and very poor people back in the game, giving them the cash relief they urgently need to even have a chance to become healthy and well-equipped enough to work - and thus independent - in the first place.
     With the poorest Americans rehabilitated, and restored to a higher standard of living, the societal costs of taking care of the poor will be significantly reduced, leading to lower tax bills for the middle class. Thus, Yang's policies will usher in a new way of thinking when it comes to how to lift people out of poverty: by fighting the twin monsters of unemployment and a complex welfare system, with economic opportunity and responsibility.
     After all, if it's classic conservative logic that you're supposed to help a business until it's solvent enough to survive on its own, then why shouldn't we help poor people (with direct cash payments) until they're independent enough to survive on their own? They're not going to go from living on the street, or doing temporary work, directly to starting businesses and creating jobs; they need urgent direct relief, and a little time to buy what they need, before they'll even be up to the task of going to work in the first place. That's because many homeless and poor people suffer from poor nutrition, limited access to heat and clean water, and thus, limited ability to think straight and make sound financial planning decisions.






III. Twenty Reasons Pertaining to the Freedom Dividend
21. The F.D. Won't Grow the Welfare State, It Will Shrink Government
22. The F.D. Returns the Responsibility to Manage and Spend Money to We the People
23. Since the F.D. is Universal, it Fulfills the General Welfare Clause
24. The F.D. Renders the "Transition from Welfare to Work" Conversation Moot
25. The F.D. is Not a Stimulus, it Will Create Jobs and Grow the Consumer Economy
26. Any Inflationary Effects of the F.D. Will Be Unnoticeable, and Offset by Poverty Reduction
27. The F.D. Won't Disincentivize Work, It Will Help People Get By Whether They Can Work or Not
28. The F.D. Will Increase Wages and Small Business Creation, Not Increase Joblessness
29. The F.D. Will Cause Interest Rates to Fall, and Without Government Intervention
30. The F.D. Will Make Money a Public Good, and Increase Awareness of Monetary Policy
31. The F.D. Will Increase Personal Wealth, Private Property Ownership, and Save Capitalism
32. The F.D. is Similar to the Negative Income Tax, Which Milton Friedman Supported
33. The F.D. is Very Similar to Thomas Paine's Proposal of an Annual Stipend to All Adult Citizens
34. The F.D.'s is Very Similar to the National FairTax's "Prebate"
35. The F.D.'s Value-Added Tax is Very Similar to the National FairTax Supported by Gary Johnson
36.The F.D. is Not "Free Money" So Much As a Refundable Tax Credit
37. The F.D. Will Function as a Replacement for Minimum Wage Laws
38. The F.D. is Not a Mainstream Idea, So We Know He's Not Controlled by the D.N.C.
39. If You Don't Like the F.D., You Can Opt Out of Receiving It, So it's Voluntary
40. If Andrew Yang Wins and Implements the F.D., You Can Help Save Costs by Opting Out






Originally Written on April 2nd, 2019

Originally Published on April 2nd, 2019
under the title
"Thirty Reasons Why Libertarians Should Consider Voting for Andrew Yang in 2020"

Edited and Expanded on April 5th, 2019

1 comment:

  1. I fully support libertarianism. I believe that this will entail success. People have to choose what to wear, what to buy, what country to live in, visit vortexessay.com to order an essay or write an essay on their own, what language to speak and which car to drive. Fully agree with your opinion in this article.

    ReplyDelete