Category: Politics

… regarding liberal homeless policies (care of National Review):

Cultivating Homelessness

A fundamental concept is that for something to be consumed it must first be produced. A corollary is that if we want to have more to consume, we must produce more. Yet Andrew Yang admits (actually, touts) that his UBI (universal basic income) will allow some to stay home instead of being productive members of the workforce. The result: less is produced, thus there is less to consume. How is that going to make our lives better?

Andrew Yang says UBI can empower women to leave ‘exploitative’ jobs, relationships

Of course some really like the idea, like the hosts of The View:

Yang faced questions about his UBI proposal during an interview on ABC’s “The View” on Monday, where hosts appreciated the idea that stay-at-home or single mothers could essentially get paid for the work they perform.

Ok, but here’s a significant concern: Why should the public pay for them to be a stay-at-home or single parent? Isn’t it their own responsibility to maintain their home and children? After all, if it is their choice to have children then why should they be my responsibility to raise? If they hired a maid to raise their children instead, should we all pay for that, too? Where would it end?

The Declaration of Independence proclaims the right to “…Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness…”. But the founders considered these inalienable, or natural, rights; as such they exist independent of government or society. Governments are instituted to secure these rights against the trespass of others, not to fulfill them. You must sustain your own life; you must exercise your own liberty; and you must provide for your own happiness. To assert that the fulfillment of these rights are the responsibility of government or society is ludicrous – as is the idea of a UBI.

Democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang is proposing that the government give each and every American $1000 per month as a “universal income”, no strings attached. Candidate Yang wants to pay for this with a VAT (value added tax) that he claims is “…a fair tax and it makes it much harder for large corporations, who are experts at hiding profits and income, to avoid paying their fair share…” Unfortunately, in my view candidate Yang does not have a fundamental understanding of economics or even the definition of a “value added tax”.

Money is a complicated concept; I apologize if I don’t do it justice as I try to condense its essence. However, a basic tenet is that it is not sufficient to simply print money. The paper which comprises money does not give it value; instead, money is given value through the productivity by which it is backed. In short, money (at least if it is expected to have value) must be earned by the productive work of one person before it can be given away to another. This is what Mr. Yang fails (or refuses) to recognize: the only real source of money for his proposed “universal income” is to take it from others who have earned it.

Yang says that he will fund his plan with a value added tax (VAT), which he implies will be paid by the evil corporations that inhabit our country. However, that is not how a VAT works. A VAT is essentially a consumption tax; think of it as a Federal-level sales tax. With that understanding, who do you think will bear the brunt of this tax? That’s right – you, the consumer. However, those who consume more will pay more. The result will be yet another government-controlled wealth redistribution system, with the federal government in the middle reducing its value through overhead. It is important to note that work done by the government in redistributing money is a waste of resources – it yields nothing that can be consumed, and squanders valuable productivity that could be better applied elsewhere.

Mr. Yang is pandering and – quite literally – buying the votes of some with the money of others (people who won’t vote for him?). But he likely knows the secret to buying votes with government money: so long as those who receive a value greater than their contribution outnumber those who receive less, the scheme works. It essentially allows the majority to pick the pockets of the minority.

Andrew Yang is a pandering idiot. Please drop him a line and let him know.

It’s one thing to help the homeless obtain the assistance they need to get off the streets; it’s quite another to enable them to remain homeless. Laws such as these will only attract those who choose this lifestyle to the detriment of those who do not.

Austin plan to allow homeless camps faces backlash

Can you imagine being a taxpayer whose taxes built a park, only to have a homeless encampment take it over? Worse, the homeless who have taken over the park are not even former local residents, but have instead come from other areas to benefit from the local government’s willingness to enable their homeless behavior (which includes, in many cases, drug use). Want proof? Look here and here to start.

Note that some claim the increase in homelessness is due to escalating home prices, but I disagree. California’s rent costs as a percentage of income have dropped while vacancy rates have increased, even as homeless rates in some large California cities have grown at a rate of greater than 40% per year. A more likely cause (although more research is needed) is that California’s willingness to enable the homeless lifestyle attracts homeless from across the country.

Efforts to assist the homeless should focus on helping them overcome the difficulties that led to their homeless condition, not enable their continued homelessness. Those who wish to remain homeless by their own hand should not be encouraged through well-minded but misguided efforts that enable their behavior at public expense.