No, what’s disingenous is for Yang to let people think that companies will pay for the VAT, when it is actually consumers.
What is also disingenuous is to make the claim that a regressive VAT is not regressive (or not so regressive) because it comes bundled with a populist UBI. Once both are implemented, there is absolutely nothing to stop a future Congress from saying, “X has happened. We can no longer afford the Freedom Dividend. We are cancelling it.” The VAT will not be mentioned, but it will stay. Nothing precludes that scenario. So to sell the FD on the basis of a regressive tax under the pretense that the whole thing is better is disingenuous.
My problems with Yang’s “Freedom Dividend” are:
- It is not universal because it doesn’t stack universally on top of the current system. Why not make it universal?
- It is funded by a regressive VAT. There is no requirement to fund FD with VAT. None.
- It should be put on top of a robust social safety net (e.g. like in Austria), not implemented as a competition. It will make a bad situation worse for the people at the very bottom while passing on the benefits to those at the top.
Fix 1, 2 and 3, and I’m in favor of UBI. Yang’s Freedom Dividend is not UBI.
