Andrew Yang correctly identifies many social issues stemming from capitalism and wealth inequality. Poor citizens face worse health outcomes, negotiation positions with employers, educational attainment, a sense of personal fulfillment, and other problems. He acknowledges that capitalism is the problem.
But his policy responses to this fact won’t even substantially reform capitalism, much less upend it. Yang gives a vision of “
human-centered capitalism” that will prioritize the well-being of average people and maximize social welfare. But his version of UBI does nothing to weaken capitalists’ power.
Yang himself often points out that $12,000 a year is not enough to survive; recipients will obviously need additional income. That’s not necessarily an argument against UBI in any form. But he seeks to fund his program in part by carving out social-welfare programs, leaving beneficiaries to fend for themselves with just their UBI stipend. This problem is compounded by his plan to implement a value-added tax (VAT), a consumption tax that is regressive at its worse and reduces UBI’s efficacy at its best.
Andrew Yang’s philosophical approach to UBI mirrors Milton Friedman’s thinking: individuals are better suited to fund their personal needs than the government. This version of UBI abandons a society-wide effort to address large-scale social issues, relying instead on individual, personal choices that play out in a free market. His program reduces the power of the state to intervene in the market and thus its ability to curb the deleterious effects of capitalism.
