How Universal Basic Income Could Change Real Estate Investing

How Universal Basic Income Could Change Real Estate Investing

Real Estate Agent · Phoenix, AZ · Member since 2016 · 738 posts · 1k+ votes

The other day I was having a discussion with some associates about the upcoming Presidential Election, and one of them brought up the Democratic Candidate Andrew Young and his Universal Basic Income Plan called "The Freedom Dividend."

From his site: https://www.yang2020.com/policies/the-freedom-dividend/

"Andrew would implement a Universal Basic Income, ‘the Freedom Dividend,’ of $1,000/month, $12,000 a year for every American adult over the age of 18. This is independent of one’s work status or any other factor. This would enable all Americans to pay their bills, educate themselves, start businesses, be more creative, stay healthy, relocate for work, spend time with their children, take care of loved ones, and have a real stake in the future."

While I must admit that this seems like a ploy to literally buy votes, I do think that Universal Basic Income (UBI) is an important thing to consider with automation on the horizon in the years to come. 

As a Realtor and real estate investor, I couldn't help but think how this extra $1,000/mo might affect the housing market.

INCREASED HOUSING AFFORDABILITY

The first implication of this extra $1,000/mo is that it would make housing much more affordable in most markets, potentially reducing the monthly costs by 33% or greater for most bread and butter housing markets.

A $250k home with only 5% down and a 4.5% interest rate has a PITI of roughly $1,700/mo. With the full $1,000 going towards the mortgage, this payment would basically be reduced to $700/mo, about the same if they had purchased a home for $100k at the same terms.

This is obviously a complete game changer for the housing market, allowing many people to afford homes that couldn't afford one without this plan, increasing the housing demand particularly at the lower end of the housing market.

INCREASED HOUSING DEMAND, WITHOUT INCREASED SUPPLY

At the bottom end of the market, this UBI of $1,000/month would suddenly allow many people who could not afford a home without it to suddenly purchase one. 

Using a DTI Ratio of 45%, a married couple would have an extra $900/mo (45% of $2,000/mo) to allocated to their housing expenses, allowing them to more than double their pre-approval amount in some cases.

Without UBI: Max Purchase Price = $117k at $800/mo

With UBI: Max Purchase Price = $250k at $1,710/mo (+$900/mo to take new DTI to 45%)

(Note: I'm not a lender, and surely there is more to this calculation than I am sharing here, this is merely just meant for illustrative purposes)

Further, the extra money would allow many people who already have the income and credit but no down payment to suddenly be able to save up for the down payment, creating additional buyers at the lower price ranges.

But without increasing the supply of available homes, the base floor price for housing would certainly be raised. Simple supply and demand.

MORE POTENTIAL MOVE-UP BUYERS

With more income available for housing, some buyers will be tempted to "trade up" and purchase more housing than they could normally afford. 

Suddenly you'd be able to move into that better school district or nicer neighborhood instead of settling for what you could previously afford. Thereby creating more demand in the mid-range markets as well (Under $500k in most areas).

But still, the increased demand would be felt at the bottom end of the price range where it already exists. I recently received 9 offers in the first weekend for a $150,000 home in Phoenix, and could easily see that number doubling to 20+ offers with a UBI plan for an extra $1,000/mo.

EFFECTS ON THE RENTAL MARKET

You'd likely see a similar trend in the rental market, with people moving out of their relative's house and into their own rental who couldn't afford to do so before. 

Also, you'd see renters at the lower end in not-so-nice neighborhoods suddenly move out into nicer neighborhoods that are safer with better schools.

The big question is how many landlords are going to jump ahead of this demand and automatically bump the rents a superficial amount now that everyone has an extra $1,000 every month.

QUESTION: If you were a landlord and had a 10-unit apartment building, and suddenly all your tenants are now receiving an extra $1,000/mo, how tempted would you be to raise the rent sharply for no other reason?

If that happens, you might see an even greater increase in demand for purchasing lower level housing, with tenants perceiving they're getting a bad deal in their current rental, motivating them to finally buy a home instead.

EFFECTS ON SHORT TERM RENTALS (STR)

Since short term rentals are associated with travel, which itself is somewhat of a luxury, I don't think UBI would have as much impact on the STR market.

Surely, more people that couldn't afford to travel in the past would suddenly be able to, but they may choose to spend that money elsewhere instead.

And that's the whole rub with UBI. When everyone has a larger supply of money, the demand for ALL things naturally increases. People will spend money they didn't have in the past on new non-essential items (things they only wished they could afford in the past, but suddenly now can).

LOW PRICED MARKETS BUBBLE FROM INVESTORS

With extra income every month, and a resulting increase in local housing costs, real estate investors would swamp lower priced housing market like Ohio where homes are under $100k. 

Investors who may not be able to invest locally because of the increased demand and raising of the lower home prices would look to other states where homes are already more affordable.

This could have a devastating effect on those markets who are already experiencing fierce demand in the lower price ranges from owner occupants, with an additional demand coming from out of state investors, making the housing situation worse than it was previously.

INCREASED PURCHASING POWER FOR MULTI-GENERATIONAL & EXTENDED FAMILIES

Probably the biggest opportunity for aspiring investors would be pooling the UBI funds with fellow family members to drastically increase their purchasing power.

Imagine a family of four adults: A married couple, one of their retired parents, and one child who is an adult teenager getting ready for college. Together, they would have $4,000/mo in UBI to spend every month, or $48k/year.

Which just so happens to be roughly the amount needed to put a 20% down payment on a $250k property, and be able to do this every single year.

Together they could purchase their first $250k home and owner occupy, paying the $1,350/mo PITI with the retiree's social security. The working income from the two parents could pay all other living expenses, and they could still save $4,000/mo from the UBI.

They could easily repeat this process every year, or even buy cheaper homes in other states as investments (see above). Sure, they'll run into a little trouble once they get enough loans, but if they took a break in buying from years 5-10 and focused on increasing the current properties value or accelerated loan pay-down, they could pick this strategy back up and continue to purchase property.

By the time the 18 year old teenager is 40, he'd be absolutely loaded. And this is just with a family of four. Imagine if an extended family of 10-20 people pooled their money together. They'd have $120-240k per year to invest in real estate, stocks, and other businesses.

UNIVERSAL BASIC INCOME CAN'T BE UNDONE

Probably the biggest consideration with enacting a UBI program is that it can't be undone. NO ONE will vote to give themselves less money and handouts, even if it's shown that maintaining the program is unfeasible.

For example, just look at social security. Since 2010, Social Security's Cash Expenses have exceeded it's income, with the combined reserves likely to be fully depleted by 2034.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/08/18/5-facts-about-social-security/

We've known this for quite some time, yet we all are still complicit in keeping the system up and running. Millennials pay into a system they'll likely never receive the benefits from, and Boomers would start a revolution if the benefits are suddenly taken away after paying in for their entire lives. Same thing with the coming Gen X getting ready to retire.

More likely, the system will be altered to keep it afloat and kick the can down the road to future generations, by changing the benefit formulas, raising the payroll tax, or makes other changes such as raising the cap on taxable wage income.

BIGGER PROBLEMS AHEAD

But combine this with Artificial Intelligence Experts predicting as much as 45% of all jobs could be replaced by automation by 2035, and we've got a serious problem on our hands.

Serious changes are ahead, and the government only has so much "bread and circuses" (UBI being the bread) before seriously addressing the issues at hand.

For now, UBI is presented as Social Security 2.0, but instead of just the retired population too old for most work it's going to affect everyone because soon there will be very little work at all.

And with humans projected to live 3-8 years longer than previously expected by 2050, and even with just the current US adult population of 250 million over 18 (UBI recipients under Andrew's plan), that's an additional $3 trillion per year UBI would cost us BEYOND the additional $3.2 to $8.3 trillion we hadn't planned to spend with our erroneous calculations.

Further, with an annual inflation of 3%, the buying power of a dollar today will equivalent to $2.50 in 2050, begging the question if $1,000/mo will even be enough by then?

And if Andrew does win the next election and successfully implements the Freedom Dividend of $1,000/mo, what's to stop a later presidential candidate like Elizabeth Warren from running on a platform where the freedom dividend is expanded to $2,000/mo or more?

Interesting times for sure... much to consider with the big changes ahead.

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS:

1. If you received $1,000/mo in UBI, how would your family use this money to better your lives?

2. What market are you in? How do you think $1,000/mo in UBI would affect your local housing market?

3. Would you automatically increase the rent on your investment properties because your tenants are now receiving an extra $1,000/mo?

12Reply
1,306 views

Most Popular Reply

Greg ScottPro Member
Rental Property Investor · SE Michigan · Member since 2014 · 4k+ posts · 6k+ votes
7y

Hugo Chavez did something like this in Venezuela.  That worked out well, didn't it?

If this sort of thing ever passes in this country, it's time to leave.

See this reply in the discussion

197 Replies

Jump to latestLatest
  • Catskill, NY · Member since 2018 · 636 posts · 668 votes
    7y
    Originally posted by @Robert C.:

    @Connor Dunham, I like that you posted based on actual experience - I haven't heard from an alaskan up to this point. One thought occurred to me when reading your last sentence about the idea being a "wealth re-distribution effect". Actually, when I listened to Andrew Yang talk about it, or other tech leaders, I don't think it's so much about wealth re-distribution in the end. I mean, yes it is, but it seems to me the ultimate goal is really about "taming the masses". 

    I know this sounds like it comes from some dystopian idea, but if what they talk about really comes to pass, then they're talking about a reasonably long period for society when a vast amount of the labor force is unemployable because their skill sets do not match the jobs available. As Yang put it, what do you think happens if you get rid of 3 million trucking jobs in a few years with no backstop? I think this is the key that a lot of folks are overlooking about the potential purpose for UBI. I totally get it if people just don't believe society will hit this type of disaster - that's fair, but if we truly do hit an inflection point with jobs being replaced en masse, then these folks talking about UBI along with other cultural rethinking are really talking about how to keep people who've been shoved aside by technology from rioting. 

    From this perspective, it doesn't really matter whether people spend the money responsibly or not. It just matters whether they have some money in their pocket along with some other sense of purpose (which Yang and others talk about), to keep them, at a minimum, relatively content.

    I understand the idea of "pacifying" people should something happen, but IMO we're quite a long way from technology completely wiping out nearly every job. IF Andrew Yang were to become president in 2020 and then again in 2024, I believe we'd still have nearly every single trucking job we have now. We aren't going to have self driving semi-trucks for a long time, if ever. Technology has certainly come a long way, but I think the advancement is slow enough where jobs would be lost through attrition and not on a mass scale. New people entering the workforce would have to learn a new trade or go to college for a degree that is necessary in the current day and age. At this point, Andrew Yang seems like he's trying to buy votes...or he's just 50-100 years before his time.

    15 years ago I took an automotive class while in high school. We'd have trade schools come talk to us and try to get the kids  to go their school. They all said how electric cars were going to get rid of the "current mechanic" and that we need to be prepared, etc. Here we are 15 years later and there's still more "regular mechanics" than there are "electric car" mechanics. Not saying that won't eventually change, but again, it's a ways away. 

  • Member since 2019 · 4 posts · 0 votes
    7y
    Originally posted by @Account Closed:

    Big companies like Amazon are in the business of not paying taxes at all. No way in hell somebody is going to be able to put a $3.6b tax on Amazon and they are going to pay for it. They have the best and brightest working day and night to find every single trick in the tax book to make that never happen.

    Rich don't pay taxes, the tax code was written by rich. 

    Anyone who has traveled outside of America is familiar or has heard of a VAT or value added tax. Every advanced nation uses the VAT to tax mega companies as it is the best method to combat tax loopholes. The VAT is imposed on select Amazon purchases, Facebook transactions, Google searches and ads. Tech companies love it because it will drive up more participation and revenue generating activity.

    In the end, you don’t need 3.6T, it’s actually closed to one third that number. Still high, but it’s at least one plausible partial remedy to the forthcoming destruction and termination of millions of jobs and subsequent chaos. No other presidential candidate, including Trump, is discussing this because they know the outlook is bleak at best.

      Yang earns credit for presenting a tangible remedy to the existential threat known as automation. For those who don’t believe automation will materially change this world, good luck.

      1. Member since 2019 · 4 posts · 0 votes
        7y
        Originally posted by @Matthew Irish-Jones:

        All of the hysteria about automation wreaking the economy is just nonsense to me.

        It’s like saying snow plows put all of the poor snow shovelers out of work and they all were doomed to a life of poverty and disgrace.

        Technological advancements make the country more efficient and produce more wealth. It also allows the market to dictate where labor should go instead of government.

        If you are still in the horse and buggy business, you may have yourself to blame.

        Universal basic income = a fancy way or saying wealth distribution by the government, AKA socialism.

        No thank you.

        Hi Matthew - While you are correct that technological advancements are more good than bad, you fail to note that Big Tech (Google, FB, Apple, Amazon) pay very little taxes.  Amazon pays ZERO taxes.  Yang's UBI campaign is more about taxing these companies via a VAT (something all other advanced nations use) and restoring fairness than it is about welfare hand-outs.

      2. Member since 2019 · 4 posts · 0 votes
        7y
        Originally posted by @Eamonn McElroy:

        @Wes Blackwell

        UBI is one of those things that looks good on paper and gives people warm and fuzzy feelings but always has unintended negative consequences.  Like the saying goes: "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."

        There's two ways you can fund UBI.  First is via taxes, second is the Treasury just prints the money, third way is borrowing the money.

        First way:

        There are roughly 252 million "adults" in the US (those age 18 and up).  To give each adult $12,000 a year and fund it via taxes would require the Treasury to tax Americans an additional $3.024 TRILLION per year.  Even if the VAT tax is put 100% on corporations, the American individual will be the one shoulders the burden.  All costs in a business are passed along to the customer.  Companies that have no bargaining power or elastic demand for their products with economic substitutes readily available will not be able to pass along the increased cost and will fold -- the American consumer will suffer for it via decrease in market options.

        Second way:

        If the Treasury prints an additional $3.024 trillion per year there will be massive inflation in the US -- especially considering the average American doesn't have $500 in savings and will spend 100% of the UBI they get on frivolous things.  Those that advocate this approach don't understand basic macroeconomics.  The savings accounts, CDs, and bonds -- anything that can't appreciate with the dollar -- of American workers and retirees will be next to worthless.

        Third way:

        The US issues debt to pay for UBI.  I'm not even going to comment on this as I don't see how anyone can view this as an acceptable way to provide UBI -- by letting foreign countries become even bigger loan sharks to us.

        The idea that automation is going to kill millions of jobs and we won't be able to replace them I am 100% skeptical on.

        The fact is this is the cornerstone argument upon which UBI is built and I think it's a short-sighted and fallacious argument.

        People have been worried about technology displacing workers for HUNDREDS of years.  The factory replacing the loom.  Tractors displacing a dozen farm workers for each tractor put in service.  Etc

        We have always innovated and found new industries that demand workers.  The fact that we're at historically low unemployment when we're the most technologically advanced we've ever been in 2019 should tell you all you need to know.

        We have a nascent solar and wind industry in this country.  You don't think that will create jobs?  The Permian basin is booming right now in O&G.  They can't get enough workers down there.  We have industries we haven't even thought of yet.  Yet to be created.  Think about that.  What if Elon Musk's &  Jeff Bezo's space companies substantially reduce the cost to get people and goods into space.  Imagine the industries that will create. The future isn't bleak, it's quite bright....as long as politicians don't mess it up.

        With respect to your outlook on the future and automation, I respectfully disagree. I work in NYC. When I go into a Starbucks or Dunkin Donuts, Chipotle, Pot Bellies, Just Salad, Chop't, or literally any food retail establishment, the employees are 99% African American. Retail along with truck driving and call centers are the next jobs that will be eliminated on a wholesale level. These are jobs that are more or less rudimentary in nature and can easily be replaced with automation and artificial intelligence. When that happens (and it will happen in 5-10 years), what will those same folks do? You will see violence and blood on the streets, you will see large gov. welfare expenditures. The future cost of creating and running larger welfare programs along with the cost of violence, riots and law enforcement will pale in comparison to UBI. Not all folks are like us on this forum. Many do not have the drive, the resources and education to adapt. Many of the jobs you think will spawn from the aforementioned automation will require very specialized skills, hustle, effort and a "young mind". You are going to see literally tens of millions of people who will be unemployed and unable to work. 

      3. Member since 2019 · 4 posts · 0 votes
        7y
        Originally posted by @Chris Szepessy:
        Originally posted by @Robert C.:

        @Connor Dunham, I like that you posted based on actual experience - I haven't heard from an alaskan up to this point. One thought occurred to me when reading your last sentence about the idea being a "wealth re-distribution effect". Actually, when I listened to Andrew Yang talk about it, or other tech leaders, I don't think it's so much about wealth re-distribution in the end. I mean, yes it is, but it seems to me the ultimate goal is really about "taming the masses". 

        I know this sounds like it comes from some dystopian idea, but if what they talk about really comes to pass, then they're talking about a reasonably long period for society when a vast amount of the labor force is unemployable because their skill sets do not match the jobs available. As Yang put it, what do you think happens if you get rid of 3 million trucking jobs in a few years with no backstop? I think this is the key that a lot of folks are overlooking about the potential purpose for UBI. I totally get it if people just don't believe society will hit this type of disaster - that's fair, but if we truly do hit an inflection point with jobs being replaced en masse, then these folks talking about UBI along with other cultural rethinking are really talking about how to keep people who've been shoved aside by technology from rioting. 

        From this perspective, it doesn't really matter whether people spend the money responsibly or not. It just matters whether they have some money in their pocket along with some other sense of purpose (which Yang and others talk about), to keep them, at a minimum, relatively content.

        I understand the idea of "pacifying" people should something happen, but IMO we're quite a long way from technology completely wiping out nearly every job. IF Andrew Yang were to become president in 2020 and then again in 2024, I believe we'd still have nearly every single trucking job we have now. We aren't going to have self driving semi-trucks for a long time, if ever. Technology has certainly come a long way, but I think the advancement is slow enough where jobs would be lost through attrition and not on a mass scale. New people entering the workforce would have to learn a new trade or go to college for a degree that is necessary in the current day and age. At this point, Andrew Yang seems like he's trying to buy votes...or he's just 50-100 years before his time.

        15 years ago I took an automotive class while in high school. We'd have trade schools come talk to us and try to get the kids  to go their school. They all said how electric cars were going to get rid of the "current mechanic" and that we need to be prepared, etc. Here we are 15 years later and there's still more "regular mechanics" than there are "electric car" mechanics. Not saying that won't eventually change, but again, it's a ways away. 

         With respect to self-driving trucks, I agree that it will take several years before they become the norm.  It is, however, inevitable and it will happen, but like you note, by then, any sensible person, will either have left or will be leaving the industry. You can't dismiss the fear or concern of carnage just quite yet. Retail jobs which account for millions of jobs will be eliminated on a wholesale level a lot sooner than truck-driving gigs.  It is becoming increasingly easier to automate retail job duties. Many of these folks are not the type that can learn a skillset that will provide meaningful and long term future employment. We will have serious problems when this occurs and I believe it will occur before 2030. 

      4. Member since 2017 · 1 post · 0 votes
        7y

        i think both rent and house price might keep going up until it hits a balance point at which everyone will still stay where they are as today. that is good for properties owners when there is minimal inflation for everything else other than real estate. I don't know for sure though since other policies might change to cope with this change. But automation is changing the employment for sure and there must be a similar solution to come up for it. people who are forced out of workforce should get their basic need for free one way or the other to be enable us as a society to be a safe and healthy. there must be a way for mankind to benefit from automation. it is scary to even think about it. also it is risky to try anything. 

        in the mean time look at china, a country with a huge population in which virtually there is no homeless. everyone get their basic needs rich or poor. it seems that a democratic society is easily bogged down by stupid arguments and can't get anything done. a simple highway that takes couple weeks to build in China would take a decade to squirm in USA. hopefully people can stop all stupid arguments such as pro life or pro choice and really look things closely so we can find solutions for all of us. all issues we are facing are composite. the right of owning a gun is never just about guns or the right of owning a gun. this country is losing the ability to think comprehensively. maybe this is the way that democracy supposes to be.

      5. Accountant · Tulsa, OK · Member since 2018 · 312 posts · 349 votes
        7y

        The first question I ask myself when considering this subject is "what is the point of UBI?" The answer that most proponents seem to believe (or at least pretend to believe) is that UBI will provide people, especially low-income individuals, with greater economic freedom. But let's think through this for a second. How are we going to pay for it? The answer is most likely 1) an increased tax on those above a certain income level (I won't say "the rich" because we all know it will also hit middle class) 2) increased taxes on business and other entities, and 3) by the country going deeper into debt. The biggest issue with 1 & 2 is that, because the UBI doesn't do anything to increase production or decrease the production costs of goods, most individuals/businesses are going to pass those tax costs down to their consumers. So if low income individuals get $1,000/month but their expenses across the board increase, are they really any better off? UBI doesn't work, it's just a way for politicians to buy votes by offering a cash incentive without truly telling people the costs. And for those who are promoting that it needs to be tried to see the effects, Finland did a 2 year test of UBI that ended in early 2015 and it failed.

      6. Investor · Kingwood, TX · Member since 2016 · 43 posts · 14 votes
        7y

        @Wes Blackwell unfortunately many people would just spend it on impulse items and be in the same exact spot they were in prior to receiving this “free” money. I just think many people don’t understand how to save and I do not believe it would change the situation in the long term.

      7. Investor · Saint Paul, MN · Member since 2015 · 663 posts · 512 votes
        7y

        @Wes Blackwell

        This idea goes even as far back as the prodigal sons in the Bible, where the father rewards both of his sons and says you can have all my riches. One of the sons stays and works hard shepherding, and the other one takes off with all of his money and blows it in the city.

        It’s been proven over and over if you give three people the same amount of money, one will save it and will spend it and the other one will make risky deals and blow the money on stupid things. So if you think giving everyone $1000 will make everyone equal or better their lives, you’re crazy. It could help a very small select group of people, but that’s about it and that’s not worth 3.14 trillion or whatever that number was. Most people have no clue how to handle money.

      8. Member since 2019 · 1 post · 0 votes
        6y

        I implore everyone here to stop making assumptions about the policy. Do yourselves a favor and research it. One of the most dangerous things in our country is uneducated voters who make assumptions. 
        https://freedom-dividend.com/

        I also encourage everyone to take a look at the rest of his policies as they are centered around the people and not big government 

        https://www.yang2020.com/polic...

      9. Member since 2019 · 1 post · 0 votes
        6y

        I am a landlord.  I would not increase rent as my tenants would just move to a landlord who didn't do so.

        I would, in taking advantage of a basic and guaranteed income, install solar panels to reduce energy costs, aquire a more energy-efficient and energy-versatile vehicle, and aquire a dwelling closer to where I work.  I live in Nevada, Pahrump — where urban sprawl is great and many people are surviving via welfare programs.

      10. Clint ShelleyPro Member
        Surveyor · Dothan, AL · Member since 2014 · 425 posts · 391 votes
        6y

        If this passes, drive through liquor and lottery stores will need to be the size of Costco. SMH.

        Clint

      11. Stacy, MN · Member since 2015 · 1 post · 0 votes
        6y

        This is my first time posting on Bigger Pockets, as I’ve been interested in Realestate investing for years, but have lacked the confidence to get started. 

        I’m really hoping this conversation gets revived. I’ve never been particularly political, but by request of a friend, I started reading The War on Normal People by Andrew Yang. 

        I did not realize how disillusioned I was to AI/automation, and I now recognize how I was wrong to assume that we will be fin, technological advances always create more jobs, and things generally will work themselves out.”

        I’d highly encourage anyone who has not done so to read the book, and then weigh in on this matter. 

         I’m genuinely curious what you all will think after reading the rationale behind the suggestion.

        And for those who have read the book, do you think it’s an accurate analysis of what we can expect in the years to come?

        Thank you in advance! 

      12. Anthony GaydenPro Member
        Rental Property Investor · Omaha, NE · Member since 2014 · 2k+ posts · 3k+ votes
        6y

        I had a post removed due to it being deemed too political. This topic falls under the same category.

      13. Real Estate Agent · Chicago, IL · Member since 2017 · 2k+ posts · 2k+ votes
        6y

        Universal Basic Income would create huge rent growth. I know I would raise my rents if everyone got $1000 more a month from the government. Reality though is that these are fringe policies by candidates who at this time have no real chance of winning. 

      14. Real Estate Investor · Columbus, OH · Member since 2010 · 4 posts · 1 vote
        6y

        Let's hear it from the man himself. I am a landlord since 2006 with over 400 units and I support UBI.

        Imagine a low income rural area in America, this $1000/month UBI will go a long way for them where average monthly rent is around $500 to $600/month. It's huge for us to be able to serve the need in those area but also safer to say that I will get the rent coming in every month. It also will be easier to go after them if they are breaking leases. It's a win-win for us landlords and tenants. It's crazy to think that if everyone get a check for $1000 that the rent will go up. It's completely false. The reason rents go up mostly because our property tax, utilities bills and cost associate with daily operations. As far as where the money will come from to support UBI, just remember that our government issued a bailout $4 Trillion for large banks and corporates during recession and nobody even complain about it. UBI will be supported by VAT, Data money, Technology money such as Google, Facebook, Microsoft. What Andrew Yang proposes is not a socialist system, it's capitalism that center around us. He wants everyone to be able support themselves and that the rich have obligation to lift society up. Welfare and cash like system not only cost tax payers a lot money on paying citizens money, but to run the paper work itself is a big headache. Please check the link and do more research yourself.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kl39KHS07Xc

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kl39KHS07Xc

        ;t=1875s


      15. Business Owner & Investor · Los Angeles, CA · Member since 2014 · 9 posts · 2 votes
        6y

        read the book “The War on Normal People” you mentioned and was very eye opening. 

        Did some more googling and saw Harvard Econ Professor Greg Mankiw support UBI and VAT. Makes a lot of sense. I’m not going to argue this guy as he writes the textbooks for every macroeconomics class. A lot of people on this thread should look into this more with a few google searches. It’s very data driven. 

      Join the conversationCreate a free account to reply, vote on answers and follow this thread.