安德魯·楊解釋了他為何提議每月給每個(gè)美國(guó)人1000美元

安德魯·楊解釋了他為何提議每月給每個(gè)美國(guó)人1000美元

When you hear a big idea from a presidential candidate, do you ever want to ask: How would that work?

當(dāng)你從一位總統(tǒng)候選人那里聽到一個(gè)偉大的想法時(shí)，你是否想問:這個(gè)想法是如何實(shí)現(xiàn)的?

Two undecided voters John Zeitler, a 48-year-old attorney for an insurance company, and Hetal Jani, 36, who runs a nonprofit focused on education and mentorship, wanted to know more about the "freedom dividend" proposal from first-time presidential candidate Andrew Yang.

48歲的保險(xiǎn)公司律師約翰·澤特勒和36歲的非營(yíng)利教育和輔導(dǎo)機(jī)構(gòu)負(fù)責(zé)人赫塔爾·賈尼是兩位尚未決定的選民，他們想知道更多關(guān)于首次競(jìng)選總統(tǒng)的候選人安德魯·楊提出的“自由紅利”提議。

The voters, along with Morning Edition host Noel King, sat down with Yang at a Midtown Manhattan dumpling shop called Baodega as part of Off Script, a series of interviews with 2020 presidential candidates.

選民們和《晨報(bào)》的主持人諾埃爾·金在曼哈頓中城一家名為寶德加的餃子店與楊坐在一起，這是對(duì)2020年總統(tǒng)候選人的一系列采訪的一部分。

Yang, a tech entrepreneur and author, proposes that the government give every American adult $1,000 a month — a form of universal basic income, no strings attached. He says this income is necessary to address wide-scale job losses due to automation. It would help people have the resources to afford to look for work, care for a loved one, start a business or do nonprofit work.

楊是一名科技企業(yè)家和作家，他建議政府每月給每個(gè)美國(guó)成年人1000美元——這是一種普遍的基本收入，沒有任何附加條件。他說，這些收入對(duì)于解決自動(dòng)化造成的大規(guī)模失業(yè)問題是必要的。它將幫助人們有足夠的資源去找工作、照顧親人、創(chuàng)業(yè)或從事非營(yíng)利性工作。

"It's enough to be a game changer," Yang told the voters. "But it's not meant to be a full work replacement, and it's certainly not meant to solve every problem."

“這足以改變游戲規(guī)則，”楊告訴選民們。“但它并不意味著完全替代工作，也肯定不是為了解決所有問題。”

Those who wanted the dividend would give up any traditional welfare benefits they were getting — or they could just stick with their welfare payments. The dividend, Yang said, is like a "foundation or a floor."

那些想要紅利的人將放棄他們正在獲得的任何傳統(tǒng)福利，或者他們可以堅(jiān)持他們（之前）的福利。楊說，紅利就像一個(gè)“基礎(chǔ)”。

The government would not specify how the universal basic income should be spent, and Jani wondered whether that could lead to bad decision-making. "Do people always make the choices that we need them to make in order to get to the world that you're hoping to get to?"

政府沒有具體說明應(yīng)該如何使用這種普遍的基本收入，賈尼想知道這是否會(huì)是糟糕的決策。“為了到達(dá)你希望達(dá)到的那個(gè)世界，人們總是做出我們需要他們做出的選擇嗎?”

"If you get the freedom dividend in January and you buy a big TV, like maybe I wouldn't have bought that big TV, but you know, it's your decision, your resources. It's like you might make a different decision in February," he said.

“如果你在一月份獲得了自由紅利，你買了一臺(tái)大電視，也許我不會(huì)買那臺(tái)大電視，但你知道，這是你的決定，你的資金。就像你可能在二月份做出不同的決定一樣。”他說道。

"The benefit to me of putting this sort of autonomy in people's hands far outweigh trying to direct it to very, very specific expenses. But I will say again that we still need to do a lot of work to address the real problems in our society on top of anything we're doing with the freedom dividend."

“對(duì)我來說，把這種自主權(quán)給人們的好處遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)超過試圖把它規(guī)定為非常、非常具體的支出。但我想再說一遍，除了我們?cè)谧杂杉t利上所做的任何事情，我們?nèi)匀恍枰龊芏喙ぷ鱽斫鉀Q我們社會(huì)中真正的問題。”

Zeitler also wanted to know more about the value-added tax that Yang proposes to pay for it. Specifically, Zeitler wondered whether a 10% tax on goods and services that businesses produce was too unfair and whether wealthier Americans and corporations shouldn't shoulder more of a burden in a tax code restructuring.

澤特勒還想了解更多關(guān)于楊提出的增值稅的支付問題。具體來說，澤特勒想知道對(duì)企業(yè)生產(chǎn)的商品和服務(wù)征收10%的稅是否不公平，以及富裕的美國(guó)人和企業(yè)是否不應(yīng)該在稅法調(diào)整中承擔(dān)更多的稅收負(fù)擔(dān)。

Yang agreed but said that the current tax system is "being gamed to incredible degrees" by corporations.

楊同意這一觀點(diǎn)，但他表示，目前的稅收制度正被企業(yè)“玩弄到令人難以置信的程度”。

"So you have a trillion-dollar tech company like Amazon that's now closing 30% of America's stores and malls literally paying zero in taxes. " Yang said.

“像亞馬遜這樣價(jià)值上萬億美元的科技公司現(xiàn)在關(guān)閉了美國(guó)30%的商店和購(gòu)物中心，幾乎不用繳稅。”楊說。

"Because we're in an era of unprecedented technology and innovation, our data is now worth more than oil, as an example. And we're seeing none of that. The companies that are seeing that value are Amazon, Facebook, Google and these mega-tech companies."

“因?yàn)槲覀兲幵谝粋€(gè)前所未有的技術(shù)和創(chuàng)新的時(shí)代，我們的數(shù)據(jù)現(xiàn)在比石油更有價(jià)值。我們沒有看到這一點(diǎn)。看到這種價(jià)值的公司是亞馬遜、臉書、谷歌和這些大型科技公司。”