Andrew Yang's argument is that a lot of people already receive some level of help from the state (food stamps, unemployment, etc) which would be transferred to cash instead. So you need to account for those as well.
I don't get it: So the idea is to help the middle class at the expense of the poor?
It sounds like you're saying that people who depend on food stamps and unemployment will see a smaller benefit under UBI than people who earn enough not to require those benefits.
I'm not sure I understand what you are saying. The way I understood his argument is that it would remove all the existing social aids such as unemployment benefits, food stamps etc and replace all of those with UBI. This means that everyone would get 1000$ a month. 1000$ a month is MORE than what you would get with food stamps etc so the "poor" are coming out of this ahead.
1000$ a month was chosen because you are supposed to be able to live with that amount. I would expect to be extra allowances for children etc.
There is no such thing as "at the expense of the poor" here. Everybody gets it. If you are middle class it comes out directly out of your taxes anyway. It is a minimum income that should help you decide to start a new career or create a small company for example, now that you know that whatever happens you will always get 1000$ a month.
This, it's partly a flywheel to generate more maneuverability therefor innovation and business creating risk taking. Adding to the economy, not detracting.
