Comments by "wvu05" (@wvu05) on "Uh-Oh: Was the $15 Minimum Wage Just DESTROYED?!" video.

mxt mxt That's why Bernie's bill adjusts for inflation after it gets to $15.00/hour, so we don't have to worry about that anymore.
3
mxt mxt Darn right!
3
sissyreed1 Do you think McDonald's liked paying $7.25? Workers are nothing more than a line item on the right side of a balance sheet to them. Washington has a higher minimum wage than Idaho, and they still have people at the counter.
3
@krisalis709 You wanna know how you avoid letting them exploit the loophole? Get rid of the loophole. Again, Amazon won't pay the VAT. The customer will.
2
@Hygoro But the corporation still has that much more profit that isn't getting taxed.
1
@krisalis709 The IRS knows how much you make, because you have to submit your SSN or taxpayer ID, and that gets reported.
1
@UC9pgw7T1F0LvorJkAG_aXaw Do you know what the profit margin is on retail? It's less than 10%. Do you honestly think that won't be passed on to the consumer?
1
@krisalis709 Oh, and since we are talking about looking at the totality of the plan, let us also consider that people currently receiving benefits either give up their current benefits or they get nothing... which makes it even more regressive.
1
@nomercy4521 Well, he won't put out a list of the 125 programs that are mutually exclusive to his "freedom dividend," so don't hold your breath.
1
@gregmattson2238 English translation: I give up, so let's tax consumers instead!
1
@gibblesbits8303 You think that Google, Amazon, et al, actually offer free stuff to people who use it? Nothing is free online. The costs just get hidden.
1
@1986jon19 Nice try, but they also have an income tax that is much higher than ours and a much more generous social safety net. Yang wants to do nothing about the former, and he told Dave Rubin that he ultimately wants to get rid of the latter.
1
@1986jon19 I didn't say they don't. However, because they have higher taxes, and other societal pressure, there is far less incentive for C-level executives to pay themselves more in a day than their employees get in a year. Still doesn't make consumption taxes any less regressive.
1
@ChonchoLibre Well, considering the fact that Yang won't tell us how he defines staples, I don't trust him. You are also forgetting that people currently getting benefits don't get the full thousand dollars, if they get anything at all. This makes it even more regressive than taxing consumption. If Yang were an actual lefty, he would tax wealth, and he would make it universal for everyone without a big asterisk of forcing people to choose between their current benefits and his plan. He is a completely dishonest actor on his signature issue, and that is why he gets so much pushback from the left. He keeps talking about how people on the right love it. Why wouldn't they? It's their plan!
1
@gregmattson2238 That is not a VAT. A VAT is a tax on consumer goods, not investments.
1
@gregmattson2238 He says that Amazon will be covered. Do you consider books to be a luxury item?
1
@JosePineda-cy6om My problem with George's idea is that it will punish people in rural areas. For example, my brother bought a trailer years ago that also came with 29 acres of land. Given how hilly and rocky it is, it is not conducive to building, so he would pay out the nose, and his scenario is not that uncommon in rural areas.
1
@gregmattson2238 Public option is not Medicare for All. He has no end date, but he just hopes that private insurance will wither on the vine. Not the same thing at all.
1
@JosePineda-cy6om Oh. I just missed something about the use of the term "idle." There is wildlife and plenty of other things. Do you want the rest of America to have the same battles over water and other natural resources of California? Do you want every heavy rain to result in flooding? Because that is what happens when there is more concrete and less soil to absorb water.
1
@JosePineda-cy6om Again, I'm not talking low-desnity suburban areas. I am talking about rural areas. These are poor people, and how do we know how the government will set the rates?
1
@JosePineda-cy6om By definition, urban land is more developed than rural land. They also have more money. Since the tax charges at a higher rate for people who don't develop, this is inherently taxing the rural more than the urban.
1
@JosePineda-cy6om Oh, I read, and you're not getting what I am saying. I had this same discussion 15 years ago. Ultimately, rural land will not be as developed, and you said that Henry George says that it is terrible for land to be undeveloped. Therefore, regardless of the rate, rural people are more likely to pay the penalty compared to urban landowners. If you think that constantly forcing people to sell their land to the government is a great idea, you and I have a different understanding.
1
@gregmattson2238 Gee, what a shock! A Yang Gang banger who says that a critic from the left has to think harder, and that said critic will come around in time because of the unmitigated brilliance of Yang and his gang. So, the public option will be better because it will allow for more innovation? Yes, because apparently England, France, and Canada have no medical innovations whatsoever. Is that the kind of deep thinking that is supposed to win me over to keeping a parasitic middleman that makes its money by denying care? As far as rich threatening to pass on the consumer, and Amazon supposedly being investigated for fraud, did I say that they would jack up their prices 50%? Even if they did, there is nothing that Yang or anyone really could do. However, the profit margin of retail, especially high-volume retail, is far lower than the 10% that Yang is proposing for a VAT. And brick and mortar competitors have a higher margin per item, but it is still lower than 10%. So, is this the kind of deep thinking that will convince me that using a regressive tax is better than simply getting rid of corporate tax loopholes?
1
@gregmattson2238 I think you for that expression. As far as autocomplete, my larger point was that there have been so many times where the conversation devolves into, rather than what a normal conversation would be where people disagree of A makes point, B provides objection, and A responds to specific points in the discussion and brings new points to bolster the argument, and so on and so forth until either one realizes that his/her argument is wrong or they come to a deadlock but with a greater understanding of each point of view, but too many times it gets stuck at A repeats the points. As far as your point, I honestly saw that as a secondary argument. I personally do not consider novelty to be a great argument. I would prefer to go with something that, in literally every place that it has been tried, is more cost effective and covers every single person. There is not one study that I have seen that says that everyone will get covered by a public option, which is why it is unacceptable to me. An improvement, yes, but not the best path. When your mom almost died when you were 11 because she had a gangrenous gallbladder because it took eight months to get the surgery because your brother broke his arm three weeks earlier and doctors dragged their feet with the gallbladder surgery, you don't ever want that to happen to anyone. Ever.
1