Comments by "" (@TheHuxleyAgnostic) on "How To Avoid Grifters In Leftist Media" video.

The biggest failure, when it came to Yang, was American interviewers not looking into how a VAT actually works. He got away with repeatedly claiming it was a way to tax giant corporations, like Amazon. A VAT is actually specifically designed to not tax businesses, in order to avoid cascading taxes upon taxes. At every stage, the business gets to reclaim its input VAT (VAT paid on purchases), from its output VAT (VAT collected on sales). It's only the final consumer that doesn't get to reclaim their VAT paid, and ends up paying the entire tax. His VAT/UBI combo would have had money funneling to the very top, faster than ever before. Since corporations wouldn't actually pay into the UBI, as he claimed, they would have only benefitted from extra trillions being spent, making a corporation like Amazon extra tens of billions a year, and Bezos extra billions a year.
36
@alabamaman5994 I don't know. You not even addressing what was said, and thinking you made an intelligent reply, is pretty freaking hilarious.
8
David Doel is good, with a Canadian perspective. The American left should look at how Canada's Liberals and NDP (progressives) are split, and how that allows for the Conservatives to win pluralities far more often than they should. From a Canadian perspective, it's easy to see that someone like Dore is actually promoting Republican rule, for decades to come.
8
@patrickriarchy1976 See. Yang Gangers reply about something completely different than what I'm talking about. You're so clueless about the VAT, you addressed a completely different problem with the VAT, pulled out of a Yang Gang copy and paste playbook. Bezos could pay $100m on a brand new $1b yacht, every single year, and he still could have made billions extra a year, with Yang's VAT/UBI combo. Mass amounts of money constantly funneling to the very top, where it's hoarded, is unsustainable. It's already why things are failing. Progressive taxes are definitely better, if done properly. Loopholes should be closed. The way Yang explains how a tax/ubi combo should work, is correct. It should be corporations paying for the UBI, like in Alaska, which he repeatedly, and dishonestly, compared his plan to. The problem is he dishonestly, or moronically, picked a tax that doesn't do what he says. If you want a $4t UBI, it just so happens that the top US corporations are hoarding about $4t. That's what should be taxed to pay for it. In a future, where you predict ever increasing unemployment, as robots take over, you can't depend on a tax paid by increasingly unemployed consumers. The corporations need to pay for it.
4
@patrickriarchy1976 It is no misconception. Again ... a VAT is specifically designed to not tax businesses, in order to avoid cascading taxes upon taxes ... which would be worse (you're arguing for something that would actually be worse than the VAT). I owned and operated a VAT registered business, for years. If you're not a Yang ganger, then why are you lying so hard, for him?
2
@patrickriarchy1976 "The GST takes into account the cost of inputs – the factors used in manufacturing or production – at each stage of the process to avoid double taxation. Input tax credits enable partnerships, businesses and self-employed workers to recover all GST paid on goods and services purchased for business purposes by deducting them from their GST payments. Final consumers are not entitled to such credits, which means that they pay all the GST on every item purchased. The GST is thus a multi-stage tax on final consumption." If my business buys $100 in vatable goods or services, it would pay $10 input VAT (with a 10% VAT). However, when I sell $200 in vatable goods or services, it would collect $20 in output VAT. The business then pays itself back the $10, and sends $10 to the government. So, if the government received $20 VAT ($10 + $10), and my customers paid $20 VAT, how much VAT did my business end up paying?
2
@jamesmcelroy5830 Like the fact that not voting, or casting a useless vote, only benefits Republicans? Like the fact that Dumpty did fill multiple scotus seats, and the moon didn't fall into Lake Michigan? Like the fact that there were dozens of inspections showing Syria used chemical weapons, and that 2 dissenting opinions on a single inspection doesn't even refute that inspection, let alone all those dozens of others (that didn't have dissenting opinions)? Like the fact that the entire progressive caucus doesn't have the majority needed to pick a different party speaker candidate, meaning the majority of house Democrats could have kept picking Pelosi over and over and over again? Like the fact that Dore actually promoted that 15 progressives abstain, rather than cast protest votes, which would have handed the house speakership to McCarthy? Like the fact that Dore promoted abandoning Nina Turner ... abandoning adding another M4A yes vote to congress, when getting enough yes votes in congress is the only possible way to ever pass the bill? Like the fact that he spewed a ton of garbage about COVID, vaccines, and "alternatives"? Like the fact that Rumble is funded by Peter Thiel (mega MAGA donor, who made his billions helping the government spy on its citizens), and they paid Tulsi, Greenwald, and Dore, to join their platform? Etc. Grifters claim they're selling you something beneficial, but are actually selling you something useless, or even harmful. The paths Dore proposes taking don't lead to where he claims they do. They lead to Republicans ruling for decades to come.
1
@patrickriarchy1976 You seem to have zero clue what you're talking about. UAE government: "Liability of VAT The liability of VAT is the difference between the output tax payable (VAT charged on supplies of goods and services) for a given tax period and the input tax (VAT incurred on purchases) recoverable for the same tax period. Where the output tax exceeds the input tax amount, the difference must be paid to FTA. Where the input tax exceeds the output tax, a taxable person will have the excess input tax recovered; he will be entitled to set this off against subsequent payment due to FTA." Do you grasp what that says? If my business has paid $1000 input VAT, and collected $2000 output VAT, it only needs to send the difference ($1000) to the government, recovering the $1000 it spent. Again ... if the government received $2000 ($1000 + $1000), and my customers paid $2000, how much tax did my business end up paying?
1
@patrickriarchy1976 So far, you're arguing with someone who actually filled out the vat returns, for years ... the Canadian government ... and the UAE government. From the EU, representing 27 countries: "a consumption tax because it is borne ultimately by the final consumer. It is not a charge on businesses." "The VAT due on any sale is a percentage of the sale price but from this the taxable person is entitled to deduct all the tax already paid at the preceding stage. Therefore, double taxation is avoided ..." How big a hole do you want to dig yourself into?
1
@patrickriarchy1976 Rofl. It's never the end customer. If I spend $1000 on an office computer, for my clothing business, and pay $100 VAT, I still get to deduct that from my output VAT, collected on clothing sales. All input VAT can be deducted from all output VAT. Just stop.
1
@patrickriarchy1976 If your business is big enough, that you need an accountant, then you're already going to need one to do your VAT returns, ffs. Now you're getting ridiculous.
1