Comments by "" (@TheHuxleyAgnostic) on "Sorry #YangGang—You’re Being Taken for a Ride" video.

FACT: It won't stack with regular SSI disability. A disabled person with a child would already be getting $1000+ a month. Yang's plan would simply make most things, at least, 10% more expensive for them. FACT: A VAT is paid by the consumers, not corporations. Yang is outright lying when he says a VAT will force corporations like Amazon to "pay their fair share". Amazon would simply collect the tax and pass it along to the government. FACT: Many of those who do benefit from the UBI will spend their extra money on Amazon, making Amazon even more money. FACT: Amazon making more money will give more money to Bezos, for him to hoard, and hoarded money isn't affected by a VAT. FACT: Any plan that hurts some poor people, and will make giant corporations and the super rich even richer, is a shit plan.
7
It does not recognize a lot of those people. A disabled person with a child could already be getting $1000 per month. With most things costing, at least, 10% more, they'd be worse off. It doesn't adjust for cost of living. It doesn't adjust for children.
4
@dorothypage77 Where does he say that he will initially bump up all assistance programs by at least 10%, and that they will rise with inflation? Where does he even say UBI will rise with inflation?
4
Opting out won't change the fact that many things will cost, at least, 10% more and make that $1000+ worth less. You opt out, but your electric bill is now $110 instead of $100, for example.
2
@deep-n-yo-mind5061 It's just a fact that there will be more people spending their extra money on Amazon. Didn't say anyone had to. The tax would be on those buying the data, not those selling. Google wouldn't be taxed a cent.
2
@deep-n-yo-mind5061 You're the one spouting the hypotheticals. I've been paying a VAT for almost 30 years, and have operated a business with a VAT. Any random UBI isn't the same as Yang's UBI plan, which involves not actually taxing giant tech companies, at all, and throwing your hands up in the air and pretending like there's zero way to close tax loopholes, or actually tax them directly. If things are going to be automated, more demand will simply require a supply of more automation, and not create any human jobs, leaving millions trying to live on $12k a month, while those giant corporations get richer and richer.
2
@dorothypage77 You and Yang are lying, saying a VAT is a way to tax corporations. You seem to be clueless as to how a VAT actually works. Let's say Amazon currently buys a product from a manufacturer at $100, sells it for $200, and pockets $100. With a 10% VAT added, they'd pay $100 + $10 VAT, and the manufacturer would send $10 to the government. Amazon would still sell for $200 but with a $20 VAT added, so the final consumer pays $220. Amazon gets paid back $10, and sends $10 to the government. The government gets $20, but Amazon still pockets $100. So, explain how that's actually taxing them. Half the things you pointed at people spending UBI on (in a totally different UBI plan than Yang's) wouldn't pay into a VAT. That's actually not a good thing, for Yang's scheme. His scheme is totally dependent on increasing VAT revenues. His plan starts with massive deficit spending, no way to pay for a third of his UBI, and requires a ton more VAT revenue to be generated, than is currently generated. Food, housing, savings, debt ... will totally screw his plan. Also, what they bought doesn't say who they bought it from. Amazon is selling some groceries and household products. Amazon sells school books. Buying at WalMart would be no better. It would make giant corporations richer, and a VAT not a way to actually tax them.
1
@dorothypage77 You're still lying. Just to be clear, I'm Canadian. I've been paying a VAT for almost 30 years, and have operated a business with a VAT. Don't even bother trying to explain to me how it works. We also have staples exempt, here, but there's still a VAT on electricity, clothes, toys, phone service, internet service, cable service, all other forms of entertainment, snack foods and pop, alcohol, etc., etc., etc. If you don't think any of those things costing more will leave some people worse off, then you're pretty daft. To cover the full cost of the UBI, he is totally relying on the economy growing by trillions and generating hundreds of more billions from future VAT. At the outset, a third of his UBI won't be paid for, and will run a deficit.
1
@dorothypage77 And, again, you prove to be totally clueless as to how a VAT works. It's built in that it's passed along at each stage. There's no option to not pass it along. That's complete bullshit.
1
There's UBI and then there's how to pay for UBI. Alaskans have partial ownership of their resource, and get paid for it. Yang isn't proposing everyone get a share of Amazon, and their profits. He's proposing taxing Amazon's consumers with a VAT. Amazon would still pay zero taxes. They'd simply collect it and pass it along to the government. Toss in the UBI and even more people will spend money on Amazon making them and Bezos even richer.
1
@deep-n-yo-mind5061 You keep strawmanning me. I didn't automatically dismiss UBI. I opened by saying there's UBI and then there's how to pay for UBI, and that Yang's plan is just bad. He's the one throwing his hands in the air about tax loopholes for corporations and the rich. He's the one promoting a VAT that doesn't actually tax corporations, and will make them and their owners richer. He's the one not accounting for some poor people who will end up worse off. Other studies will say nothing about his plan, unless they're designed exactly like his plan, and he's the only one with a UBI plan.
1