Comments by "" (@TheHuxleyAgnostic) on "Panel: Is Yang DROPPING In Polls Because Of Israel Comments?" video.

  1.  @IndustryStandard2004  Attempting to appease everyone isn't a fence sitter, it's a bullshitter.
    12
  2. Except it should be expected. The guy put zero effort into informing himself as to how a VAT actually works, who it actually taxes. And yet built his major policy around it. He would have had money funneling to the very top faster than ever before.
    5
  3.  @rabbitsforyang8273  Hey, dumb dumb, I'm simply pointing out the fact that a VAT doesn't do what Yang claims it does. He even linked to a study that completely debunked what he said it does. He just didn't grasp it. Nothing you can say, denying reality, won't ever change that fact. I've also commented on other topics, when they come up again, and again, for years, on channels I'm subscribed to. Do you not do that, or do you just hunt down Yang videos, all over YouTube, like a cultist?
    2
  4.  @MorganRisch  It's right on Yang's still existing VAT page. I'm a Canadian who has been paying a VAT for 30 years as a consumer, and owned a VAT registered business and filled out VAT returns for years, as well. The study shows a near 100% pass through for standard rated (20%) goods and services. It was only by adding lesser rated (8%) and zero rated (0%) goods and services that the pass through rate dropped. Yang mistakenly took that to mean that businesses were paying half or more of the VAT, when it actually meant there was no tax, or less tax, on half or more of the sales.
    2
  5. He was clueless during the primaries, as well. He shouldn't be in any major positions of power.
    1
  6.  shyam dahal  Not a fan of Biden, dumb dumb. But, I think he at least knows basically how a tax works before wanting to apply it to the nation. Yang had zero clue how a VAT actually works, who it actually taxes. He even linked to a pass through rate study, that he totally failed to grasp, that actually debunked everything he was saying about a VAT.
    1
  7.  @ubuu7  Nothing you said refuted the fact that he had zero clue how a VAT works. A VAT is specifically designed to NOT tax businesses in order to avoid double taxation. The pass through rate study outright showed consumers were paying the entire tax. If you don't have giant corporations paying into the dividend, then they only get the benefits of extra trillions being spent, funneling money to the very top faster than ever before. Try addressing what I actually say.
    1
  8.  @ubuu7  Even Yang, with his words, and repeated comparisons to the Alaskan dividend, constantly stated that corporations should be the ones paying for it, or paying for most of it. The problem is that his complete lack of knowledge about the tax he'd add to fund half of it, wouldn't do what he was saying.
    1
  9.  @ubuu7  Okay, but making the Bezoses of the world, who live on stocks, extra billions a year, because your not taxing their source of their increasing wealth, giant corporations, is a big problem. It's unsustainable, especially in a future with mass automation, and a largely unemployed consumer base. Tons of unemployed consumers can't be the ones funding their own UBI. As to other sources of funding, Yang already agreed giant corporations were dodging paying taxes through those methods. It's part of the basis of his argument to make them pay through a VAT. He just doesn't understand that they wouldn't pay through a VAT, either. The regressive topic is a different one. Unless everyone's income and wealth is equal, a consumption tax will always be regressive (a higher percent of poorer people's total wealth and income, including their UBI income, than a very rich person's). You can try and offset it, but it will still be regressive. And, no, some of the poorest people are already collecting benefits of a kind that Yang didn't have stack with his UBI, so his plan doesn't always benefit the poor most. Many could receive little, to no benefit, from the UBI, but still have to pay a VAT on many things. That could make some worse off. For example, Yang didn't have his UBI stack with SSI (not to be confused with SSDI) or SNAP, with do stack together now. Someone with a permanent disability could be collecting $993 a month. So, you give them $7 extra a month, but if they have to pay even $8 in VAT, on $80 worth of monthly purchases, or bills, then they're worse off. A "luxury" isn't a product in a certain price range, it's a category of product. A flip phone would have a tax just like an iPhone. A very basic flip phone service would have a tax just like a top of the line smart phone service. A movie would have a tax just like a Broadway show. McDonald's would have a tax just like a fancy restaurant. Etc. And, all the rich people also wouldn't have to pay taxes on their better quality, and larger amounts, of zero rated goods and services, staples, necessities. Sure, many people would be better off, but blanket statements about all the poor being better off, just aren't true. Meanwhile, many people who are pretty well off would get extra shopping spree money, or vacation money. Based on a basic household budget, and how much is spent on VATable goods and services, a single adult household wouldn't start paying more in than they get back until about a $400k income, $800k income if a two adult household. That's kind of nutty, if you're doing nothing to improve the lives of a bunch of the poorest citizens.
    1
  10.  @MorganRisch  You're not addressing what I said. Do all the Yang Gang have reading comprehension problems, as well as not being able to do math? I said he didn't grasp who it taxed. A VAT is specifically designed to NOT tax businesses in order to avoid double taxation. He even linked to a pass through rate study which showed consumers were paying the entire VAT. He simply failed to grasp it. If corporations don't actually pay into the dividend, like he stated they should, then they only get the benefit of extra trillions being spent, funneling money to the very top faster than ever before.
    1