Comments by "" (@TheHuxleyAgnostic) on "Who Is Andrew Yang? Narrated By Sierra Katow | NowThis" video.

Gangers should spend 10 min learning how a VAT actually works.
2
@dggamer2761 So you already know it's not designed to tax businesses, and Yang is clueless or lying?
2
@dggamer2761 Moron. A business covers all of its costs in the price of the goods or services it is selling. If it doesn't, then it doesn't even break even. If a business spent $1000 +$100 input VAT on items for its business, the $1000 would be covered by its own pricing. When their customer then pays that $1000 portion of the price, they pay $100 VAT to the business. The business gets to keep that $100, reclaiming its input VAT. You, the consumer, get to pay a tax on their printers and office supplies, their trucks, their add buys, their data buys, their employee wages, etc., and a tax on their profits. You really should take a mooment to double check if what someone is saying is true, or not, before doubling, and tripling, down on being stupid there cultist.
2
@dggamer2761 Wow, you didn't even take a second to even glance at how a VAT actually works. You're a cultist through and through. Keep spewing your alternative "facts", dumbass, and argue against reality. The reality is that a VAT is specifically designed to NOT tax businesses, to avoid the potential for double taxation, moron.
2
@MK-fk4kp Yang will only make the "establishment" richer. A VAT doesn't tax businesses. A corporation like Amazon will only benefit from the $3t being spent. It'll make them extra tens of billions a year. That would make Bezos extra billions a year. He'd then have to personally spend tens of billions on goods and services with a VAT to pay in more than he makes. Yang's VAT/UBI scheme will have money funneling to the top handful of people even faster than it is now.
2
@dggamer2761 Do you like pictures, moron? https://www.iras.gov.sg/irashome/uploadedImages/IRASHome/GST/IRAS-DB-GST%20Infographic-v3.1.png
1
@kinghassy334 You left off savings, and other non VATable spending. Also, not enough into healthcare and housing (32% = $48k). Food at home: mostly non VATable Food at restaurants: VATable (5.4%) Housing: non VATable Utilities: VATable (4.8%) Clothes and shoes: non VATable? (is Yang exempting shoes?) Transportation & gasoline: Has he said? Not VATable in many countries. Healthcare: non VATable Entertainment: VATable (5.7%) Education: non VATable Retirement: non VATable So about 16% of their income ($24k) will be VATable, and get you $2.4k. They get back $12k, leaving them $9.6k in the plus. Even if we about double that, to 30% of income being VATable, a household wouldn't start paying in more than they get back until they hit $400k+. And, that's without a spouse. A two adult household wouldn't start paying in more until they hit $800k+. A single adult household wouldn't pay in enough for themselves and one other person until $800k. A two adult household wouldn't pay in enough for themselves and two other people until $1.6m. https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2012/08/01/157664524/how-the-poor-the-middle-class-and-the-rich-spend-their-money
1
No you wouldn't. You'd just have to be collecting full SSI disability ($771) and SNAP for 2+ ($355+), and the UBI would be zero economic benefit to you, and you can't opt out of paying into the VAT. Also, "regressive" refers to what percentage of someone's income is paid into it, not their ability to pay it. A VAT still affects people with lower incomes more than people with higher incomes. A Bezos makes $150k a minute. Paying for a $120k car and paying $12k in VAT is peanuts, a tiny fraction of a percent of his yearly earnings. For someone making $120k a year, that's their entire yearly income and their entire UBI. That's regressive. Consumption taxes are regressive, period.
1
@evananderson2297 I said SSI not SSDI. SSI isn't stackable. Bezos' rocket company is its own corporation. It can reclaim its input VAT like any other corporation, and not pay a dime in VAT. Since a VAT doesn't actually tax corporations like Amazon, and since Amazon's share of US consumer spending is 2%, they will only make an extra $60b a year. That would make Bezos an extra $6+b a year. He could buy himself a new $1b yacht, paying in $100m, every single year, and still be up $5.9b ... and that's on top of the ridiculous amounts they're already making, and hoarding.
1
@capitolphoenix4197 Not sure where I lost you. If a person gets zero economic benefit from the UBI, then it only takes spending 10¢ and paying 1¢ in VAT to start being a negative for them, not $120k.
1
@madmax041 Many countries exempt staples, including mine. Doesn't make it non regressive, it just makes it less so.
1
@madmax041 Fuck moron. I didn't say it was taken out of their income like an income tax, you stupid shit. You have severe reading comprehension problems. It is measured against income, though, to get a percentage, dumbass. $2 on a $20 movie night spend, is a higher percentage of someone who makes $20k a year's income, compared to someone who makes $200k. That's why consumption taxes are considered regressive, period. They charge the poorest and the richest the same thing. Exempting both rich and poor people's staples doesn't change that it's regressive, it just makes it less so, by not having a regressive tax on necessities, but it's still on everything else.
1
@dustypatten Plenty of countries exempt staples. It doesn't make it non regressive, just somewhat less so. A VAT is still considered a regressive tax, as are basically all consumption taxes.
1
@00justsayin00 Not every poor person will benefit economically from the UBI, and they can't opt out of paying the VAT. So, there's that. For the rest, it's still regressive, just less so. "Regressive" refers to the percentage of your income it would affect. Bezos makes $2500 a second. Paying $400 in VAT on a $4000 stay in a luxury suite at a hotel is a teenie tiny fraction of a percent of his yearly earnings. Even if a UBI bumped you up from $28k a year to $40k a year, a $400 VAT on a $4000 used car would be a full 1% of your yearly earnings.
1