Comments by "" (@TheHuxleyAgnostic) on "Ex-MSNBC Producer Spills Beans On Andrew Yang Ban" video.

@independentCog His method of paying for UBI wouldn't have corporations paying into it, and only benefiting from it being spent. In the end, he'd have money funneling to the very top, faster than ever. Not exactly a progressive reform.
4
@Arthos1824 Table 1 ... if the final consumer paid $49 VAT, and the government collected $49 VAT, then how much did each of the businesses end up paying into it? http://publications.gc.ca/Collection-R/LoPBdP/BP/prb0003-e.htm#HOW%20THE%20GST%20WORKS(txt)
3
@Arthos1824 A VAT is specifically designed to NOT end up taxing businesses. It's a sales tax, collected in stages, with all the stages getting paid back, except the final consumer.
2
@independentCog Forgive me. I don't remember you, from a sea of ironic gangers who think math is "disinfo".
2
@writerconsidered Yang gangers who argue against the reality of math, when he's supposed to be the math guy.
2
@SR-lh4rm For example?
2
On the plus side, no media has covered that he has zero clue how a VAT works.
2
Why do you think that's a reason to ban him? His method for paying for UBI, with a VAT, doesn't make corporations pay into the UBI.
1
@passyourielts The formula for companies is ... X = output VAT (VAT you've collected) Y = input VAT (VAT you've paid) X - Y = Z If Z is greater than 0, you keep Y, paying yourself back, and send Z to the government. If Z is less than 0, you keep Y, and the government refunds you Z, paying you back. If I've bought $1000 in software for company use, and paid $100 input VAT, I still subtract that $100 from my collected output VAT.
1
@passyourielts The issue with not having corporations pay into the UBI then becomes the fact that they only get the benefits of it being spent. $3t a year in extra spending would make a company like Amazon extra tens of billions a year, which would, in turn, make Bezos extra billions a year. Amazon would still pay nothing in taxes, and Bezos would happily pay a few million in VAT on personal items, if he's making extra billions. Money would actually be flowing to the richest of the rich faster than ever before.
1
@passyourielts Well, Yang compares his plan to Alaska, but Alaska has the oil companies paying the people. If it goes back to those corporations, then it's just going back to where it came from. The VAT would have consumers paying other consumers, and then the money flowing to corporations that never paid in.
1
@passyourielts Jeff's rockets are also paid for through a corporation, which would end up not paying VAT. He could buy a brand new $1b yacht, every single year, pay $100m in VAT, and still be billions ahead.
1
@rafaelzaaz5262 I think you misunderstood. He was talking about buying software for company use, not for resale, and the company being the final consumer for that item. They still get to pay themselves back for any input VAT they've paid on operation costs. You're watching no YouTube "how VAT works" that I've ever seen. The ones that come up, for me, clearly outline that businesses get to reclaim their input VAT. I'm Canadian. I've been paying a VAT for 30 years, and owned my own VAT registered business. If you're regularly paying more input VAT than you're collecting in output VAT, then your business is failing.
1
@rafaelzaaz5262 Or maybe your business is spending too much on non business related goods and services. Do you use the company bank account like it's your own? Spain: "A taxpayer may recover input tax, which is VAT charged on goods and services supplied for business purposes. A taxpayer generally recovers input tax by deducting it from output tax, which is VAT charged on supplies made. Input tax may be deducted in the accounting period in which the output VAT was charged or in any successive period, up to a period of four years from the time of supply." https://www.taxexpense.com/spain-taxes/spain-vat-gst-sales-tax/
1
@UC74CejnpNgdA5fNwtNIhA0w Show me you're not arguing against the reality of math. Table 1 If the final consumer paid $49 VAT, and the government collected $49 VAT, then how much did each of the businesses end up paying into it? http://publications.gc.ca/Collection-R/LoPBdP/BP/prb0003-e.htm#HOW%20THE%20GST%20WORKS(txt)
1
@SR-lh4rm There's nothing for businesses to avoid, if it's specifically designed NOT to tax them. Do the math for me ... Final customer pays $49 (+49). Government collects $49 (-49). 49 - 49 = ? (How much businesses paid in)
1
@SR-lh4rm Do you have severe reading comprehension problems? The issue isn't whether it generates revenue, or not. It's who pays it. Do the math, and tell me how much the businesses paid in.
1
@SR-lh4rm M4A doesn't ban private insurance. It bans selling duplicate coverage, just like Medigap is already banned from doing. If Yang wants to allow companies to slip in charges for something that you're already covered for, then that's just stupid. There's no evidence that a public option would lead to M4A, which is the route Yang's plan takes.
1
@SR-lh4rm The evidence is that it doesn't get you M4A anytime soon, if at all. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/08/los-angeles-public-option-2020-democrats/597115/
1
@SR-lh4rm The Singapore government has made a pretty graphic, for those of you who find numbers confusing. https://www.iras.gov.sg/irashome/uploadedImages/IRASHome/GST/IRAS-DB-GST%20Infographic-v3.1.png
1