Comments by "" (@TheHuxleyAgnostic) on "Andrew Yang Lies In New Campaign Ad" video.

On top of a VAT being regressive, a VAT is specifically designed to NOT be a tax on businesses, as Yang falsely claims. It's a tax on consumers. Businesses get their input VAT credited back to them, even on things like advertising, which he constantly lies about. Since a VAT won't actually tax the likes of Amazon, and since their share of US consumer spending is 2%, handing consumers $3t will only make them in the range of an extra $60b a year, while not paying into it at all. His plan will do the opposite of what he claims it will do. It will be American consumers handing money to Amazon, not Amazon handing money to them.
11
Yang has always been on the side of corporations. He's bullshitting Americans, telling them a VAT will tax corporations like Amazon, when a VAT is specifically designed to NOT tax them. If you don't have Amazon pay into the UBI, since their share of US consumer spending is 2%, handing consumers $3t will only make Amazon an extra $60b a year. That'd make Bezos something like $6b extra a year, far more than he'd ever personally pay into a VAT. His "plan"would make giant corporations and the super rich even richer, and increase wealth inequality, while leaving some very poor people worse off. He's not a progressive. He's skipping the things other countries do to make corporations pay in, like the things Bernie is proposing. "a consumption tax because it is borne ultimately by the final consumer. It is not a charge on businesses." https://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/business/vat/what-is-vat_en "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." http://publications.gc.ca/Collection-R/LoPBdP/BP/prb0003-e.htm#A.%20Taxing%20Mechanism(txt) Even Amazon, who he falsely claims a VAT will tax, has their own tutorial page on "How VAT works in Europe" and "How to claim back VAT", proving him to be a liar. https://services.amazon.co.uk/services/vat-resources.html
8
@Mike2digital And Bernie wants to make businesses give those who negotiated healthcare the equivalent back to them in wages, so ...
6
@Mike2digital "Slowly", as in it would take decades, if ever, for a public option to get you universal coverage. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/08/los-angeles-public-option-2020-democrats/597115/
5
@bluesrockfan36 Moron. 12k is below the poverty line. How the hell does that "end poverty"? How does making some people currently below the poverty line even worse off "end poverty"? Meanwhile you're handing $60b to Amazon by not actually taxing them. You're seriously having a hard time grasping the reasoning that there's a flaw in that "plan"? Are you also having trouble grasping that, because a VAT is specifically designed to not tax businesses, that means Yang is clueless or lying? Either way is fine with you?
4
David, he has also been lying from the start about who a VAT actually taxes. A VAT is specifically designed to NOT be a tax on businesses. "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." http://publications.gc.ca/Collection-R/LoPBdP/BP/prb0003-e.htm#A.%20Taxing%20Mechanism(txt) "a consumption tax because it is borne ultimately by the final consumer. It is not a charge on businesses." https://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/business/vat/what-is-vat_en Even Amazon knows. "How VAT works in Europe", "How to claim back VAT". https://services.amazon.co.uk/services/vat-resources.html That includes getting credited back input VAT on advertising, which he repeatedly lies about. https://www.burtonbeavan.co.uk/reclaim-vat-google-adwords/ If he doesn't actually make Amazon pay into the UBI, and their share of US consumer spending is 2%, handing consumers $3t a year will only make Amazon an extra $60b a year. That would, in turn, make Bezos something like an extra $6b a year ... a ton more than he'd ever personally pay into a VAT. Yang's plan will make giant corporations and the super rich even richer, and increase inequality. That ad has other subtle diahonesty, because he doesn't have his UBI stack with SSI disability or SNAP, which do currently stack together. A single non working caregiver with a disabled child could now be getting over $1000/month. Even if they opt out of the UBI, they can't opt out of paying a VAT on many things. Non staples, here in Canada: utilities, phone service, internet service, snacks and pop, personal hygiene products, household cleaning products, home maintenance, vehicle maintenance, toys, games, basically any entertainment with a cost ... all kinds of things that would still affect their lives.
4
@bluesrockfan36 You're a moron, because I've already included links, verifying I know exactly how a VAT works, verifying you're spouting pure bullshit by claiming it's a tax on businesses. You obviously didn't bother to inform yourself, are clearly pretending you know how a VAT works, but are actually clueless. You're like a Trump cultist, with your alternative "facts" and math. Fact: Yang acknowledges there are people currently getting $1000+ in assistance that he doesn't have stacking, and that they'll have to choose. Math: If you gain zero economic benefit from the UBI, but now have to pay 10% more for many things, you're worse off. Fact: Amazon's share of US consumer spending is 2+% and Bezos' share of Amazon is 10+%. Math: If you hand consumers $3t, and don't have Amazon pay in, they will make $60b. That would make Bezos $6b. That large shareholder would make a ton more than he'd ever personally pay into a VAT. Averages don't address that people who are getting full benefits might be getting them because they need the most help, and those are the people you're willing to make worse off, while you make giant corporations and the super rich even richer.
3
@konvo8092 It's M4A, not M4Awho opt-in.
3
@remixtapes9308 A public option gets you universal coverage no time soon. Might not get it in your lifetime, it's so slow. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/08/los-angeles-public-option-2020-democrats/597115/ Part of the problem is that it turns paying for expansion into a regressive set premium, rather than paying for it with progressive taxation.
3
@Mike2digital Moron. A VAT doesn't actually tax corporations, as Yang falsely claims it does. "a consumption tax because it is borne ultimately by the final consumer. It is not a charge on businesses." https://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/business/vat/what-is-vat_en "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." http://publications.gc.ca/Collection-R/LoPBdP/BP/prb0003-e.htm#A.%20Taxing%20Mechanism(txt) Since a VAT won't actually tax corporations like Amazon, and since their share of US consumer spending is 2%, handing consumers $3t would only make Amazon an extra $60b a year. That would make Bezos something like an extra $6b a year. He could buy a new $1b yacht every year, pay $100m in VAT, and still be in the plus $5.9b. Yang is not making corporations and the super rich pay you anything. His plan would only make them richer. It would also leave some very poor people worse off, rather than "eradicate poverty".
2
@remixtapes9308 Why isn't he smart enough to know a public option doesn't get you universal coverage anytime soon? https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/08/los-angeles-public-option-2020-democrats/597115/
1
@bluesrockfan36 You don't even know what an ad hominem actually is, slow poke. https://laurencetennant.com/bonds/adhominem.html The guy wants to cut government programs, yes. He originally wanted to cut them all, ffs. Someone had to fucking convince the idiot that throwing all the elderly off social security was a bad idea. Have fun, when you hit that great depression level of unemployment, and 25% of the population is trying to live on below poverty level "welfare", with no assistance programs to turn to. It's going to come faster than expected, of you make corporations like Amazon an extra $60b a year they can then invest into automating faster.
1
@bluesrockfan36 You seem to be conflating his end vision, where everyone is automatically covered, with his "burden shifting", transition, phase, which he describes exactly as a public option phase. LA had the same end vision, they attempted a public option transition phase, and 6 years in they aren't anywhere close to universal coverage.
1
@SR-lh4rm Like what, other than drugs, which he's honest about? What services might I have to pay a copay on, in the future (because I haven't yet)?
1
@SR-lh4rm I've never paid a copay for blood tests. You're referring to non routine specialized blood tests, and calling it "tons"?
1
@SR-lh4rm Our "tons" of private expenditure on healthcare is a tiny fraction of US private expenditure per capita. https://www-tc.pbs.org/prod-media/newshour/photos/2012/10/02/US_spends_much_more_on_health_than_what_might_be_expected_1_blog_main_horizontal.jpg
1
@SR-lh4rm If the US cut their per capita costs down to Canada levels, they could almost provide everyone with public healthcare for the same amount they're currently spending on public healthcare.
1
@SR-lh4rm It has to do with him being closer to the truth than you pretending there are "tons". Yang is for a public option, which gets you universal coverage no time soon. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/08/los-angeles-public-option-2020-democrats/597115/ It also turns paying for expansion from progressive taxation to a set premium, which is regressive.
1
@Mike2digital You're uninformed. A public opinion gets you universal coverage no time soon. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/08/los-angeles-public-option-2020-democrats/597115/
1
@Elrog3 "That would, in turn, make Bezos something like an extra $6b a year ... a ton more than he'd ever personally pay into a VAT." Bezos could buy a billion dollar yacht every year, pay $100m in VAT, and he'd still be $5.9b in the plus. Handing consumers $3t, while not making corporations pay into it, will only make shareholders more money than they'd ever pay into a VAT in a year. Bernie wants to expand all kinds of programs. So, you're strawman doesn't hold up.
1
@Elrog3 Bezos doesn't get paid that much in taxable income. He mostly gets paid in shares. That's the tax dodge for the rich. Then he can take out loans or lines of credit, which don't count as taxable income, to make purchases. You're nit picking. If he paid $200m in VAT, he'd be $5.8b in the plus. If he paid $1b in VAT, he'd be $5b in the plus. He won't pay in more than he gets out. That means someone else is. I'm "fixating" on the part where Yang is clueless or lying about who a VAT will actually tax, and who will "pay their fair share". If the corporations, and their large shareholders, who will benefit from consumer spending aren't paying into the UBI, more than they get out, then someone else is. Money can't go to them and not come from somewhere. Continuing to funnel money to the top in vast quantities will speed up inequality. It will speed up automation. And you'll just end up with great depression levels of unemployed people trying to live on $12k a year. Bernie wants to expand social security. How does that not help elderly retired people? He wants to expand affordable housing. How does that not help low income people trying to make ends meet? You don't seem very familiar with his plans.
1