Comments by "" (@TheHuxleyAgnostic) on "Andrew Yang Gets Called-Out Over His Health Care Lie" video.

@frank254100 Where every percentage of the vote goes matters. As a Kenyan, why would you support someone you know is lying about who a VAT taxes?
10
It's also because he's lying about how a VAT works. VAT registered businesses can reclaim their input VAT. It's only the final non-registered buyer who doesn't get credited back. Since the VAT won't actually tax giant corporations, handing consumers $3t will only make them, and their billionaire owners, billions more a year.
6
Ms Taylor If you have to opt in to get it, then it's not even "universal". No matter what words Yang uses, it's bullshit. A public option gets you nowhere fast. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/08/los-angeles-public-option-2020-democrats/597115/
4
Ms Taylor But it doesn't cover "everybody", only "everybody who opts in". If you don't opt in, you're not covered and are somehow outside the "everybody".
4
David, as a Canadian living with a VAT system, please expose that Yang is also lying about how a VAT works. While it is designed to generate revenue, a VAT is not designed to tax corporations like Amazon, as he falsely claims. In fact, a VAT is specifically designed to credit back registered businesses for any of their input VAT. It's only the final non-registered buyer who doesn't get their VAT payment credited back. http://publications.gc.ca/Collection-R/LoPBdP/BP/prb0003-e.htm#A.%20Taxing%20Mechanism(txt) Since it won't actually tax Amazon, and since their share of US consumer spending is 2%, handing consumers $3t will only make them an extra $60b a year. That would, in turn, make Bezos more a year than he'd ever personally pay into the VAT.
2
@thinkbeyond3457 How you pay for a UBI matters. A VAT doesn't actually tax corporations like Amazon. They get their input VAT credited back to them under a VAT system. It's only the final non-registered buyer who doesn't get their VAT payment credited back. Since Yang skips actually taxing giant corporations, he will only make them richer by handing consumers $3t. Amazon's share of US consumer spending is 2%. They'd make $60b extra a year from Yang. Ironically, they could invest that into automating faster. On top of him, ironically, automating away numerous government assistance jobs with an automatic bank deposit. Yang does not beat Bernie, here. Bernie proposes many of the things other countries do, to actually make corporations pay in, before they tax their better paid, higher standard of living, consumers with a VAT. Yang is skipping important steps.
2
@AstroMortuum A single stay at home caretaker of a disabled child ($771 full SSI disability + $355 full SNAP for 2 = $1126/month). Since Yang doesn't adjust for children, he'd offer that same parent $1000 instead. Even if that parent opts to keep what they've got, they would still have to pay 10% for many of their goods and services. They'd be worse off. Bernie has all kinds of other proposals to expand social security, housing, and other government assistance programs.
2
@mircogam Alaskan's are being paid by corporations for their resources. A VAT doesn't actually tax corporations, as Yang falsely claims. They are not comparable. How you pay for it matters. Giant corporations will only make tons more money from Yang, while still not paying in.
2
@mingo0817 Well, it's not necessarily about revenue generation. A VAT can generate a lot of revenue. It's also not a "loophole". "Loopholes" are flaws in a design that people can exploit to avoid taxes. A VAT is intentionally designed to pay back businesses along the way, and only not pay back the final non registered buyer. Who is paying the VAT matters, if you're then handing consumers $3t. If Amazon isn't actually paying in, as Yang falsely claims they would, then they'll make tens of billions extra from Yang while still paying no taxes. He's skipping most of the other things countries do to make corporations pay in, before they tax their consumers.
2
@mircogam And, why do you keep pretending as if a VAT is at all designed to tax companies? It's not, at all. It's designed to not tax companies. "a consumption tax because it is borne ultimately by the final consumer. It is not a charge on businesses." "taxable persons (i.e., VAT-registered businesses) deduct from the VAT they have collected the amount of tax they have paid to other taxable persons on purchases for their business activities" "The VAT due on any sale is a percentage of the sale price but from this the taxable person is entitled to deduct all the tax already paid at the preceding stage." "the final VAT paid is made up of the sum of the VAT paid at each stage" https://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/business/vat/what-is-vat_en
2
@• Juuke • And how does below poverty level money, for those who don't have a job, give them a decent life? Especially while handing tens of billions extra a year to corporations like Amazon, and their billionaire owners?
2
@WiseWeeabo In practice, businesses get their input VAT credited back to them, including on advertising. Yang doesn't know how a VAT actually works, or is totally bullshitting people. One or the other. https://www.burtonbeavan.co.uk/reclaim-vat-google-adwords/
1
@WiseWeeabo Lol, I've been paying a VAT for almost 30 years, and operated a VAT registered business. You can reclaim the full input VAT, unless it's partially used for private. Then, you can still reclaim the full percentage used for business. You need to read up some more, before you keep trying to pretend you know what you're talking about.
1
@AstroMortuum Here's what's not considered "staples", in Canada: electricity, phone, phone service, computers, internet service, personal hygiene products, household cleaning products, home maintenance, vehicle maintenance, and all kinds of things poor people will have to pay extra for. Sure, if you sit in the dark and watch stars for fun, you won't be at all affected by a VAT. Yang's revenue projection was also originally based on the entire economy. The more he exempts, the larger the shortfall he'll have, and his plan already starts with almost a trillion dollar deficit.
1
@WiseWeeabo Who the hell is telling you "half"? They're lying to you. Look at table 1. Everyone gets paid back, except the final consumer, who ends up paying the entire $49 collected by the government. http://publications.gc.ca/Collection-R/LoPBdP/BP/prb0003-e.htm#A.%20Taxing%20Mechanism(txt)
1
@WiseWeeabo It's not about total government revenue generated, because a 10% federal sales tax would do about the same thing. A VAT only keeps track of the exchanges along the way better, so it's harder to dodge the final step, but likewise ends up being a tax on the final consumer. If you're handing consumers $3t, who paid the VAT is what matters. If Amazon still paid no taxes, but has a 2% share of US consumer spending, then you've made them $60b extra dollars a year, and they're still not paying in. I get that many gangers fantasize that the VAT will only tax yachts and stuff, but non-staples include phones, phone service, computers (even cheap ones), internet service, TVs, cable, games, toys, basically any entertainment with a cost, personal hygiene products, household cleaning products, home maintenance, vehicle maintenance ... all kinds of crap. A lot of countries exempt staples. Corporations still aren't the ones paying the tax. Consumers are.
1
@mircogam 1) There's nothing to avoid, if you're a VAT registered business. It's built right in that you get your input VAT refunded. It's harder than a sales tax for the final consumer to avoid, because it has been kept track of every step of the way. You're changing the topic away from the absolute fact that Amazon won't pay shit, but will benefit by about $60b a year from increased consumer spending. They even have their own tutorial page on how businesses get their input VAT credited back to them. https://services.amazon.co.uk/services/vat-resources.html As to your off point, there are other poor people, who will get zero economic benefit from Yang's UBI. SSI disability currently stacks with SNAP. Yang doesn't have his UBI stack with either. Some very poor people, already getting $1000+ in government assistance, will only be worse off, with having to pay a 10% VAT on many things.
1
@mircogam There's something wrong in a plan that will make Amazon and Bezos extra tens of billions, but will hurt say a single non working disabled parent, collecting full SSI disability and SNAP for two.
1
@mircogam That is reality. There's such a thing as single non working disabled parents. There's such a thing as single non working parents of disabled kids. There's such a thing as people who are already getting $1000+ in government assistance of a type that Yang doesn't have stack with UBI. They will be worse off. It's also a reality that VAT registered businesses get their input VAT credited back to them. Even his bullshit claims about Facebook and Google ads. Businesses get credited back their input VAT on advertising. https://www.burtonbeavan.co.uk/reclaim-vat-google-adwords/
1
@mircogam Now you're making up fake crap for what he supposedly really means, but never said. No, almost no gangers I've come across know how a VAT actually works, let alone most Americans. No, he outright claims on his VAT page, and in multiple interviews and rallies, that a VAT is a way to make corporations "pay their fair share", not their owners. He had an absolutely ridiculous rally, where he both claimed Google was moving money to its EU headquarters in Ireland to avoid paying taxes, and that a VAT wouldn't let them get away without paying taxes. Ireland has a freaking 23% VAT rate. They obviously don't give a shit about the VAT, because they don't pay it. They're there for Ireland's low corporate tax rate. Plus, what you, a supposed account, aren't seeming to grasp is that, if you make Amazon an extra $60b a year, then you're making Bezos something like an extra $6b a year. He'd have to personally blow through over $60b on goods and services with a VAT to pay in more than you're making him, which would never happen. He could by a new $1b yacht every year, pay $100m in VAT, and still be in the plus $5.9b, from Yang's plan. Meanwhile, yes, there will be some poor people who will get zero economic benefit from the UBI but will still have to pay the VAT on many things. And, it doesn't matter if someone already getting $1000+ in assistance opts in or out. They can't opt out of paying the VAT. They'd be worse off, having to pay 10% more on numerous things. No, a business doesn't need to absorb part of the VAT, if it doesn't want to. Only the smallest of businesses aren't required to register for the VAT, which aren't competition. Or, the business is in a VAT exempt or zero rated sector, and also isn't competition. These giant tech companies are already operating in countries with a VAT. They don't absorb shit. When the EU switched from seller's VAT rate to buyer's VAT rate, they started charging the buyer's full VAT rate. Yang is skipping many of the things other countries do to make corporations and the rich pay in. The UK has higher marginal income tax rates, a higher minimum wage, double the union participation to negotiate better wages for workers, a stamp tax, etc. Scandinavian countries have ridiculously high union participation, so high they don't even need the government involved in setting minimum wages, higher marginal tax rates than the UK, paid parental leave, more paid vacation days, Norway owns a 60+% share in their oil production, Sweden has businesses pay into a retraining program with an 80+% success rate, etc. They also have about double the percentage of the population working decently paid government jobs, than the US doea. Then those countries tax their better paid, higher standard of living, consumers with a VAT. A VAT doesn't make corporations pay in. If you think Bezos only being able to recover half the VAT on his cell phone, because he uses it half the time for personal calls, is him "paying his fair share", then you're an idiot.
1
@mircogam Me? You're the moron who feels the need to say shit like "not (entirely) paid for by companies" ... like not even close to "entirely" paid for by companies ... not even in the realm of "entirely" paid for by companies ... by design it's supposed to "entirely" be paid for by the final non VAT registered buyer. But, if you agree, then I'm glad we agree that Yang is completely ignorant as to how a VAT actually works, or does and is intentionally lying.
1
@mircogam If you lose your decent paying job, trying to live on $1k a month would likely lead to foreclosure and bankruptcy. It's below the poverty line. A decent paying federal job would be better security. Extended unemployment payments and free retraining would be better security. Affordable housing would be better security. You're going to move to some low cost of living dying town, that also has no jobs, and live on $12k a year? Meanwhile, as your video clearly states, it's the final consumer who ends up paying the entire VAT, which makes Yang a bullshitter, and makes Amazon and Bezos tens of billions more a year, while you're pinching pennies to get by.
1
@Tsudico You appear to have made up that they've paid £18 and then can't figure out who else would have paid it but them. Pretty neat. In your made up extra payment, who did Google pay £96 and an £18 VAT to, and why? If they've paid that to some company, for some goods or services for their business, then they can reclaim it. Who is this mysterious ghost collecting £96 from Google?
1
@Tsudico Man, you have zero clue what you're talking about. It was a £24 VAT on top of a £120 charge (24 is 20% of 120). The ad buyer paid £144. Google collected the £24 and sent it to the government. The remaining £120 goes into Google's pocket. The business who initially paid the £24 then gets it credited back from the government, along with any other VAT they've paid on business expenses. You're completely fabricating some other VAT payment, not able to figure out who pays it, and then deciding Google must have. There's no magical other £18 VAT payment Google has made to nobody, paying £96 for nothing. If Google does have some business expense they paid input VAT on, during the same VAT collection period, they would reclaim that amount, just like the business paying for the ad. Say Google bought a $12 computer chord, and paid £2.40 in VAT on top of that. Then, instead of sending the government the full £24, they'd keep £2.40 and send the government £21.60. Fun fact: Even of a business pays more input VAT than they collect in output VAT, they will still get their input VAT credited back to them. Meaning, a company having a bad sales period will be credited back their input VAT by the consumers of businesses that had a good sales period.
1
@Tsudico So all business expenses, including advertising costs, are considered part of what adds value to the final good or service. The company who bought the ad, would want to recoup their £120 advertising cost, as well. So, they'd make the price of what they're selling inclide the £120. That means whoever is buying their good or service, will then pay £24 on that extra £120 added to the price. So, yeah, it's the final consumer who ends up paying for it.
1