Comments by "" (@TheHuxleyAgnostic) on "Andrew Yang Nails Why Dems Lose Working Class Voters" video.

  1. Yang's plan doesn't pay for UBI properly. A VAT is actually specifically designed to not tax businesses. If you don't have giant corporations paying into the UBI, then they will only gain the benefit of the UBI being spent, making them extra billions, funneling money to the very top even faster than it is now.
    3
  2.  @eriklakeland3857  Nope. They then get to pay themselves back, first, when they collect the VAT on what they're selling, and only send the difference to the government. It's only the final consumer who doesn't get paid back. A VAT is a sales tax that's collected in stages.
    2
  3.  @eriklakeland3857  Yeah, and even if a business somehow pays more in VAT buying things than they collect in VAT selling things, they can still then ask for a refund, and not have actually paid a dime, in the end.
    2
  4.  @kylequest  A public option is not as good as M4A. Also, Bernie did not propose a total ban on private insurance. Just no duplicate coverage, exactly how Medigap isn't allowed to offer and charge people for things their Medicare already covers. Let's say someone is already collecting full SSI disability benefits, plus SNAP, which are currently stackable. They could easily already be getting $1000+ a month in assistance. Okay, so Yang doesn't have UBI stack with SSI, only SSDI, and they opt out of getting UBI, but they can't opt out of paying a VAT. Unless you expect them to live a life with no phone service, no internet, no electricity, no transportation, and numerous other things that don't get counted as basic necessities, then their cost of living will increase. You will have made someone already living in poverty effectively poorer, while handing upper middle class and lower end rich people more per year than they'll pay into a VAT (someone would have to be spending $120k a year on VATable goods and services to be even, $240k for a couple). That makes little sense. Plus, he never made it sound like new people could opt in to the old programs (which he wants phased out), so new disabled people might just be stuck with the $1000 a month. And, no, getting people off programs with jobs, but keeping the programs for safety, isn't the same as wanting to totally phase out programs. I mean, on his own, the guy originally thought it was a great ideas to not have UBI stack with anything and get rid of everything, including social security. It took a bunch of negative feedback for him to change his plan. He's not really as caring or smart as people think he is. And, again, he doesn't seem to have a clue how a VAT actually works. He will make giant corporations extra tens of billions a year, making their owners and large shareholders extra billions a year. They'll be more than happy to pay whatever thousands a year extra on personal products, for that exchange. Yang would have money flowing to the very top faster than ever before. He needs a different method to pay for the UBI, one that will have those at the top paying in more than they'll make back, and won't be a burden on some of the poorest people.
    1
  5.  @kylequest  You just ignored that SSI stacks with SNAP, and the UBI stacks with neither. Banning duplicate coverage isn't "banning private insurance", or we could say there's already a ban on private insurance. And, you're lying about Yang not wanting to end programs, because when asked how to pay for UBI, he includes a program's entire budget that would instead go to UBI. You know that a sizeable chunk of a program's budget pays employees to run said program, right? How do you actually still have a program, if there's nobody being paid to run it?
    1
  6.  @kylequest  As for saying that companies wouldn't make more money, you're being a complete idiot. The whole point is that, if you hand people money, they will spend it. You'd have to be braindead not to think companies will benefit. Part of Yang's stated method for paying for his almost $1t starting deficit is that the economy will expand, and pay for it, ffs. If you hand Americans $3t, and they spend a third of their money on retail, and Amazon's share of US retail is 4%, the UBI just made Amazon an extra $40b a year. That would, in turn, make Bezos extra billions a year. He could buy a brand new $1b yacht, every single year, pay the $100m in VAT, and still come out way ahead.
    1
  7.  @kylequest  Rofl, nice strawman. You're a dishonest twit.
    1