Comments by "" (@TheHuxleyAgnostic) on "Do You Support Yang's Plan to Tax Automation?" video.

@nonyabizness.original Yang's "plan" could actually speed up that process. A VAT isn't a tax on businesses. Since a VAT won't make an Amazon pay into his dividend, they will only get the benefits of that dividend being spent. Amazon's share of US consumer spending is 2.3%. If even 2% of $3t is spent on Amazon, they'd make an extra $60b a year. That's $60b they could invest into automating even faster. That would also make Bezos an extra $6+b a year. He could buy a $1b yacht every single year, paying $100m in VAT, and still be $5.9b in the plus. A VAT isn't the way to fund a UBI. Corporations should be paying for it.
4
@helenmartin9150 Why not let Americans know that Yang is spouting complete nonsense? A VAT is specifically designed to NOT tax businesses in order to avoid double taxation. Anyone claiming a tax designed to not tax businesses, as a way to tax businesses, is totally clueless, or lying.
3
No. The logical way would be to have the corporations start paying people. A VAT doesn't do that. Yang is talking nonsense when he claims it does. Corporations are currently hoarding $2.7b. If you're going to have a UBI, that's what should be paying for it. Yang's "plan" will end up increasing the hoard at a faster rate.
3
@banparlous2552 A VAT won't do that for you, though. If my business has spent $100 (for 100 miles of automated shipping) + $10 input VAT, that $100 shipping cost will be included in my pricing. The consumer would then pay $10 VAT on that $100 cost, which my business gets to reclaim. A VAT is a sales tax, collected in stages, and the business stages all get to reclaim their input VAT. You, the consumers would be the ones paying a tax on every automated truck mile.
2
There's a difference between saying a VAT generates revenue ... it does ... and saying a VAT will tax businesses ... it won't. A VAT is specifically designed to NOT tax businesses in order to avoid double taxation. Anyone promoting a tax that's designed to not tax businesses, as a way to tax businesses, is completely clueless or completely dishonest.
2
Yang is bullshitting Americans. A VAT is intentionally designed to NOT tax businesses in order to avoid double taxation. It will be the consumers who pay a tax to be shown ads, pay a tax on their own data, pay a tax for every automated truck mile, etc. Every time Yang claims a VAT will make corporations like Amazon pay their fair share in taxes ... that's pure bullshit. Every time he compares his dividend to the Alaskan dividend, which is paid to Alaskans by corporations ... that's pure bullshit. https://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/business/vat/what-is-vat_en
2
jfsfrnd Totally dishonest comparison. Alaska's dividend is paid to Alaskans by corporations. A VAT is actually designed to NOT tax businesses. Businesses get to reclaim their input VAT. All UBIs aren't the same, and Yang should stop pretending they are. How they're funded is extremely important.
2
@sandydl2 How do you get $60k, when $12k is 10% of $120k? People spend up to about 30% of their income on VATable goods and services. A single adult wouldn't start paying in more than they get back until the $400k a year mark. An adult couple wouldn't start paying in more than they get back until the $800k a year mark. So, someone making $300k a year would get a few thousand extra bucks a year in shopping spree funds. Meanwhile, a single disabled parent collecting full SSI benefits ($771) and SNAP for 2+ ($355+) would get zero economic benefit from the UBI. Even if they opt out of the UBI, they can't opt out of paying a VAT, which would leave them worse off. And then there's the super rich who will make extra billions due to increased consumer spending. That's a weird plan.
2
A VAT won't do that for you. Businesses get to reclaim their input VAT. Consumers don't. A VAT would end up having you paying a tax on your own data.
1
@helenmartin9150 You pay 10% input VAT on materials you buy, then collect output VAT on your sales. You reclaim your input VAT, right, before sending the difference to the government? The car company subtracts its input VAT on parts from its output VAT on sales, right? I'm Canadian, been paying a VAT for 30 years, operated a VAT registered business, filling out VAT returns for years. You seem to be glossing over reclaiming input VAT in your examples.
1
@helenmartin9150 "You can claim a credit for any GST included in the price you pay for things you use in your business. This is called an input tax credit, or a GST credit." https://www.ato.gov.au/business/gst/claiming-gst-credits/when-you-can-claim-a-gst-credit/
1
@Broly 456 If you don't have corporations paying into the dividend then they will only get the benefit of the dividend being spent. Amazon's share of US consumer spending is 2.3%, and rising. If even 2% of $3t is spent on Amazon, they'll make an extra $60b a year. Extra billions they can hoard or invest into automation, putting people out of work even faster. Bezos, being a 12% owner of Amazon, would make an extra $6+b a year, increasing and speeding up inequality. If you won't have corporations paying into your dividend, you shouldn't compare it to one that is paid for by corporations, Alaska's. You shouldn't be claiming people will get paid for their data, get paid to be shown ads, or get paid for every automated truck mile. You, most definitely, shouldn't be promoting a tax designed to not tax businesses as a way to tax businesses. That's borderline gibberish.
1
@jonesy4546 There's nothing for a business to avoid, with a VAT. A VAT is specifically designed to credit back businesses' input VAT. It's just not a tax on businesses to begin with. It's a more complex sales tax, that's collected in stages, and all the business stages get paid back.
1
@jonesy4546 "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)
1
@jonesy4546 "It is not a charge on businesses." "collected fractionally, via a system of partial payments whereby 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. Therefore, double taxation is avoided and tax is paid only on the value added at each stage of production and distribution. In this way, as the final price of the product is equal to the sum of the values added at each 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
1
@jonesy4546 Seriously, Yang is clueless or lying. It's not a tax on businesses. "If a business is VAT registered they can reclaim the VAT they have paid on purchases. The difference between what they have charged on sales and what they have paid on purchases must be sent to HM Revenue & Customs. If this is a negative figure then it means they have more to reclaim than they have charged and HM Revenue & Customs will send the business the amount due." https://youtu.be/fmAbBu7VQjQ
1
@jonesy4546 It's not semantics. A VAT is designed to NOT tax businesses in order to avoid double taxation. There's doesn't end up being anything for them to avoid. I'm Canadian, been paying a VAT (GST) for 30 years, operated a VAT registered business, and filled out VAT returns for years. It's an objective fact that anyone promoting a tax designed to avoid taxing businesses, as a way to tax businesses, is completely clueless or completely dishonest. Since a corporation like Amazon won't pay into the dividend with a VAT, they'd only get the benefits of the dividend being spent. They'd make an extra $60b a year. Having the money end up flowing to hoards at the very top is the current problem. Speeding up the process will make things worse in the long run. Instead of pretending your dividend is like Alaska's, which is paid for by corporations, find ways to actually make it like Alaska's.. US corporations are hoarding $2.7t. That should be paying for a UBI. A UBI shouldn't be paying to increase the hoard.
1
@jonesy4546 Variables, like what standard rate a country sets, what they choose to zero rate, what they choose to exempt, etc., is all irrelevant to the core design, btw. A VAT is intentionally designed to not end up being a tax on businesses.
1
@dreamdiscounts Bullshit. That includes zero rated goods. Nobody is paying a tax on 0% tax. When looking at standard rated goods it finds a 100% pass through.
1
@dreamdiscounts Yang either didn't read it, didn't understand it, or is lying. "For changes in the standard rate, for instance, final pass through is about 100 percent;" " We look, for instance, not only at the central question of the pass through of standard changes, but also ..." With regard to the central question, the answer is 100%.
1
@dreamdiscounts That only matters to overall CPI, cost of living, or inflation. With regard to who is paying the tax, only goods and services actually taxed are relevant. To look at a 100% pass through good or service and then look at a zero rated good or service, and say there's a 50% pass through is one thing. To use that to claim businesses paid 50% is pure bullshit. Nobody paid on the zero rated, and the consumer paid on the standard rated. Zero rated goods are irrelevant to the question of who is paying the VAT.
1
@dreamdiscounts No, moron. I'm referring to the false claim that businesses will pay into the VAT, dumbass. Nice strawman though.
1
@johnb1567 If you get zero benefit from UBI (equal to or less than the assistance you're currently on), then you'd be in the negative with a 1¢ VAT on a 10¢ item. And are you just going to skim over that your candidate is clueless or lying? Just going to skim over that, if Amazon isn't paying into the dividend, then they'll make an extra $60b a year from Yang? Just going to skim over that that would make Bezos billions more a year than he'd ever personally pay into a VAT?
1
@dreamdiscounts Moron. The topic was who would be paying for it, businesses or consumers, dumbass. Nobody is paying for zero rated goods and services, so no matter how much you feel it's relevant, the fact is that it isn't. 100% pass through on standard rated goods and services.
1
@johnb1567 I did answer the question. Do you have reading comprehension problems?
1
@johnb1567 It would all depend on their income and spending, dumbass. I already pointed out that all it would take for someone already getting $1000+ in assistance that doesn't stack with UBI is 10¢, and they're operating in the negative, dumb dumb. People spend about 30% of their incomes on VATable goods and services, so it's actually more like anyone currently getting $970+ in unstackable assistance, which is full SSI disability benefits and SNAP, will be worse off. But hey, as long as you're better off, and as long as people making hundreds of thousands a year are better off, and billionaires are better off, it's all good, right?
1
@NStarks007 Ironically, they seem to be very bad at math.
1
@nicholi8208 Moron. You're arguing against the EU Taxation and Customs Union, which I linked to, representing 28 countries. Want to argue with Canada, too? "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)
1
@nicholi8208 You realize that if someone is clueless or lying, it doesn't matter how many videos they put out, right? Yang's own linked pass through rate study debunks his bullshit. It finds a 100% pass through on standard rated goods and services. He either didn't read it, didn't understand it, or is a liar.
1
A VAT would have you paying a tax on your own data. If a business buys $100 of your data from Facebook, they'd initially pay $10 input VAT on top of that. Facebook would send the $10 to the government. That business would include the $100 data cost in the price of their good or service. You, the consumer, would then pay $10 on that $100 portion of their sale price. The business then gets to keep that $10, reclaiming its input VAT. Government gets $10 VAT. You pay $10 VAT. The business ends up paying jack shit. A VAT pays businesses back for their input VAT to avoid double taxation. It's part of the design.
1
Nonsense. Scandinavian countries are prepared for, and even embrace, automation, and Bernie's platform is the most Scandinavian like. https://www.boyden.com/media/automation-and-jobs-the-swedish-perspective-3770222/index.html Meanwhile, Yang is either clueless, or lying, as to how a VAT actually works. He'd have money flowing to the very top even faster than it is now.
1
Julie Wilson Lol, completely wrong about what? Higher unionization, higher wages, universal healthcare (which a public option won't get you anytime soon), about double the percentage of the population working public jobs, retraining programs, free college, etc. https://www.technologyreview.com/f/609857/while-us-workers-fear-automation-swedish-employees-welcome-it/
1
@RayCromwell Yang's own pass through rate study found a 100% pass through on standard rated goods and services. Zero rated and other things they looked at are irrelevant to who pays it, because nobody is paying for 0%. So, you're wrong. No, not "anyone", because there are people already getting $1000+ in assistance he doesn't have stacking. They'll be no better off, or worse off, meanwhile people making hundreds of thousands of dollars will be getting extra shopping spree money, and billionaires will be making extra billions. 1000 - 1000 = 0 benefit. You're right, it is high school mathematics. Better retake it.
1
@RayCromwell More high school math, for you ... Since a VAT doesn't actually tax corporations like Amazon, meaning they won't be paying into the dividend, and since Amazon's share of US consumer spending is 2.3%, how much extra will they make from $3t in consumer spending? Since Bezos owns 12% of Amazon, how much extra will he make?
1
@sandydl2 Businesses get to reclaim any input VAT they've paid. It's a pretty simple formula for businesses. output VAT - input VAT = x if x is positive, reclaim the input VAT and send the government x (business gets paid back) if x is negative, keep all the output VAT and the government refunds x (business gets paid back) A VAT is a sales tax, collected in stages, with all the business stages getting paid back. Hope this helps. As for the 30%, poor people still eat out, pay for entertainment, pay utilities, etc. They just eat at cheaper places, do cheaper things, have smaller places to heat, etc. https://images.app.goo.gl/gHnLBowbuMTqf6696 Also, I was mainly referring to the fact that wealthier people won't start paying in, until fairly high incomes, so you'll have people making hundreds of thousands a year getting a few thousand extra dollars to blow, while some poor people currently on assistance will get little to no benefit from the UBI.
1
@christopherchilton-smith6482 Ugh. Businesses get to reclaim their input VAT. A tax designed to not tax businesses isn't a way to tax businesses. https://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/business/vat/what-is-vat_en
1
@freddiemercury4evr A VAT won't do that. If my business spent $10k a year on buying and maintaining robots, it's would initially pay $1k input VAT on that. But, that $10k cost would be included in my pricing. My customers would pay me $1k in VAT on that $10k portion of my price. My business gets to reclaim that $1k. Government gets $1k in VAT. Business ends up paying jack shit in VAT. Consumer paid $1k in VAT, and they're the one who paid the tax on automation.
1