Comments by "" (@TheHuxleyAgnostic) on "Can Universal Basic Income Deal with Automation?" video.

Higher unionization, higher wages, successful retraining programs, universal healthcare, free college, mandatory parental leave, more paid vacations, double the percentage of the population working public jobs ... prepared for, and even welcoming, automation. https://www.boyden.com/media/automation-and-jobs-the-swedish-perspective-3770222/index.html But, hey, if you prefer someone who doesn't even know how his key tax works, all the power to you.
9
@stevemarchando4132 Make up your minds ... either there won't be jobs, or there will be jobs.
3
@hwajuhwarang I didn't argue a VAT doesn't generate revenue. So, you're not actually making a counter point. Just a strawman. I argued it doesn't tax corporations, as Yang falsely claims. That also makes his claims that a VAT will have corporations paying you for your data, paying you to show you ads, or paying you for every automated truck mile, false. That also makes his comparison between his dividend, which won't have corporations paying into it, and the Alaskan dividend, which is paid for by corporations, a false equivalence. Since he won't have corporations paying into the dividend then they will only benefit from the dividend being spent. Amazon would make an extra $60b a year from $3t in increased consumer spending. That's extra billions a year they could invest into automating even faster. It would make Bezos an extra $6+b a year. He could buy a brand new $1b yacht every single year, paying $100m in VAT, and still be in the plus $5.9+b. That would increase the speed of inequality. That's not a sustainable plan.
3
@stevemarchando4132 Ah, so you're going to the extreme, and then think living on $12k a year is the answer? Is that a joke?
2
@laviniawells3802 Robots working for corporations won't fund your living expenses, because a VAT doesn't tax corporations. 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 speaking gibberish. As people lose their jobs, foreclose their homes, and adjust to living on $12k a year, a VAT will generate less and less revenue.
2
@stevemarchando4132 Just how many out of home businesses do you imagine taking off? There will be some jobs but fewer? So, yes, simply declaring jobs "gone" is extreme? There are hundreds of different kinds of government jobs, including research and development of new technologies and other innovations, teaching, truck driving, construction, administrative, social work, ... a wide variety for all kinds of people.
2
Yang doesn't know how his key tax, a VAT, actually works. A VAT is specifically designed to NOT tax businesses in order to avoid double taxation. It's a sales tax, collected in stages, with the business stages all getting paid back their input VAT. Because a VAT won't have corporations like Amazon paying into the dividend, they will only get the benefit of the dividend being spent. Amazon would make an extra $60b a year from $3t in added consumer spending. Ironically, that's billions more they could invest into speeding up their automation timeline, putting people out of work even faster. That would also make the likes of Bezos extra billions a year more than he'd ever personally pay into a VAT, speeding up inequality. "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 taxable person is entitled to deduct all the tax already paid at the preceding stage. Therefore, double taxation is avoided" https://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/business/vat/what-is-vat_en "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
@bluesrockfan36 No, moron. I specifically just said a VAT is designed to avoid cascading taxes, dumb dumb.
1
@bluesrockfan36 Yes, you're the moron who couldn't tell I, literally, stated the VAT design was to avoid cascading taxes. Yes, you're the moron spouting a strawman, because I never argued a VAT wasn't successful at generating revenue. Yes, you're the moron who couldn't grasp that I argued a VAT isn't successful at taxing corporations, because it's designed to NOT tax corporations. You can't debunk shit with bullshit, dumbass. Take a reading comprehension course and come back later.
1
@stevemarchando4132 A decent paying government job would be better than trying to live below the poverty line. Double the percentage of the populations in Scandinavian countries are working public jobs. If the US did that, that's 15% unemployment you could absorb.
1
@hwajuhwarang I'd suggest this because it's exactly not who the candidate is claiming will pay the tax, meaning they're either clueless or lying, neither of which is a good attribute for running a country. If lying, it's the same "humanity first" candidate who originally didn't have UBI stack with anything. On his own, he thought it was a good idea to toss the elderly off social security, veterans off VA benefits, and disabled people off SSDI, until he got negative feedback. Even now, he still thinks it's a good idea to make disabled people on SSI have to choose. I'd suggest this, because massive inequality and automation are huge problems, so why would speeding up either, and likely both, be a good thing? The top 3000 US corporations are already hoarding $2.7t. If you're going to have a UBI, that should be what pays for it. You shouldn't be increasing the hoard at an even faster rate. While the plan makes Bezos extra billions a year, there are millions of disabled people collecting SSI and SNAP who will get zero economic benefit from the UBI. Even if they do opt out of the UBI, they can't opt out of the VAT, and will be worse off. That's fucked up. Where are you getting free counseling from? While his end healthcare goal might be universal coverage, his transition to that is a public option, which isn't taxpayer funded, at all. A public option creates a public insurance that then competes with private insurance, paid for with a premium, and you have the option of not signing up, and not paying, for it. LA tried that, in hopes it would lead to universal coverage, and 6 years in they're nowhere close. Everyone with marriage problems will be long divorced before universal coverage happens, if it ever does, using that method. Odd headline? His VAT page, what he says about his key tax, is mostly bullshit.
1
@stevemarchando4132 It's ironic that you find math complicated.
1
@stevemarchando4132 Was it the double digits that you found complicated? Maybe single digits ... -$2 (customer) +$2 (government) = ? (businesses) Hint: the answer is on the right https://images.app.goo.gl/3QU6nbNtDsG24Zw49
1
@stevemarchando4132 You'd pay yourself back the $1, and send the government the $9 the customer paid. Zero tax on the business.
1
@stevemarchando4132 You have zero clue what you're talking about. You either didn't even look at the table or image, or did and spectacularly failed at grasping it. All the businesses, in both cases, collected more output VAT than they paid in input VAT, paid themselves back the input VAT, and sent the difference to the government. It was only the final consumer (paying $49 or $2) that couldn't reclaim the VAT they paid in, leaving them paying the full amount collected by the government. Even if a business has a slow sales, or high costs, VAT period and pays more input VAT than they collect in output VAT, they can get a refund from the government. Zero tax on the business.
1
@stevemarchando4132 Your business has $10 costs, on which it pays $1 in input VAT, which is sent to the government. You sell for $100, collecting $10 in output VAT. You reclaim your $1 and send $9 to the government. You -$1 + $1 = 0 Government $1 + $9 = $10 Consumer -$10 Who paid the VAT?
1
@stevemarchando4132 You get that the design is to avoid double taxation, which would be even worse, right? Businesses would consider the tax a cost and pass it along in their price causing cascading taxes upon taxes upon taxes.
1
@stevemarchando4132 If my business has purchased $100 in Facebook data, $100 in Google ads, and $100 in automated truck delivery miles from Amazon, those costs will be included in the price of my own good and service. Add a 10% VAT, and I've paid $30 input VAT on that $300. I charge my customer that $300 + $200 profit. They pay me $50 in ouput VAT. I reclaim my $30, paying myself back. I send $20 to the government, who got $50 total. And, the consumer paid $50. The consumers end up paying a tax on their own data, a tax to be shown ads, and a tax on the automation taking their jobs. If you argue to ditch the VAT reclaim, then it can get even worse, with businesses passing their tax along as a cost, and the final consumer could end up paying their tax, multiple businesses' taxes, and taxes upon taxes. Not only are actual exempt services the less common "specialized" cases, the vast majority are final consumer services, and would be found in the middle of a chain extremely rarely. A business doesn't go to a doctor. An individual goes to a doctor. So, if a doctor has $50 in VATable costs, paying $5, it actually saves the final consumer money if the doctor simply slips in the $5 cost to their $100 price ($105 vs $110). Since it's usually at the end of the chain, it would very rarely lead to stacking.
1
@stevemarchando4132 Umm, your example had the business slip the $10 cost into their price, like I said. The "tax" didn't cost them a penny. And it was shifted along to the final consumer who paid that business' $10 tax, paid their own $30 tax, plus paid a $1 tax on the $10 tax. That's what a VAT is normally designed to avoid. Your example was worse for the consumer and still no business actually paid.
1
@stevemarchando4132 Supply 2 "Price consists of $10 of VAT ..."
1
@stevemarchando4132 But, you're not harvesting their gains with a VAT, as even your own example showed. You're harvesting the consumer's income being spent. If you don't have corporations paying into the dividend then they will make even more money, when that dividend is spent. Walmart's share of consumer spending is about 3%. They'd make $90b extra a year from $3t in consumer spending. Amazon's share is about 2%. They'd make $60b extra a year. Instead of taxing giant corporations, the VAT/UBI combo would make them extra tens of billions a year.
1