Comments by "" (@thehumanity0) on "Big Winners u0026 Losers Of The CNN #DemDebate" video.

@seth1455 Yang forces people on gov't assistance to choose between his federal income vs what they're receiving now. The people already receiving $1,000 or more, will either switch to Yang's and effectively receive less than they were before or they'll stay with their current benefits. That group of people will see no benefit from Yang's UBI, meaning that it's not actually universal, considering it is not conditional for the wealthy, but apparently it is for the very poor who need the most help in this country. That may seem somewhat harmless considering these people are receiving assistance in the first place, however, the way Yang funds his UBI is with a form of a sales tax that is regressive by definition. It is only a net gain for people when you couple it with a federal allowance to offset the amount people will generally lose from paying more with an added sales tax. Meaning that for any group of people who don't receive Yang's $1,000, they will effectively be LOSING money off his UBI program through paying more on sales taxes even if those taxes are exempt from clothes or food.
7
Yang's vision involves protecting the billionaires from higher taxes and protecting mega-corporations from threats of being broken up. His UBI is funded by a regressive tax and won't even apply to the most vulnerable people in America, who arguably need the most help. I get you're trying to be uplifting to everyone, but sorry if I disagree with you there on Yang.
6
charmander Oh please. He said that about the 1st debate as symbolic because everyone is talking about his policies, which is true. He said Kamala Harris won the 1st debate, don't pretend like that wasn't the case. And in the 3rd debate Kyle said that Bernie likely didn't come off well because of his voice. Your twisting his words pretty hard.
5
Does anyone else get a bad gut feeling about them? I mean, I like what Krystal is doing, but I really hope they don't flip and screw over progressives down the line.
4
@swackstackk8556 Appreciate your civility. That's an interesting point your making, however, there have been studies done on the VAT tax that show even without it being applied to 'basic items' like food and groceries, it still disproportionately effects the poor and middle class because they they use the entirety of their income and paychecks while the very wealthy have no conditions for receiving UBI and primarily sit on the vast majority of their wealth, meaning they will be disproportionately less effected by a VAT tax than someone in the middle class or even poor Americans when they buy goods outside the realm of basic items. The broader point remains the same on the VAT tax. The fact that Yang argues against a progressive tax system and argues against a wealth tax claiming we shouldn't even try it because we won't be able to account for ALL wealth is entirely suspect on its own that he's not trying to tax the rich, but just trying to keep the inequalities while hoping his UBI helps enough families to end calls for full-blown transformation of our corrupt Capitalistic system. Bottom line is that Yang's policies are untested in the modern world, he has no political experience that we can use to test whether he's serious about implementing change or not and he's already changed his message and tune enough times for me to be personally suspicious of him.
4
@bluesrockfan36 You're inaccurately defining the debate first of all. Bernie doesn't just simply want a Job's Guarantee, he wants a basic standard of living, an Economic Bill of Rights giving people Healthcare, Guaranteed Housing for those that want it, Guaranteed Job for those who want it, Education for those who want to attend public university or trade schools. Yang isn't in favor of any of those things and has already backtracked on his support for Medicare for All claiming he wants a public option like Beto and Buttigieg. This is a social safety net, the same thing that the majority of countries in Europe have to one extent or another. To call that a "dystopic nightmare" is absolutely delusional and ignoring the success of all these programs as they're currently being implemented in Europe. I can tell you've never lived in Europe or outside the US because otherwise this would be common knowledge to you. Yang's version of UBI has never been implemented on a national level, the closest thing we have is the dividends given to people in Alaska and that's about $83 a month, not really what you'd consider a test-run for UBI. If any concept has the possibility for unwanted results, it's the one that hasn't been adopted by any other country, at least not successfully and on a national level. Lastly, whose "math" are you citing? Yang's? That doesn't seem biased at all considering that's what he's running on to try to become the most powerful person in the world. How about you cite some actual studies on it, because all I've ever seen are studies pouring cold water on the idea of UBI as it would be implemented today. The National Bureau of Economic Research did a long study on this when Yang first announced his candidacy. Their findings did not line up with Yang "MATH" on this, not even close.
4
Yeah, Yang thought it was a good idea to argue against a wealth tax when news just broke that the top 400 families pay a less effective tax rate than the bottom 50% of the population. He might've been more confident, but what he's saying is way off.
3
@estebanpereira270 No, Yang wants to protect big tech and monopolies, he's against a wealth tax, top marginal tax rate, and more progressive tax system, and his version of UBI is arguably regressive against the poorest Americans especially those that are most vulnerable on gov't assistance. I see him as problematic as Warren.
3
@bluesrockfan36 "you get about $400 dollars" Pretty sure that's not accurate, there are disabled veterans who live off gov't assistance. Also Medicare for All would actually benefit older people, it gives them dental, eye care and hearing aids, not to mention taxes are exempt for the first $30,000 of household income, meaning Medicare for All in no way has the same issue as Yang's UBI being regressive towards the poorest Americans. Not to mention, the vast majority of older people are retired and pay little to no income tax, so that argument and conflation doesn't even work.
3
@jaytheamazing197 "Yang doesn't raise taxes on the wealthy because he realizes it will do nothing since *they already don't pay their current taxes in the first place*" This is just debunked naturally by our own US history. The top marginal tax rate under a Republican president Eisenhower was 91% at its peak. This made the effective tax rate around 46%, if you don't think that will change things, then you're sorely mistaken, our own history proves otherwise. Yang is 100% incorrect when he claims the only way to tax the rich is by using an untested program that will likely have unknown effects and/or unwanted side-effects. When Yang claims he knows for certain, he's totally full of it. The same reason why Finland ran an experiment for 5 years in their own country.
3
@Mercurie3 VAT + UBI + making people choose = regressive for the poorest Americans. Do the fucking math yourself buddy. If someone is already receiving $1,050 a month from SSI or other disabled benefits and they decide to stay with their own SSI benefits instead of losing the extra $50 under Yang's plan, then they receive no money. If they pay an extra $70 cumulatively through the addition of a VAT tax on purchases they make on Amazon, then they net LOSE $70 per month, meaning they're worse off on Yang's plan. If you think this scenario is a unique circumstance, then you're highly unaware with just how many people can't work or are struggling in the United States. The Freedom Dividend partly charges the poor to pay for the wealthy, the definition of a regressive program.
3
@Mercurie3 Btw I would actually receive Yang's UBI without any conditions, but I'm getting pretty fucking sick of Americans stepping on people underneath them just to elevate themselves. In Yang's case it's the poorest disabled people and single parents that now the middle class and other poor people want to step on to get their $1,000. It's fucking gross.
3
@terencekwong3033 If it only helps 90% Americans, while leaving a portion of the poor to fend for themselves, it's not "universal". What bugs me is that Yang could've very easily squashed this criticism by just funding UBI differently through a Capital gains tax, top marginal tax rate, progressively raising the corporate tax on large corporations, re-implementing the estate tax, formally ending corporate welfare, or even a tax on Wall Street speculation, which Yang has mentioned before but never proposed as funding for a single one of his programs. The fact that he refuses to tax it with any form of tax that isn't regressive, or at the very least NOT make it so it's conditional for poor Americans, is entirely suspect and should signal that he's not serious about taking on wealth inequality. The guy argues against a wealth tax for fucksake. If he actually cared about wealth inequality, he would at the very least not be arguing with a proposal that also tackles inequality, whether he personally wants to implement it in his platform or not.
3
@olivers-g4021 No it doesn't stack with SSI a form of Social Security along with countless other programs.
3
@nicholi8208 His argument is "we can't possibly account for ALL the wealth so why even try", yeah, it was pretty fucking weak. Yang is not for a progressive tax system, but he's for a regressive tax against the people. Nah, I'm good on that shit.
2
Not to mention his policies are now universally popular now compared to in 2016. All the signs are there that Bernie can pull this thing off.
2
just saying "That's how USA sees them" Nah, pretty sure that's specifically only how delusional Trump supporting Qanon incels see it.
2
charmander Yeah that's a lie. Kyle never said Bernie won the 1st or 3rd debate.
2
Even his opponents in the media are admitting that. Bernie definitely won if that's the case.
2
Apparently that discounts all the valid points and arguments he made?
2
@atm1947 Look up the definition of a VAT tax. https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/who-would-bear-burden-vat https://www.investopedia.com/terms/v/valueaddedtax.asp
2
@RayCromwell Firstly, you're deflecting from the issue about Yang's freedom dividend. Bernie never announced a program that effects everyone besides the very poor and people receiving assistance (but still gives those same benefits to the wealthy). If he had, you can bet that he would've ensured those people would be taken care of. "Bernie has no specific program to increase cash Benefits for those on SSI, omg!" Except the fact that he wants to give them all healthcare, free at the point of service, he want to cancel all their medical debt (and student debt), he wants to pay for their childrens' college education, he wants to ensure that they have a home even if they're evicted for some reason. While Yang's one-cure-all freedom dividend leaves these people out in the cold, Bernie's robust social safety net does not pick and choose, but ensures everyone is taken care of without being conditional to their current gov't assistance, and the only conditions he makes around income is by progressively taxing those at the very top, the top 1% and top 1/10th of 1%. Also, stop with the false dichotomy on the job's guarantee, I debunked this earlier that the premise is a fake choice. Bernie's equivalent to the freedom dividend is not a "FJG", it's an Economic Bill of Rights that gives everyone economic freedom as a right, the right to housing, the right to healthcare, the right to education and so on. Claiming a robust social safety net does nothing for people on SSI is factually wrong and his proposals go far beyond that, by taking those people on disabilities and erasing their medical debt, something I guarantee thousands of people on SSI have and are buried in debt at this moment. What is 1,000 a month going to do when some guy with Huntingston disease has $125,000 in medical debt that just keeps growing and growing? If you're going to debate these things at least be honest.
2
@TheAlibabatree Actually I have, but you believe what you want.
2
@lain11644 Pretty sure Sanders has no billionaire friends and he has more experience than anyone on stage, so pretty sure it's the opposite.
2
Kyle you need to do a video on this whole Job's Guarantee vs UBI bullshit. It's inaccurately framing the debate, when the real discussion is a basic standard of living versus a basic income. Please do this because too many people are getting misinformed by Yang's premise and attack on Bernie.
1
@olivers-g4021 Lol it's currently used in Italy, Switzerland and other countries because it apparently "fails so miserably". Not to mention Germany is currently trying to re-implement it due to their own wealth inequality. This is such a dumb argument. The estate tax was repealed by Donald Trump 2 years ago, does that mean we shouldn't re-implement it either?
1
@olivers-g4021 Also, a VAT Tax is regressive by definition, if you're going to move the goal post and say "well UBI + a VAT tax isn't" then I would respond with: weren't you just attacking a wealth tax because some European countries repealed theirs? Well UBI isn't implemented in ANY country and Finland tried an experiment for 5 years and ended up showing it didn't produce the results they were looking for. By any measure, that same criticism can be lobbied against Yang's "solution" but even worse because his program is incredibly untested.
1
@DamianBadalamenti He's using VAT coupled with UBI, that's entirely different than just a VAT by itself, which is just a form of a sales tax. His "solution" doesn't work unless it's done that way and that solution has never been done before. You can't claim he's "using the European model", when the one time UBI was ever tested was in Finland and they decided not to do it based on the results they received.
1
@cedricpierre4523 A wealth tax is currently successfully implemented in a handfull of countries in Europe, whereas UBI+VAT is implemented in ZERO countries. Germany is currently also trying to re-implement theirs due to their own levels of wealth inequality. Trump repealed the estate tax in America 2 years ago, does that mean we should never re-implement an estate tax? Your logic doesn't work. In addition, taxes that are primarily levied against the rich alone are usually massively lobbied against and have smear campaigns against them from the same people who benefit from them being repealed, same exact reason Trump repealed the estate tax. Stop and think about what you are saying.
1
It's going to be really hard for the media to ignore Bernie now that he has the entire "Squad" on his team.
1
There's one clear difference between last election and this one. Now Bernie has AOC, Ilhan Omar, and Rashida Tlaib on his team. We can win this thing
1
charmander Kyle pointed out that the runaway winner in the 1st debate was Kamala and the runaway winner of the 3rd debate was Castro. If you're going to call him a "shill" for saying his candidate does a good job (because he agrees with and is up front about it), then that's your own problem. Go watch a different show, Kyle tells you who he supports, hilarious he acknowledges that all the time and you act like it's a gotcha to point out his bias.
1
@ZoeyPaigeLunaPhD Just look up winners/losers of Democratic debate and pick one. Every single one I've seen has admitted Bernie was the winner. That's literally unheard of. Just for example though, first link I clicked on to find you an article. OPINION piece from the New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/10/16/opinion/debate-winners.html
1
@KYLE-zo4bm Why even take that position then? It literally sounds like Pete Buttigieg and Beto's positions. It's just bad politics, bad optics, and she screwed herself over by lying about the fact that she supported the Medicare for All bill in the House for 9 months.
1
@MultiKalwin I disagree, it's clear that the "friend" thing is a part of his strategy. Pretty sure the idea is to win over the Biden voters who are gettable. I still think Bernie needs to keep becoming even more aggressive, but I think supporters are misinterpreting why he says that.
1
@LahTafari When the way its funded is literally just to partially tax the people, which might not be a problem, but he's effectively slashing countless social programs and other benefits for people, making people choose between their current benefits and a freedom dividend that might not be a net gain, but a net loss overall for many poor people on assistance, especially with the implementation of a VAT tax. That's not even his worst policy though, because he's vocally saying he wants to protect big tech and monopolies along with deregulating through the use of sunset provisions on all regulations.
1
@howo357 Yang changed his policy page awhile ago to make his freedom dividend specifically stack with SSDI, however, it does not stack with SSI another form of Social Security that is directed at the disabled and it does not stack with countless other social programs. The primary form of funding for his freedom dividend is to cut social programs, it is number 1 on his list of funding, that would not be the case if those types of programs were "not affected". And do research on a VAT tax, it is considered incredibly standardized in the countries it is implemented in right now, meaning it is not progressively applied like an income tax, but a standard tax on goods equally for everyone who buys those goods. This is still the case even if a VAT is not applied to groceries and clothes. A VAT tax is controversial in the countries that implement it, because as Investopedia says (in Investopedia's definition of a VAT tax): "Advocates say it raises government revenues without punishing success or wealth, as income taxes do." Later in that Investopedia definition, it says that VAT is controversial in the European Union and countries that implement, saying "Critics [in those countries] charge that a VAT is essentially a regressive tax that places an increased economic strain on lower-income taxpayers, and also adds bureaucratic burdens for businesses." Do some research, this is another explanation of a VAT tax from the Tax Policy Center https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/who-would-bear-burden-vat Here is the original Investopedia definition: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/v/valueaddedtax.asp
1