Yeah, this was the point of his run, and to the extent it has worked we’re better off for it. Not sure where I stand on it but it should be part of the conversation.
I literally posted an article from one of his foreign policy advisors that is straight out of the fucking Global Times in its use of CCP narratives.
A good example of why Yang is very unqualified. UBI probably won’t happen soon and it requires a ton of cooperation from Congress. POTUS runs the show in FP from day one. It should not be an afterthought for a candidate.
Bernie! No more war!
1 Like
If you guys were right about this there would be instant inflation equal to the VAT increase every time VAT goes up. That never bears out in the data. Yes when you go to a retail establishment with tight margins they are going to pass on the VAT because there really isn’t room for them not to, and they are absolutely going to claim that the VAT is responsible for part of the cost of the item… but the only number that actually matters is the final price at the register.
And that’s just certain kinds of retail stuff. There are literally thousands of things that don’t get sold retail. It’s entirely about the product your buying and the economics of how it gets to you. Consumer retail stuff tends to be super low margin and prices have been falling not rising on those generally for years and years now. VAT absolutely gets passed on there.
That a VAT would be paid by both consumers and producers of a product is not something I think anyone really disputes.
1 Like
No. It is exactly the same. UBI would ameliorate some of the negative effects, but how money works for a nation state in the past 200 odd years is this:
Everything is paid for by borrowing. That debt is paid with collected taxes or more debt. The notion of a tax to pay for a thing helps sell it but you don’t wait until you collect it to disburse it, you borrow.
Am I missing something? You’re saying Walmart will raise its prices but Louis Vuitton won’t, and that’s your argument for why a VAT isn’t regressive?
3 Likes
Assuming you are referring to Boredsocial, as someone who was arguing with him I think its fair for me to say that I’m fairly certain he isn’t saying that.
He was saying Walmart has relatively low profit margins as it makes its money from buying and selling in bulk. Because of this, the VAT on Walmart products will be relatively low compared to the price of the product: the value added at each stage of production is low.
Meanwhile, more luxurious goods are going to see a higher value added and thus relative to the price of the product the tax will be higher.
All else equal this means Walmart’s prices will rise by a lower amount.
The question as to what portion of the tax will fall on the producer vs the consumer is the other side of that.
1 Like
You exempt consumer staples and groceries for exactly this reason. The bottom 92% sees their purchasing power go up under a VAT funded UBI.
Walmart sells cheap shit that ends up in landfills within a few months. I’m not particularly saddened by that cheap shit being slightly less cheap. Most of it nobody even needs… and the stuff people do need is consumer staples and grocery items.
A carbon tax also hits poor people unless you redistribute the income from it… which is why I’m strongly in favor of revenue neutral carbon taxes that give the money they collect back out as frequently as logistically possible.
1 Like
I mean, 92% according to somebody’s model, that is. UBI isn’t a thing anywhere yet. And rhe notion of a tax paying for a thing is a propagandum, accounting argle bargle to manufacture support for it. What has been tried and demonstrated across the developed world over the last 70 years is that there is a strong correlation between marginal income tax rates and inequality.
What gets exempted is also problematic, and determined by the prejudices of the legislators. For instance there was a push a few years ago to exempt tampons, etc. from VAT. 1970 or whenever Parliament didn’t think that stuff was essential.
VAT like any sales tax is clearly regressive and so its effect is to increase class inequality so it is bad for society and it disincentivizes economic activity so its bad for the capital class as well. What you think you’re paying for with it is irrelevant, you’re paying back treasury bonds with it, same as you’re doing with every other tax.
If UBI is better than a means tested welfare system (it almost certainly is) then its better on its face. Tax jiggery pokery isn’t necessary. If it needs paying for, raise the marginal income tax rates. The top bracket and rop rate in the US should beuch much higher than now anyway.
1 Like
I would pay real money to watch a Blitzer vs Soledad Jeopardy game.
ahh, another thread to mute.
but before I go
mmm…dark money. so much more tender and juicy and flavorful.
Our Revolution has taken in nearly $1 million from donors
The horror.
They’re reaching HARD
5 Likes
Looks like they’re finally realizing Bernie has a chance so here come the bad faith smears. But jesus, this is what they’re coming with? I am dissapoint.
6 Likes
sanders/warren are both full of shit on the fundraising stuff when they intentionally took more than they needed in the senate runs to start the president runs but that’s politics, you just blast someone for a wine cave because it sounds good, rinse repeat. Meanwhile Trump and his minions laugh because nobody actually gives a ****.
All of that garbage is just people playing politics, nobody cares move on.
So moving Senate campaign money to presidential campaign is same as being beholden to billionaires who fund your campaign is the same as violating actual campaign laws? OK.
4 Likes
I guess it matters who donated the Senate campaign money.