Sick of extreme right views

Post Reply New Topic

I would be happy with a national fair tax of 20 to 30 percent to fund our government and abolishing the IRS and the income tax system.

Last edited by Texasmoneyman300 on 22 Aug 2022, 5:23 pm, edited 4 times in total.

Rich people are more important to the economy than people who work because they create jobs.There would be no jobs if there were no rich people.I think that that the min wage needs to be abolished so more people can get first jobs when they are in school that help teach them the value of a dollar.I think all wage standards should be abolished.

Last edited by Texasmoneyman300 on 22 Aug 2022, 5:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I disagree.I think that entrepreneuers and investors are the life blood of the economy not the working class and middle class.There would be no jobs if people did not take the huge risk to start a busineses to make a lot of money.Thats why I think millionaires and billionaires should not have to pay taxes because they use to start more companies that would hire people.Every company started is at risk of not finding customers for the most part.Keynesian-economics did not work under the Obama years.Reagan's economic policy grew the economy faster than Obama did a lot of the time.

For starters, your understanding of how jobs are created is a gross oversimplification to the point it's almost disconnected from reality. Rich people are more likely to have the resources to invest in starting businesses but that's not the only way businesses can be started.

Further, if rich people are actually that much more important for an economy than they ought to be able to survive a general strike, but we both know they can't and they'd demand force be used to end it.

At the end of the day if someone is making their living off of someone else's labour they deserve to pay a higher percentage of the income in taxes because their income was just skimmed off of someone else's efforts.

If an employer won't pay a livable wage they don't deserve to have their positions filled. If the employer lobbies to shift their tax burden on to the worker the amount that counts as a livable wage goes up.

Your economic views , if they were the basis for policy would just enable even more profit to be extracted from workers with less compensation for their efforts. They were tried, they failed. Why go back to policies we already know don't work?

Its juust not practical for McJobs to pay a living wage.More jobs would be lost and it would crush every local eatery because the only people that could compete would be big companies.Even less companies would be started if you had to pay every worker a living wage.Why not make the min wage 100 bucks an hour then?Inflation would get even higher.More jobs would be created from my economic policies than liberal economic policies.I am in favor of cutting off welfare for min wage workers so companies like Walmart and McDonalds would have to pay their employees more because the American tax payer woiuld not be making their wages artifically low.Communist economies have never succeded once long-term in the history of man.Small business owners even if they are not the rich are still more important economically than a waitress and deserve to pay no taxes.Have you ever directly created jobs by hiring people for a firm because my family members have so my family speaks from experience.We have created jobs.We know how to create jobs.I plan on creating a lot of jobs in my life using Reaganomics.

Why would someone take a job that doesn't pay a living wage? Who should be obliged to take jobs that no one will take because they don't pay enough to pay for food and shelter?

Paying less than a living wage is just externalizing a company's costs onto it's employees. How exactly is the owner entitled to make more than a living wage off of the backs of people who can barely afford necessities?

If the business can't turn a profit the owner should be absorbing those costs, not the workers. If that means the business can't operate, tough s**t, it wasn't profitable enough to sustain itself in the first place. But won't somebody think of the poor business owners? Clearly they're not very skilled business owners if they went under because they had to pay a living wage.

If a business can't afford to pay a living wage that worker will still have expenses that need paid. Forcing their employer to pay them fairly is better than the worker being forced to rely on the social safety net while working full time. Even better would be if they banded together and used collective bargaining to raise their wages.

It would be nice if states didn't have to intervene in economies, the only problem is that it's been consistently demonstrated that they do.

You are a good debater funeralempire.Since I believe that the economy should be like the Gilded Age for the most part I just agree to disagree.Fair enough.

I'm sick of "extreme right viewpoints," and "extreme left" viewpoints, too.

I'm sick of radicalism, and those who believe that any person who doesn't believe EVERYTHING they believe in is some sort of apostate enemy.

There needs to be more DIALOGUE----and less dogmatism.

Enough of the smear campaigns on the part of both sides!

I don't think we got much choice but to agree to disagree.

We're both effectively powerless to alter things substantially and, if somehow that were to be altered, we'd almost certainly learn lessons that would cause elements of our ideological views to erode. Either by seeing stuff we believe consistently not work as desired, or the opposite, by noticing ideas we don't agree with actually do work better than alternatives.

It would be nice if economic theories could be tested in a more meaningful way instead of just introducing changes in policy and seeing how things unfold from there. At times these sorts of conversations remind me of religious witnessing only because at the end of the day it ends up relying on rhetoric more than anything objective.

I don't like that any change introduced is bound to cause harm to at least some people, especially when we don't seem to be very good at predicting the extent in advance.

That said, even the examples of 'ohh, that didn't work' are more complicated than can be addressed in a debate on here. There's almost always both positives and negatives to a policy and it's important to understand that outcomes are often a package (you can't always separate the negatives and positives, they're often directly related).

Ironically, both the Gilded Age American economy and Great Depression through 1960s Soviet economy saw great hardships but also significant increases in economic output and standards of living. It's possible that the issue isn't even the economic system, that instead it's more directly related to how economic expansion can't unfold equally as it's occuring.

If that's the case holding up those eras based only on a partial picture will teach us the wrong lessons and then we debate largely informed by those wrong lessons.

Last edited by funeralxempire on 22 Aug 2022, 6:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Ya I think society needs to be way less politically divided too.I wish people in this day in age could disagree with someone on political issue and still they think the other side was a good person.Like I know I disagree with yall a lot but I think highly of all of yall

Ya the Soviet Union became a industrial power but would you really want to live in a soviet-style nation?

Agreed. I can understand there's issues where that's really not possible, but by-and-large it's better to work to build consensus than to treat every disagreement as a fight (or argument, or debate).

Why can't things be discussions, at least some of the time? Sometimes even if one doesn't agree with someone on a ideological level they'll still have a perspective that can inform one's own, either because they introduce new facts one was unaware of or because one is forced to reconcile their position after a flaw has been identified.

Not at all, I think you've seen me be pretty critical of Lenin, Stalin and that entire branch of leftist thought. If we accept the idea that the state only exists to serve it's own interests, it seems pretty straightforward why that sort of system can't work... it tells people it's working towards a goal that anyone can recognize it has zero incentive to fulfil (a classless and stateless society) and it behaves just as violently as any other authoritarian dictatorship when people start to notice or complain that they were lied to.

There's a reason why Leninist states always ban left-wing opposition. It's harder to frame people who point out hypocrisy as hostile opponents because they'll always seem like true believers just hoping to get things back on the promised track.

But, I don't think either of us would like living in the Gilded Age or the USSR as disabled individuals with little personal wealth.

Personally I would love the Gilded Age because am part of a rich family.I would be able to save money by getting off the 2000 dollar rule.I blame the liberal democratic policy of the 2000 rule for keeping me dirt poor.I would just be fine on a farm or ranch if I would lived in the Gilded Age back then.I am going to inherit millions so i would be fine with Gilded Age.Also maybe debate was not the right word I just meant discussion reallly.My biggest objection to the Soviet Union is not economic in nature.I dont agree that governments exists merely for their own benefit because I think that mankind needs government because of my religious beliefs.I believe that every ruling authority including every government was established by God including the Soviet Union and Red China.I just have a much different notion of of the job of the government than a leftist.

I was mostly thinking of you as just you, not you as enabled by your folks with their resources.

What I meant by the state only exists to serve it's own interests is that governments will always put their long-term survival ahead of other interests, the work they do largely exists to ensure their long-term survival. It's undeniable that there's benefits to living under one, I'm just saying they don't provide those benefits out of the goodness of their hearts, they provide them because it's what ensures their survival.

A government that fails to do what's expected runs into problems with legitimacy. By grace of God is another way of legitimizing a government, but that's less secure because in hindsight it can always be claimed that the previous regime lost the mandate of heaven (or similar source of legitimacy). Since it's ultimately up to people to interpret if a government is supported by God it's easy for people to insert their own opinion and just claim that's how God feels.

If a state is always working to ensure it's own survival, it can't promise to get rid of itself and be taken seriously. It's almost like me promising to eat my entire body (uhh, even the teeth?).

Okay I see.Ya I agree that the state will do anything basically that increases it chance of surviving.Ya I dont think that governments can be counted on to limit its own growth which is one of the reasons why there is never really big dramatic cuts in government spending even during recession.Governments be willing to do anything to keep power is the very reason why I am a libertarian.Personally as a Christian I believe that every government in world history had the mandate of Heaven of being established by God.