Sick of extreme right views

Post Reply New Topic

Y’know, believe it or not, part of the time when I’m hearing a republican state their opinions, some of it I can understand.

But other things they say……man, I can’t look past them. Here’s a list of them:

Thinking that females should have to carry their rape babies to term, or lose their life giving birth when an abortion could’ve saved their life.

Ignoring the fact that the United States by far has more gun deaths than any other in the world.

Thinking that Donald Trump is the best choice for president in 2024, even after January 6th. Not because he’s a republican, but because why would anyone want that type of person being the leader of our country? Plus, there’s other republicans.

Being against same-sex marriage just off the basis that same-sex couples can’t reproduce.

If pointing out the absurdity of those views makes me a leftist loser according to some, so be it.

It's fine, come over to our side, you're welcome. Would you like something to read? Maybe about how none of the things you listed make you a leftist, from the perspective of a leftist, because none of them are concerned with how bosses sell the work of their workers, and just keep some of the money, leeching off other peoples' labour and being a burden on society?
Or about how in North America, you guys managed to label social progressivism "left", resulting in actual leftists - historical materialists - having to explain what they actually are all about, and how social conservativism, though not something I particularly favor, is irrelevant for questions like taxing financial transactions, instead working people's wages.

What do you mean by "taxing financial transactions"? Sales tax?

Surely you don't favor replacing income tax with sales tax? That would be pretty regressive. So perhaps you mean something else?

Well I would sure vote for abolishing the income tax system and replacing it with a sales tax and/or property tax but hey thats just me.I think that no millionaire or billionaire should ever pay another penny in taxes again.

A sales tax on financial transactions, like currency swaps, stock trades and so on.
This stuff is all done by machines, which are buying and selling stocks in microseconds.
Occasionally that system gets entrained and crashes for a seconds.... Financial speculation is happening at very high freqyencies, it drives up prices (someone has to pay), and it destabilizes everything.
I want a tax of 0.5% on transactions of that sort. That's enough to curb the worst excesses and please remember that these trades are done by algorithms, no human labour or time involved... Except yours eventually of course, someone has to pay rising prices. And you have to pay taxes on your wage, and sales tax.

But people pay taxes on stock trades in the US so what new financial taxes would have aside from capital gains and dividends and carried interest taxes.

Yes when an equity is liquidated at profit to fund purchase of a different one, the capital gains are taxed, however the rate of taxation is not bracketed as with income tax, so a poor person who sells shares of a stock is taxed at the same rate as a billionaire, same as with sales tax. Which is the sort of tax favored by libertarians and objectivists, if they're willing to accept any sort of tax.

Financial transaction taxes are not good. They decrease liquidity, which increases volatility and slows price discovery. The Laffer curve for financial transaction taxes is skewed heavily to the left, meaning that revenues drop rapidly as rates increase (not to mention that it negatively impacts upon capital gains takings). It does nothing to "curb the worst excesses"; it would probably make them worse.

If you want radical tax reform then tax land value. That discourages using land as an investment vehicle and encourages using it productively and efficiently. One small measure would shrink the gap between rich and poor, allow you to reduce other taxes, and make your cities much better places to live in the medium-term, without having any of the usual side-effects of taxes like discouraging productive investment.

Well actually someone who makes 30,000 a year does not have to pay long-term capital gains and dividend taxes.The taxes on capital gains and dividends are bracketed also with the super rich paying up to about 23 percent in capital gains and dividend taxes.

In other words: if you work yourself, you pay more taxes on your wages than if you profit off other peoples' work.

Ya thats just how life works in America and the world.Every tax code in the world is basically set up that way.Like take my dad for example.Its how the real world works.He paid high taxes all his career and now he is going to live off his investments and much lower rates than he was working.Also a big tax saver with living off of Walmart Stock instead of being a cashier there is that no FICA taxes are taken out if you own stock.Warren Buffett pays way more dollars in taxes than his secretary even though she is taxed at a much higher rate.

at least 50 percent of Americans dont pay any federal income taxes when counting for transfers.Also millionaires and billionaires and the top 10 percent pay most of the taxes in this country.Poor people dont really pay federal income taxes but billionaires do for the most part.Have you ever got a job from a poor person?Thats why we need Reaganomics forever.Someone who works at McDonalds making min wage pays less taxes than a someone in the one percent living off of McDonalds stock in the form of dividends.Poor people need to start paying federal income taxes and not getting as much back at tax day.The lower-middle class and working class and McJob workers needs to pay more federal income taxes.The upper middle class needs a big tax cut off of our taxes.

Last edited by Texasmoneyman300 on 22 Aug 2022, 6:56 am, edited 1 time in total.

Risking my sanity posting here because the rest of the forum is too inactive lately.

I'm not against abortion. Sometimes a fetus that's none the wiser being aborted is better than that fetus becoming a baby and a child with feelings, if they're born into abusive families.


The constitution or whatever it is is more important than people's lives apparently.


I'm not even from the US but I hope that prick doesn't get reelected again because the whole of the USA are so obsessed with him that it is all they talk about on internet forums. Besides, won't he be like 80 by then?


Gay couples can have children if they're willing to adopt or go for IVF or surrogate, whatever it's called.

A) The guy who works at McDonalds actually works for a living, unlike the person who makes a living off of owning things or playing with other people's money. Only one of them produces wealth and it's not the latter.

B) If you'd like poor people to pay more in taxes they need to be paid more. An economic system can't squeeze people for every bit of productivity they have for the least they can be paid, while also charging them as much as possible for everything they need and then also transfer as much tax burden as possible on to them.

That's how you end up with tankies taking over. If people know they're being taken advantage of too badly they eventually start guillotining the oligarchs and aristocrats. That's not a course that a society should go down but under certain circumstances it becomes almost inevitable.

If you oppose that outcome you need to ensure you're not creating the circumstances that will lead to it.

Part of the reason Leninist style dictatorships don't really work is that they never really represent a broad enough base of a nation's people to not have to rely on force to keep the rest on board.

Neoliberalism already struggles to not fail most people living under it, you're literally advocating to make the failures more severe. If I didn't know any better I'd think your goal was to stress the current system to the point of collapse by making it's problems even worse.

you upper middle classes with your views are so funny and cute.

How much would you like to squeeze from the already dry bones of a single parent who works full time and manages to pay for everything with the peanuts that her employer begrudgingly throws her way?

Indirectly -- as customers of the businesses that hire workers -- poor people do fund plenty of jobs. Poor people spend a much higher portion of their earnings on consumer goods (at least basic ones, like food) than anyone else does, simply because they have no money left over for investments.

The lifeblood of any business is the people who spend money on its goods and services. Thus the backbone of the economy is not the billionaires, but the middle class. Rich people typically spend only a very small portion of their income on consumer goods and services. Middle class people are more like poor people in this regard -- except that the middle class has more money to spend, obviously.

Rich people have more money to start companies, but what good is it to start a company if the company can't find enough customers?

Also, rich people aren't the only people who start companies. Plenty of businesses start small, then grow to something larger.

So the primary goal of a sound economic policy shouldn't be to increase the number of rich people, but to maximize the size of the middle class.

To that end, Keynesian-like economic policies do a much better job than Reaganomics. During the 1950's and 1960's, when the U.S. economy was doing extremely well for the most part, rich people (and upper middle class people too) paid MUCH more in taxes than they ever did before or since.


Nope. The lower middle class may need a tax cut, but certainly not the upper middle class. See above.