ofriceandruin [none/use name]
Yes I’m using those terms interchangeably. Anyone’s whose majority income is accrued through direct capital gains and conscious investment in labor markets is a capitalist and should be “means tested” the fuck outta of any state protection
Then why not do it through a taxation system that’s less likely to trigger direct reaction (i.e. “they’re stealing my money to pay for them blacks!”).
Maybe, but this skirts too close to the kind of personal responsibilty, “tighten our belts” kind of discourse that libs like to trout out. It’s relatively simple: we can have medicare for all, education for all, and all that jazz RIGHT NOW. So is it so hard to believe that we can’t have “Child Support for All” now? Why is it that the money machine goes brrr for all sort of horrible things (endless wars, trillions injected into a failing stock market, tax cuts, etc.) and leftists rightfully call it out as BS, but when it comes to child support, then it becomes all about some weird Jordan Peterson personal responsibility shit mixed in with some borderline TERF shit about the “sperm contributing parter” (which I can’t help but feel is used as cover for some gender essentialist shit) “manning up” or whatever.
Fuck no, the state should become the sole domain of the working class, the capital class should be tossed outside its protection, so they as a social caste can wither and die, this is less “means testing” and more total class warfare
Uh… Okay… but then who’s working class and who’s capitalist class? You said earlier that “rich” people should be forced to pay. Now you’re saying capital class. What are you trying to say?
Yeah and that’s bad, what I’m saying is that if you’re rich you should be forced to pay for everything, what ever it is, and for the working class the state should be the primary benefactor
So then you wouldn’t support medicare for all or college for all? You’d have them be means tested?