Humanity Party platform:

Humanity Party platform:

everyone on 4chan Holla Forums thinks the Humanity Party is communist, so I thought I'd get yous guys' opinion. So what are they, Communist or Capitalist?

Other urls found in this thread:

not communist

people need to stop being fooled by capitalism putting on it's human face

peak fucking ideology. holy shit I'm going to puke

Gee I wonder who can benefit from this
πŸ€” πŸ€”πŸ€”πŸ€”πŸ€”πŸ€”πŸ€”πŸ€”πŸ€”πŸ€”πŸ€”πŸ€”

really gets the noggin joggin

What could possibly go wrong?

Holla Forums only thinks of Socialism on the scale of "giving money to niggers". the more money you're giving to niggers, the more socialist it is.


Pack it up boys, looks like they were endorsed by the Officialβ„’ Anonymous channel.

So Democrats, then?

What's so bad about that? I mean if you set aside no corporate tax. I don't see the point in having both income tax and consumption tax.

The Humanity Party is a front organization of the Mormon church that has appropriated the image of anonymous to garner sympathy.

So if this come across to you as even more brutal and paternalistic than neoliberalism, know that it's because the "Humanity Party" is little more than the Mormon Party.

LDS has long supported brutal austerity in the states where they dominate so that the church can fill in where the secular state is no longer providing. This means they intentionally create a situation where the only way out of crushing poverty is to join their religion.

Don't fall for it, not that I think any of you were.

lame porky garbage with that "can't we all just get along?" mask they like to put on once in a while.

Consumption taxes are hugely regressive.

Consumption tax affects the poor more.

So tax payers are funding everything, but a CEO gets to skim a bit off the top for no reason?

Well there's a minimum consumption level, the poor and the rich will pay the same amount which is regressive.

I can't wait to pay all those taxes with me .20$ an hour.

I was only debating with myself if income tax or consumption tax should go. I never fully decided which

How? Is it because of bulk discounts that would lead to a lower amount taxed? Couldn't you just make taxes low or 0 for goods people need and place higher taxes on luxury goods?

Libertarians, this is literally what libertarian in texas towns do already (and it doesnt work).


This is the exact opposite of what every reformist wants so definite Capitalist

Holla Forums thinks anyone that doesn't want to actively kill jews and blacks is a communist.

As for the party, it's just a unique proposal to imagine implement social democratic policies. Nothing communist about it, they even admit to wanting to keep private businesses.

I guess I get what you mean. I just now thought of the possibility of a progressive consumption tax. The higher the price of a good the higher the tax. Wouldnt that restore balance? Im too drunk to do maths

That wouldn't make the tax more progressive, it just makes expensive stuff more expensive. The only progressive taxes are ones that target property and income

The problem is less one of prices and more one of how much income as a % is spent in total, especially on things that get slapped with consumption tax.

I'm tired but my gut feeling is that if you link it to the price of the good you'd improve it slightly, but it'd still be regressive, since the poor spend a greater % of their income. Even in the UK where VAT is zero-rated on some key things like staple foods, it's still shit. In the case of costly goods, A poor man who saved for decades to buy an expensive TV being hit with the same addition to the price as a rich man. Or perhaps closer to home, a student blowing their student loans on a macbook being hit the same as someone who gets daddy the stockbroker to pay.

I always find it weird when people propose some tax system where only having/using the currency is taxed. Don't you want to ensure in some way that the currency is used to begin with? Because this is not something you can forever rely on to just happen. If a currency is backed by something, people have a reason to use it. A currency can be backed by real things in two ways: One is the well-known way that the currency-issuing entity guarantees go give you something in exchange for it, like gold. The other way is far more common, but for some crazy reason usually not talked about as a way of backing a currency: The state guarantees to fuck your shit up and take stuff from you unless you regularly give some of the currency to the state.

You can think of currency as a transferable anti-expropriation voucher, and once you see it that way, you will see proposals for taxation systems that would only tax ownership of these vouchers as very strange indeed: transferable anti-expropriation vouchers that only protect you against expropriation of these vouchers themselves. How to ensure that the currency is used then? If land owners have to regularly pay a tax in the currency or be expropriated, the currency is backed by an important resource.

oh yeah, public-private partnerships are literally gommunism :DDDDD

Progressive tax is when a tax is higher and higher in increments with brackets. Both income tax and corporate tax use a progressive tax system of brackets based on income and profits or at least that is how it is in the US.

Mornin', folks. I see some of you have concerns about the tax plan.

For more info, go to

Pic related is a chart mapping their expectations for GDP growth under the FTP.


I am not aware of any school of economic thought that teaches this. If you think above is a compelling statement, why wouldn't you say the same thing about any other tax? Company X is taxed higher now, but they won't charge their customers more, because if people can't afford the stuff, they won't buy it. I shit on normal economists all the time, but I think I'm going rather with the take of what a normal economist would say here. That is, to figure out from who is directly asked to pay the tax to who ends bearing what share of the burden of the tax through changes in prices and quantities, you have to look at the structure of the market. Are we talking about a tax for a very competitive sector where everybody just makes ends meet? In that case, the burden will be shifted and fall on the customers. The other extreme is a monopoly with fantastic profits. If the tax isn't so extreme that you would make higher profits just about anywhere else, the burden stays on the firm.

ITT fascism literally never existed

fucking the most regressive tax of all.. this is peak neo-liberalism

Most people on Holla Forums don't know what capitalism is.

This shit is capitalist as fuck.

Interesting comments. So the consensus is that THumP's platform is…


It's neoliberal (capitalist). It's closer to fascism than socialism

aw man, those Holla Forumstards are gonna eat their hats.

Where are the proofs?

Fucking neolibrals

Porky has lost all shame.

This is literally pure ideology the political party
That's because everybody on 4/pol/ are braindead cucks and/or inbred redditors so don't be surprised if they confuse socialism with liberalism


Not all of us are puritan Leftists. Some of us are Whateverworksist.

Communists strive to abolish dependence on the state
Communists strive to abolish private enterprise
Communists strive to abolish the distinction between neccessity and luxury
Communists strive to obsolete taxation. Not to mention that consumption tax in particular hurts only the poor, as per
Although raising the minimum wage directly benefits the people dependent wages, communists strive to abolish wage labor

Literally nothing about them is communist. It's liberal bullshit to the core

basic necessities under THumP's plan are untaxed, and inflation is capped at 1% per year.

pure neolib trash lmao

jesus christ what a load of bullshit
gulag for techies now

Not in practice tho.

Businesses pass taxes onto the consumer, don't they? There would be nothing to pass onto the consumer in this case. The only problem I see with this is that the toymakers will raise prices anyway, since they know workers now have freed income. THumP's plan only controls inflation on basic necessities, not televisions.

sorry, wrong pic.
this is from their proposed constitution.

The thing in italics in post is the position of that party, which is criticized in that same post.

it's a trade off for both parties i think.
the business eats the punch because all other taxes are gone.
the consumer eats the punch because all other taxes are gone.
who says "ouch" more? those who have to work in order to buy things they don't need.

Demand-side economics, retard.


oops, i made a boo boo.

turns out there will be a minimum wage. I should really get my facts straight before I go promoting a political platform.


Your post is dumb. Re-read post to learn how an economist would talk about the issue.

Your meme picture is also retarded. The top part is from the GDR. Eastern Germany only had low food supplies right after the WWII, just like West Germany. For anybody born in the GDR during the 50s or later bread was super-cheap and everywhere.

You just don't like my answer. Too simple for ya!
OK. The business pays 20% if, say, they're an electronics store purchasing inventory from a warehouse. If I was a business owner, I'd be tempted to raise SRP 20% to absorb the hit. But then instead of normally paying 1200 for a big screen tv, the consumer will be paying 1728, getting hit with two taxes. that's a month of a gross income with a decent job. less greedy retailers will flourish and encourage lower prices.

And the meme should have a middle picture. A bakery where people wait in line for bread waiting for them.

as far as who gets the better deal? the business, of course. they always pay less for their product.
my point is that any bad consequence you can think of is mitigated by the peoples' liberated incomes.