Privatize Defense?

Count Zero · Post by **Count Zero** » Fri Mar 09, 2007 8:14 am

http://www.slate.com/id/2161318/

This was an article that popped up on another board. I found it an interesting arguement for the support of nationalize health care.

opwunder · Post by **opwunder** » Fri Mar 09, 2007 11:59 am

Loved it!:lol:

Neuro · Post by **Neuro** » Fri Mar 09, 2007 3:15 pm

This actually strikes me as a little bit silly.

National defense is really very sensibly the business of a government. If you think about it a little, I think that argument makes itself. We do use private military companies to supplement our defense, but our defense is an issue of national security.

To make a comparison with social services isn't really a good analogy and so it makes a poor point and even for poor satire. Public services cost money. The people of the United States pay for public services. The money doesn't come out of nowhere. Countries with privatized healthcare have much higher tax rates. It's not like the money doesn't come straight out of the populace in one way or another. In Canada, that health care system is collapsing. In Britain, the waits are long and people who can afford it supplement their public health care with private insurance.

Also, it's probably fairly important to note that there are more of us than there are of them. Our health care system would be huge. Our private health care system is already mired in regulatory red tape. It could certainly get worse.

Although in principle I like the idea of universal healthcare, I don't think the government is the most efficient administrator of such a system and I also don't think the public is ready to pay for it, either. I'm certainly not.

Drew · Post by **Drew** » Fri Mar 09, 2007 3:21 pm

~~[quote="Neuro"]~~ Countries with privatized healthcare have much higher tax rates. [/quote]

Japan has national Health care and only about a 10% tax rate.

Drew · Post by **Drew** » Fri Mar 09, 2007 3:24 pm

Well, at least if we privatize every government service, that will give them more time to focus on things that really matter, like who you can marry and what a woman can do with her body.

Neuro · Post by **Neuro** » Fri Mar 09, 2007 3:24 pm

Actually, that's only the base individual tax. It can go as high as 37%. Corporate taxes are fixed at 30%. Also, their social security payments are larger than ours and represent something like a 12% contribution from the employee, which is only half the total contribution. The rest comes from the employer.

Drew · Post by **Drew** » Fri Mar 09, 2007 3:29 pm

All I know for certain is I was getting the same annual salary in Japan as I was in the states and my take home pay was considerably higher AND I got all my "social security" contributions returned to me when I left the country. Never paid more than $10 for health care (had a few ear infections) and $50 for a root canal. In Scotland I had my appendix taken out for free and since I was sans insurance state side, my ruptured appendix would have ruined my life or killed me because I wasn't likely to go to the hospital for a stomach ache!

Neuro · Post by **Neuro** » Fri Mar 09, 2007 3:34 pm

Put it this way, if I were Japanese, I would lose forty something percent of my paycheck. It's absolutely enough for me to be absolutely certain not to work in Japan. Or Canada.

Drew · Post by **Drew** » Fri Mar 09, 2007 3:39 pm

Wasn't my experience. In four years, I never had more than 25% taken out of my check and I got half of that back when I left the country.

Neuro · Post by **Neuro** » Fri Mar 09, 2007 3:55 pm

It's a graduated system.

Dragonkin · Post by **Dragonkin** » Fri Mar 09, 2007 4:13 pm

One of the reasons healthcare is so outrageous (aside from the artificially inflated costs) is the huge number of people who don't have insurance who go to the ER for every little problem, and then don't pay when the bill comes in the mail. Splitting the difference by providing healthcare to those who lack the option of employer-provided health insurance ensures that the hospitals get paid, thus reducung the over-all cost passed along to the average consumer. We spend 50 times more on our military than any other nation in the world; most of which goes to maintain outdated weapon systems and the ungodly number of nukes we have. I think we could afford to cut a billion or so to institute such a program.

Neuro · Post by **Neuro** » Fri Mar 09, 2007 4:24 pm

You know which 5 billion I'd like back? The 5 billion we gave to Columbia for military actions against drug traffickers. In fact, in 2003 alone, the US spent 19 billion on the 'war on drugs'.

As far as military spending goes, if you'd like to cut that, how about getting out of Iraq? I'd like that 400bn back, too.

And I don't mean that I'd like to spend it somewhere else, I mean, I'd like it back.

Dragonkin · Post by **Dragonkin** » Fri Mar 09, 2007 5:25 pm

No doubt. The Iraq debacle has gone on too long.

Drew · Post by **Drew** » Sat Mar 10, 2007 5:43 am

~~[quote="Neuro"]~~You know which 5 billion I'd like back? The 5 billion we gave to Columbia for military actions against drug traffickers. In fact, in 2003 alone, the US spent 19 billion on the 'war on drugs'.

As far as military spending goes, if you'd like to cut that, how about getting out of Iraq? I'd like that 400bn back, too.

And I don't mean that I'd like to spend it somewhere else, I mean, I'd like it back.[/quote]

How about the billions we spent to arm the very people we are fighting!

Can't remember where I have heard this, but we have spent so much fighting the war on drugs that they could have just bought every single gram they confiscated and still had a billion or so left over. And that's at street price!

Count Zero · Post by **Count Zero** » Sat Mar 10, 2007 9:09 am

~~[quote="Neuro"]~~National defense is really very sensibly the business of a government. If you think about it a little, I think that argument makes itself. We do use private military companies to supplement our defense, but our defense is an issue of national security.[/quote]

Yes we are supplementing out defense and it is costing us an arm and a leg. They now have private contractors do the food in the military. The figures I have seen is it costs us twice as much. A mecenary working for one of the contracting firms in Iraq right now gets paid three times as much as a regular soldier and is not under the same controls that a regular soldier is. There is a reason the Iraqis really hate private contractors more than regular troops.

The current Walter Reed scandal with the soldiers sitting in their own urine and rat infested buildings didn't happen until the care for those troops were outsourced to a private company, namely a subsidiary of Haliburton. The cost of those services were effectively doubled.

While there are places the private sector can do more efficiently and for better cost, the current Bush Administration experiment in privatization is a failure because the governments are just better at this sort of thing. Medicare is more efficent than private insurance. Medicare spends 2% of its budget on admin while the private health insurance companys spend 40%.

~~[quote]~~
To make a comparison with social services isn't really a good analogy and so it makes a poor point and even for poor satire. Public services cost money. The people of the United States pay for public services. The money doesn't come out of nowhere. Countries with privatized healthcare have much higher tax rates. It's not like the money doesn't come straight out of the populace in one way or another. In Canada, that health care system is collapsing. In Britain, the waits are long and people who can afford it supplement their public health care with private insurance.[/quote]

The employees at Dream Pod 9 have nothing but wonderful things to say about their heath care system. I have read plenty of articles that state how the Canadian Health Care system is doing just fine. Britian is a special case, the Europeans refer to it jokingly as the only 3rd world country in Europe. In contrast, you look at the French health care system which is one of the best in the world.

And yes... it increases your taxes to have a nationalize health care system, but if it ends up being cheaper than if you were paying for it out of pocket like most people do, then in reality you have more money. Second, our struggling corporations then don't have to take the burden of paying for health insurance. They can be taxed appropriately to contribute to the system.

Also, it would drive costs down because you would have hospitals trying to heal people rather than trying to make money. The idea that a neighborhood hospital would close because it isn't profitable is insane.

~~[quote]~~
Also, it's probably fairly important to note that there are more of us than there are of them. Our health care system would be huge. Our private health care system is already mired in regulatory red tape. It could certainly get worse.[/quote]

But the taxes collectedwould be proportional too. I love the red tape arguement. It is mired in red tape because you have health insurance companies trying to dodge the bill and push it back on the patient. Medicare is very efficient and maybe we should look at that model.

Something I remember, back during 90's when Hilary was proposing a national health care system the Right ran ads with this nice white guy coughing in a crowded waiting room while surrounded by :gasp: poor minorities. Run whitey run.. you might have to be around poor, brown people.

~~[quote]~~
Although in principle I like the idea of universal healthcare, I don't think the government is the most efficient administrator of such a system and I also don't think the public is ready to pay for it, either. I'm certainly not.[/quote]

Like I stated before, Medicare is a much more efficient system administrative-wise than private insurance companies. Maybe what we should do is simply open medicare up to the public as competition for the private companies. When private companies have to compete with an efficient health care provider, they might get their asses in gear and become more efficient

As to Americans being willing to pay for it, a ~~[url=http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/01/washington/01cnd-poll.html?ex=1330405200&en=45c0a4cf48ed21a1&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss]~~recent poll[/url] showed a majority of people are willing to pay the taxes necessary for some verysion of nationalized health care.

Personally, I don't know if nationalized health care would work simply because of our culture. Our urge to be the "glorious individual" might not work when combined with a nationalized heath care system.

We might consider subsidizing the system in order to make it much cheaper for not just companies providing heath coverage and American's paying for it, but I have qualms about that simply because the Health Insurance companies are so inefficient. Government only becomes inefficient when it people stop keeping an eye on it.

Neuro · Post by **Neuro** » Sat Mar 10, 2007 12:09 pm

~~[quote="Drew"]~~How about the billions we spent to arm the very people we are fighting!

[/quote]

Damn skippy I want that back, too.

Neuro · Post by **Neuro** » Sat Mar 10, 2007 12:16 pm

I'm not going to quote so meticulously as CZ did because I'm trying to finish lunch and get out the house, but I will agree that our insurance companies are on the fucked up side. On the other hand, I'd point out that I know a lot of Canadians aren't getting good care, who are on waiting lists for deeply necessary surgery and who can't get care for things that are more specialized and strange. (If you're that curious, I'll find you the paper.) Nationalized health care is a bit HMO-like, in that if you have a simple sinus infection or a simple broken arm, you get adequate care. If you have, say, a personality disorder or a rare, chronic illness you're a little more likely to be fucked.

In the US, a reasonably good private insurance plan for an individual starts at around 100 bucks a month. Subsidizing that for lower income brackets doesn't seem insurmountable.

Count Zero · Post by **Count Zero** » Sat Mar 10, 2007 1:47 pm

~~[quote="Neuro"]~~I'm not going to quote so meticulously as CZ did because I'm trying to finish lunch and get out the house, but I will agree that our insurance companies are on the fucked up side. On the other hand, I'd point out that I know a lot of Canadians aren't getting good care, who are on waiting lists for deeply necessary surgery and who can't get care for things that are more specialized and strange. (If you're that curious, I'll find you the paper.) Nationalized health care is a bit HMO-like, in that if you have a simple sinus infection or a simple broken arm, you get adequate care. If you have, say, a personality disorder or a rare, chronic illness you're a little more likely to be fucked. [/quote]

I have heard the same kinds of stories with private insurance companies too. How many times have we heard about insurance companies refusing to pay for something, which basically means you don't get the care.

When I went to get knee surgery, I had to wait a couple of months too. I know it isn't some bizarre disorder, but I had to wait anyway.

I would like to see the paper by the way.

~~[quote]~~
In the US, a reasonably good private insurance plan for an individual starts at around 100 bucks a month. Subsidizing that for lower income brackets doesn't seem insurmountable.[/quote]

Good would be a subjective turn there. Getting insurance is like jumping into a shark tank. When I was in college 7 years ago, I had insurance that was not intended for anything other than emergencies, and even then it was not cheap.

To be honest, I don't want to have to trouble myself with it. I shouldn't have different health coverage than the guy next to me. It should just be health coverage. Most people don't want to have to deal with it and don't understand all the finer points. Hell I did a ~~[url=http://www.ehealthinsurance.com/]~~basic search[/url] and that got me all sorts of insanely different pricing. People have better things to do than shop for health insurance.

Skyman · Post by **Skyman** » Sat Mar 10, 2007 2:42 pm

all I know is that small businesses in France pay 60-70% in taxes

Count Zero · Post by **Count Zero** » Sat Mar 10, 2007 2:59 pm

~~[quote="Skyman"]~~all I know is that small businesses in France pay 60-70% in taxes[/quote]

Okay, but what do you get from your government for that?

Skyman · Post by **Skyman** » Sat Mar 10, 2007 4:39 pm

small businesses going out of business?

Skyman · Post by **Skyman** » Sun Mar 11, 2007 1:35 am

~~[quote="Count Zero"]~~Government only becomes inefficient when it people stop keeping an eye on it.[/quote]

which reminds me of ~~[url=http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/01/29/eveningnews/main325985.shtml]~~the Pentagon situation[/url]

Shin Kenshiro · Post by **Shin Kenshiro** » Sun Mar 11, 2007 6:21 am

~~[quote="Count Zero"]~~Okay, but what do you get from your government for that?[/quote]

A lot...but there's a reason that people in Europe work about half as much as Americans. The citizen tax in Europe ranges from 40-50%. Yeah, you get healthcare there...but you can't afford a damn thing else. Your average Italian works 25 hours a week. Your average Frenchman barely pulls in 30. European nations and Canada also have very strict rules on foreign workers. With America's stance on immigration and very veeeery lenient stance on illegal immigration, you honestly think America could handle doing what those countries do and still remain America?

Think about trying to live in San Diego now....

Now imagine losing at least HALF your paycheck right off the bat for federal taxes, not even including state taxes. Still think you're going to afford that rent check? What about all those little goodies like cell phones, cable, cars, et cetera.

If America had more expansive and timely mass transit service it would help with the vehicle situation, but you're screwed everywhere else. Yeah, we could cut the military budget, sounds great in the short term. However, once you start doing that you lessen America's ability to enforce its own agendas. I'm not talking about saving Somalia or invading Iraq...I'm talking about having the muscle to ensure that America is the one who gets the good deals. Those good deals translate into a lot more money into America's economy. If all those European nations were doing so amazingly well...why join the European Union? Because what they had wasn't nearly as economically strong as what America has.

Dragonkin · Post by **Dragonkin** » Sun Mar 11, 2007 9:27 am

~~[quote="Shin Kenshiro"]~~I'm not talking about saving Somalia or invading Iraq...I'm talking about having the muscle to ensure that America is the one who gets the good deals. Those good deals translate into a lot more money into America's economy. If all those European nations were doing so amazingly well...why join the European Union? Because what they had wasn't nearly as economically strong as what America has.[/quote]

So what you're saying is that America is the Mafia, and we're just making sure the rest of the world knows we want our cut. History has proven that having the military backing to "enforce" economic superiority is fleeting at best. Look at Britan, for example. The economic and military powerhouse for the latter half of the ninteenth century, and into the twentieth. Based on that formula, I'd say we're just about due to collapse. And the falling value of the dollar versus other currencies tends to back this theory up. There's only so long we can say we've got the biggest, most well funded military before the rest of the world decides they've had enough.

Now, I'm not saying we need to hobble our military. Far from it. But the money needs to be better spent. When fewer than 100 nukes will render the planet uninhabitable, the thousands we have and are maintaining (which eats up a huge portion of the military budget every year) goes beyond overkill. Spend the money on improving the efficiency of the military, and improving the equipment our ~~[b]~~~~[i]~~troops[/i][/b] use on a daily basis in combat situations.

Count Zero · Post by **Count Zero** » Sun Mar 11, 2007 10:00 pm

~~[quote="Shin Kenshiro"]~~Now imagine losing at least HALF your paycheck right off the bat for federal taxes, not even including state taxes. Still think you're going to afford that rent check? What about all those little goodies like cell phones, cable, cars, et cetera.
[/quote]

First off.. I don't think it will have to be that extreme. I doubt that French style nationalize health care is effective for the United States.

Second, we do have to ask.. do really need the level of consumption we have to be happy. Yes, we have the highest standard of living in the world, but the quality of your life is not a cell phone, car, or cable.

Most people in Europe seem to be living fairly comfortable lives. I personally think we could do with much less. If I didn't get cable for free.. I wouldn't have it. That nice high def TV.. don't really need it. Yeah I know... we like those things.. but we could do without them. Yeah.. Europeans don't have all the crap we have, but we do have to ask the question of do we really need it?

I understand where you are coming from, but aren't some things more important?

Count Zero · Post by **Count Zero** » Sun Mar 11, 2007 10:02 pm

~~[quote="Skyman"]~~small businesses going out of business?[/quote]

Then there are on independant businesses in France? I find that hard to believe. It really depends on what is taxed and how taxes are figured. Considering they might be paying that out in health insurance costs like they do here... are they really loosing any more profits than American companies? One of the greatest burdens on American companies is health care costs.

Nationalize heath care is one of the primary reasons Toyota decided to build an new plant in Canada rather than in the U.S.

Shin Kenshiro · Post by **Shin Kenshiro** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 2:25 pm

~~[quote="Dragonkin"]~~Spend the money on improving the efficiency of the military, and improving the equipment our ~~[b]~~~~[i]~~troops[/i][/b] use on a daily basis in combat situations.[/quote]

I can assure you that troop welfare will never be high on the list of military priorities...no matter what nation or time you're dealing with.

As for the US=Mafia...yeah, actually we do. The Big Stick policy of T. Roosevelt never went away. We've been doing it for a hundred years and will continue to do so until our collapse. Why? Because it's what EVERY nation does when it reaches the top. Rome? Check. England? Check. Spain? Check. With great power comes great freedom to do what the hell you want. That responsibility crap is only a recent American invention when it comes to wielding the Beatdown.

Ok, CZ...on to your stuff.

Yeah, I get a lot of what you're saying...the problem is this nation has been raised for quite some time on the notion of "you can have anything you want if you work for it" regarding damn near anything you can imagine. Now, a major problem I personally have with nationalized health care is that I go to the doctor maybe once every year or two. I don't relish the thought of spending oodles of money to have that ONE time cheaper...even free. The money I lose as a healthy citizen in no way makes me feel better knowing that Little Timmy needed to go to the doctor but Mummy and Daddy couldn't afford it. Is that a greedy stance to take? Yes, I won't deny it. But it is my stance, and the stance my vote will take.

Could I do without a few things. Yes. Do I not have the latest & greatest High-Def Happy Ending Television? No. Do I want the option even if I don't have it? YES. My parents used to say "You don't need that, you can't have it"....I don't want the government to be my parents. I already did that once, and I assure you the government is crappy at that job.

Count Zero · Post by **Count Zero** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 3:33 pm

~~[quote="Shin Kenshiro"]~~Yeah, I get a lot of what you're saying...the problem is this nation has been raised for quite some time on the notion of "you can have anything you want if you work for it" regarding damn near anything you can imagine. Now, a major problem I personally have with nationalized health care is that I go to the doctor maybe once every year or two. I don't relish the thought of spending oodles of money to have that ONE time cheaper...even free. The money I lose as a healthy citizen in no way makes me feel better knowing that Little Timmy needed to go to the doctor but Mummy and Daddy couldn't afford it. Is that a greedy stance to take? Yes, I won't deny it. But it is my stance, and the stance my vote will take.[/quote]

It isn't now that you should worry about. Right now you are on the preventitive medicine path. One of these days though it is going to be the thousands of dollars in health care costs. Don't be short sighted. Sure now you aren't using it, but there will be the day you do.

~~[quote]~~
Could I do without a few things. Yes. Do I not have the latest & greatest High-Def Happy Ending Television? No. Do I want the option even if I don't have it? YES. My parents used to say "You don't need that, you can't have it"....I don't want the government to be my parents. I already did that once, and I assure you the government is crappy at that job.[/quote]

You aren't wrong. I'm not talking about the government saying you can't have it. People have to make a choice about what is important. Is affordable health care more important or is it the high def TV. We set priorities every day. We set them everytime we vote.

To be honest, I think the most effective thing would be a graduated scale. Poor people pay next to nothing while rich people pay more. Make it a nationalized system so it is more efficient like Medicare is.

Count Zero · Post by **Count Zero** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 3:36 pm

~~[quote="Shin Kenshiro"]~~IAs for the US=Mafia...yeah, actually we do. The Big Stick policy of T. Roosevelt never went away. We've been doing it for a hundred years and will continue to do so until our collapse. Why? Because it's what EVERY nation does when it reaches the top. Rome? Check. England? Check. Spain? Check. With great power comes great freedom to do what the hell you want. That responsibility crap is only a recent American invention when it comes to wielding the Beatdown.
[/quote]

The European countries weren't right when they did it. We aren't right now. The figures on ending poverty worldwide, much less in our country alone, are pretty low when compared to our defense budget. Shave off 10-20% from the defense budget to deal with poverty, because poverty is one of the primary causes of conflict around the world. In general, humans are pretty cooperative animals when we have the basic necessities of life. Get rid of one of the major causes, eliminate the need for that budget size in the first place.

Dragonkin · Post by **Dragonkin** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 3:51 pm

~~[quote="Count Zero"]~~To be honest, I think the most effective thing would be a graduated scale. Poor people pay next to nothing while rich people pay more. Make it a nationalized system so it is more efficient like Medicare is.[/quote]

It's a decent idea, and one I could get behind . . . if it could realisically be implemented. After all, we see how well the graduated scale works for income taxes, now don't we? I realize I'm being a bit cynical, but that's the viewpoint most Americans seem to take now. I still say we should take Mr. Jefferson's advice and incite a revolution. We're overdue.

Count Zero · Post by **Count Zero** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 10:35 pm

~~[quote="Dragonkin"]~~ I still say we should take Mr. Jefferson's advice and incite a revolution. We're overdue.[/quote]

With the ways things go sometimes it doesn't sound like such a bad idea. When I here some of the crazy things that go on and nothing every really happens, it really does start to feel like the government is no longer by the people, for the people and of the people.

I mean really, how much do any of us have in common with these rich people like Bush, Kerry, Clinton or the others?

Shin Kenshiro · Post by **Shin Kenshiro** » Tue Mar 13, 2007 3:45 am

~~[quote="Count Zero"]~~It isn't now that you should worry about. Right now you are on the preventitive medicine path. One of these days though it is going to be the thousands of dollars in health care costs. Don't be short sighted. Sure now you aren't using it, but there will be the day you do.

You aren't wrong. I'm not talking about the government saying you can't have it. People have to make a choice about what is important. Is affordable health care more important or is it the high def TV. We set priorities every day. We set them everytime we vote.

To be honest, I think the most effective thing would be a graduated scale. Poor people pay next to nothing while rich people pay more. Make it a nationalized system so it is more efficient like Medicare is.[/quote]

I'm aware I shouldn't be so short-sighted, and I'm well aware that I'll be making more & more trips to the doctor in the future. It's one of those things that someone asks along the lines of "Would you 1,000 dollars in 10 years...or 50 bucks right now?" It's just a bitch to not be that way when that 50 bucks looks real good right now, know what I mean? For many people, it's also like trying to tell yourself that you're still young and not getting older. Going to the doctor is always a cold brush with reality that you are not special and you are getting old.

Still, as much as it sucks though, I have to side against the your idea of the graduated scale concept. In essence, you are punishing the rich for being rich and rewarding the poor for being poor. A flat rate would be better as you now promote the vaunted equality across the board. This also prevents the notion of the rich getting better health care than the poor from a governmentally supervised standpoint.

Although, I could easily come aboard on the graduated path if it was targetted at the rich who are rich simply because their family is rich. If you earned your money, good on you...flat rate for you. If you're a parasite with no potential...congrats, high rate for you. You won't even notice because it's not your money to begin with.

Count Zero · Post by **Count Zero** » Tue Mar 13, 2007 11:54 am

~~[quote="Shin Kenshiro"]~~Still, as much as it sucks though, I have to side against the your idea of the graduated scale concept. In essence, you are punishing the rich for being rich and rewarding the poor for being poor. A flat rate would be better as you now promote the vaunted equality across the board. This also prevents the notion of the rich getting better health care than the poor from a governmentally supervised standpoint.

Although, I could easily come aboard on the graduated path if it was targetted at the rich who are rich simply because their family is rich. If you earned your money, good on you...flat rate for you. If you're a parasite with no potential...congrats, high rate for you. You won't even notice because it's not your money to begin with.[/quote]

I come from a fairly wealthly family that taught me it was my duty. Those with wealth are suppose to help those who don't. It isn't punishment. It is virtue. Those who can afford to pay, do pay. Those who can't, don't pay. When they can pay, they do. My parents have never voted in favor of those who demand cutting of welfare or other social programs to lower their taxes. Tax cuts benefit my parents greatly, but they don't want them cut if it means social programs will be cut.

I find the distain for the poor very odd in our culture. Because people who are poor and work two to three jobs to pay the bills are lazy and good for nothing scum, while the rich who spend $400 on a purse are people to be praised as decent people. Ever wonder about that?

Shin Kenshiro · Post by **Shin Kenshiro** » Tue Mar 13, 2007 6:27 pm

I wonder about it all the time.

But do realize that you and your family are the exception, not the rule. Yes, many people who are well off give because it's right. Most do it as a tax write-off so they can actually pocket more money. Just remember it's not just our culture that looks down on the poor. Every culture in the history of mankind has done that. "The meak shall inherit the Earth" was a great sales pitch for Jesus. It gave the poor something to look forward to. Kind of like the whole Catholic dogma of the Dark Ages. "Suffer now...and live like kings after death!" It kept the poor in line and docile. Still, that's a religious/sociological debate for another time.

Nobody wants to be poor. People often look down on the poor because they want to make sure they're distancing themselves from the poor and the appearance that they, too, could be poor.

Skyman · Post by **Skyman** » Tue Mar 13, 2007 9:46 pm

Yeah the ses caste system idea blows chunky donkey poo. My fear with the rich is if they horde income and prevent circulation of wealth. I think taxing poor up the ying yang and not the rich is keeping the poor folks poor and the rich...rich IMHO. Thus sustaining the illusion of the ses caste. I'm not sure how graduated tax thingy fits in all this but I don't think kicking people while they're down is cool