Jereel Hunter said:
Chairman-Mao said:
Jereel Hunter said:
You wanna make society more class-based than it is now? This is how.
|
So your conclusion is by making things more equal...its really less equal?
A flat tax rate is the fairest (most equal) thing for everyone. Now while I don't agree everything should be privatized (most things should though), I do agree that a flat tax rate is a great idea.
My solution to the privatization issue is a two-tiered system for things like education, health care, etc. I know its a terrible comparison, but kind of like Playstation plus. So everyone would get adequate free health care/education/services...but people if they have the money can opt to pay extra for their services and receive higher quality services.
So say two people are lined up at the hospital for a kidney transplant, a poor man and a rich man, but it will be a 1 month wait for the surgery. Well in that case the rich man can pull out his cheque book and pay to jump ahead in line and get his transplant right away, while the poor man who will get it for free has to wait the month.
I think something like that is perfectly fair because then the lower class will get the adequate health care they are somehow "entitled" to in todays society, while the middle and upper class can pay for theirs and get premium care.
|
Aside from which, equal has to do with quality of life, not just some %. If I make $20 million a year and you make $20,000, we have grossly different qualities of life. The impact of living off of $10 million a year vs $16 million a year is minimal. The different between even $1000-2000 for someone making $20,000 a year is HUGE.
As for letting rich people pay to get organs faster, that's just crazy. Talk about putting a dollar value on human life. A good public health system, but there also being private health care of higher quality available? Fine. But life saving organs going to the rich first? That's just evil. Because I'm a wealthy investor, I deserve to live more than than father of 4 who drives a bus? Certainly not.
|
I totally understand where you're coming from in your first paragraph there. I just don't really think its fair to tax the hell out of the wealthy just because they can afford to live off of less. If you take away half their money and leave them with $10 million then why not go one step further and take away $19 million from them. Anybody can live off of $1 million per year. My point is where does it end? I get that 20% is huge tax for a guy making just $20,000 but he'll only be paying $2000 in taxes where as the $20 million man will be paying $4 million in taxes. I highly doubt the rich guy is really using $4 million worth of government services where as the poor man will easily use more than the $2000 in government services.
And I think you misunderstood my idea on two-tiered health care. Everyone gets perfectly adequate health care, the difference is if a guy is willing to pay for his (as opposed to taking it for free) he can sort of skip to the front of the line (to a certain extent). So of course the poor man will get his surgery or whatever but if neither of them are in dire need of the surgery (their aren't going to die soon if they don't get it done) then the wealthier guy can skip ahead of the poor man at a price. But of course if the poor man is about to die without immediate medial care, and the wealthy guy is just fine then this won't work. I hope that clears it up a bit.
