Let ask you this.

If I make $300,000 a year, and you take everything I own, am I better off or worse off then the guy who makes $20,000 a year losing everything he owns?

I would say making sure those who can't quickly replace the things they need is far more important then those who have the means to recover quickly.

A large portion of the healthiest foods are very inexpensive, lentils and beans are amazingly inexpensive and are very healthy (by most measures).

One of the most important skills a person can learn in their life is how to cook because on a very small budget ($10 for a family of 4 for dinner) a person can deliver a very healthy meal that is very tasty if they know what they're doing. Far too many people are unwilling to budge and demand inexpensive foods that are tasty and are easy to make; and this is why people have problems making healthy food on a budget.

RealMafoo, Kasz, and HappySquirrel,

Ramen noodles arent that much, and one meal a day is way short of a 2,000 calorie diet and nutrional intake one needs.  Living in America, I dont want to base the extent of 'basic needs' of what impoverished people in Nigeria try to get buy on.

I didnt know Milk and potatoes were so good for you, even so I wonder if a cheaper combination coupled with vitamins would be even cheaper.

I agree.  I think if people understood how much money they could save by cooking instead of picking up McDonalds or KFC, a lot of people would have more money and more healthy in the process.

This is the point I was making. There is an intrinsic value all Americans receive, and all americans need to work to keep it. Not just some. This is why I am for a flat tax.

This is an amazing place to live, and if everyone took ownership in it (meaning provided for it's management), far more people would take interest in how there efforts were spent, and this country would be that much better.

Right now, if a law maker passes a law, he has to think "ok, who is this going to piss off because they have to pay for it?" Wouldn't it be great, if the answer was "everyone".

Well you would value your safety more highly than someone who earns 20k thats for sure. A police force is more valuable to someone whos moved well beyond the basic food, warmth, shelter needs and therefore shouldn't people pay by how much they value something? Even though a police force is a public good and the marginal cost to protect one extra household is minimal, a wealthier household is more likely to want additional protection so why shouldn't they pay extra for the level of protection they desire?

A poorer household has neither the ability or willingness to pay for the same level of protection that a wealthy household does.

Not only that, but the only reason why that wealthy household exists is because they benefit disproportionately from government services. Without basic government services its very unlikely that society would have progressed as far as it has today because the individual acting towards his own best interests does not act towards societies best interests all the time. Would the human, capital and energy concentration of a city like New York exist without 'a' government?

If a company reinvests their money into growing their business to make more money, how would having more money directly or indirectly from lower tax rates not translate into a larger investment into growing their business? Even if the rich business man is greedy and "keeps" the money to himself, when he buys goods, services or investments his money switches hands and will represent increased income to a different company who would use that income to increase the size of their business.

I don't think you understand what I am talking about in regards to seattle's mass transit system ... it is a very short train line with no parking that only takes passengers between downtown and the airport. The only people who would be interested in a service like this are business travelers who would favour a cab or rental car because it is far easier for them. Beyond that at $16 Million per mile you're dealing with an expensive transit system that may eventually pay for itself, at $160+ Million per mile you're dealing with waste on a level that only governments achieve.

Here is the US, they get the same safety. I live in a town of about 10,000. We have poor, middle class, and rich. We have one police force that protects everyone the same.

We have almost zero crime. A woman walking through the worst part of this little town, is as safe as a woman walking anywhere.

And besides, the police force is a state thing. Federal dollars pay for the military, and we all get the same safety from other countries equally.

As for the parts of your post I deleted... Some of that was out there, and if you want to talk about it, make a new post and we can talk about it. I don't want to change topics in this thread, so many pages into it.

Yea, and if they would just stop with all the road construction on the 405, it would not be that big of a deal to get out the airport. if your going downtown, the 5 will take you there in no time.

Not sure why they think they need a rail system.

You'd be surprised.  It's how the Irish "defeated" the british after they lost their war for independence.

It lacks only like one or two nessisary vitamins which are found in other cheap foods such as lentils.

It's also helpful that they're delicious and you can do tons of different things with them to make them different.

Interestingly too... if you cook potatoes and then let them cool they are healthier for you if your trying to lose weight.  Not sure how that effects things nutrition wise though.

Do you mean better cooked, or better cooled off? The latter would be really strange...