I think I should have explained the working harder part. I didn't necessarily meant working harder as in physical labour or working hours. It's also the responsibility that gets paid a lot.
For example... a pilot's job, when the airplane is autopilot and everything is well, is the easiest in the world. He sits at the computer and watches the plane fly itself. Yet still, he has the responsibility for everybody and everything aboard that plane. So he 'deserves' more money than let's say, a shop clerk or a city worker. The CEO of a big company 'deserves' more because he has the responsibility (if not shared) over the entire business. These jobs bring a lot more stress than the other jobs I mentioned.
So saying they work harder wasn't really what I meant.
If the system is so that the low income gets help and the middle income earning just a bit more doesn't, thus making it more attractive to stay in the low income, there is something fundamentally wrong with the system AND with the mentality of the people. One law or rule won't change that.
Your tax idea is good and in a way already in place in some countries. I believe that here in the UK, you pay taxes on the products you buy, called VAT (Value Added Tax) although I haven't really dug into how that exactly works but more countries in Europe have that. I know that in the Netherlands you pay 21% tax on products. So the more expensive something is, the higher the tax will be.
A cook in a restaraunt that only makes 8 bucks an hour (more than minimum wage, I'm rounding up just to make it easier) is literally cooking something that will go inside people's bodies
. All it takes is one slip up from him and everyone who eats his food gets ill, possibly dies depending on what exactly his fuck up (or wrong headedness if he does it on purpose) is. Statistically, you're more likely to die from some kind of food-bourne illness than you are in a plane, and more people on average will eat in a busy restaraunt in one night than people who will fly on a plane per trip. So exactly what makes the two different aside from the level of schooling involved? Garbage workers drive massive metal trucks around, usually at the ass-crack of dawn shortly after waking up, and are taking the lives of everyone they drive near in to their hands. All it takes is the guy behind the wheel nodding off (fatigued is just as dangerous as drunk driving) and he can take out joggers on the side of the road, a family of four up early to go to the kid's practice/game that's hours away, etc etc. Literally almost every single job out there requires you to take the lives of those around you in to your hands, even if it's not overt, and most lower paying jobs have far more risk associated with them than higher paying, for both the person doing the job and the people around them.
Incidentally, I totally agree that the system is flawed that it shafts the middle class. I AM middle class. I make just enough to not qualify for help anymore, and too little to be able to realistically do much for anything. I'm VERY lucky I qualify for the pell grant, but only because they lifted the cap on it. A couple years ago, I was making too much. It's getting better for the middle class, but it's a slow climb and it's only happening in small places.
Up to a point yes. What I meant is why should I try and stay healthy and still pay for somebody who doesn't give a shit about his/her health?
And who are you to make the call what someone's lifestyle quality should have to be? Why do you get to decide that your health regimine makes you more deserving than someone else's? Who are you to make the call that your money is more important than their life?
Oh let me get this straight then. Being unhealthy because of mother nature should be funded and I'll gladly pay taxes to everybody with a medical condition he/she can't do anything about. Hell I'll even pay 70% taxes if that helps those people get better or have a better quality of life. But I refuse to pay for the diabetes treatment if you smoke, don't excercise and eat only junkfood. Or pay for your lung cancer treatmemt if you keep smoking.
Let me ask you this. I like cars and I like driving (too) fast. One a night, bit of rain, bit of fog, I'm doing 90mph over a provincial road, lose control and wrap my 911 around a tree. Should you pay for that?
Yes. Why? Because it's better to pay for your care and get you back on your feet and working ASAP than to let you suffer and take longer to get better (or potentially never get better) and be a drain on the system for the rest of your life because you can't work and thus can't pay taxes. The fact that you don't understand that making sure that affordable care for everyone
is the best option and for the greater good simply baffles me. It's simple economics, and you're trying to make it a matter of you having the right to pass judgement on others.