Upgrade to enjoy this feature!
Vital MX fantasy is free to play, but Premium users receive great benefits. Premium benefits include:
- View and download rider stats
- Pick trends
- Create a private league
- And more!
Only $10 for all 2026 SX, MX, and SMX series.
It means what it says, which is that all property necessary to live a healthy life (conservation of the individual) is a natural right that cannot be taken away from a man. But that anything beyond such CAN be taken at such a time that the society needs it. And that any man who has a problem with living within society on these terms should be cast out of society and not be able to benefit from it, because every rich man (Ben Franklin included) only BECOMES rich because society is there to pay them money for their goods or services. If you don't want to pay to help maintain society, you don't deserve the benefits of society, either.
Plain English. That's what he said.
If so, who sets the bar? The current progressive tax structure already enforces redistribution to some degree. What defines "conservation of the individual and the propagation of the species"? As a "property owner" with 1.2 acres, do I possess more than what's required?
You might. It depends. As for the progressive tax structure, Thomas Jefferson is the man who proposed it, also while in France working alongside Franklin in Passy:
"The property of this country is absolutely concentrated in a very few hands, having revenues of from half a million of guineas a year downwards... I am conscious that an equal division of property is impracticable. But the consequences of this enormous inequality producing so much misery to the bulk of mankind, legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property, only taking care to let their subdivisions go hand in hand with the natural affections of the human mind. Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise. Whenever there is in any country, uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right. The earth is given as a common stock for man to labor and live on." -- Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, October 28,1785. ME 19:17, Papers 8:682
What is the individual's net benefit to employing Franklin's philosophy? Stripping the wealthy of their property does not necessarily improve the position of the common man. However, restricting earning potentials will adversely affect society.
What? No, the act of stripping a wealthy person of property is not in and of itself a benefit to society, but if it's given to people who need it to get them going, it is.
The context of the Jefferson quote above was that he was walking in the French countryside and came across a woman who was poor, and he asked why, and she said she couldn't get enough work to pay the rent, much less feed her children, and her husband had died. He said, "Why don't you farm and take care of yourself?" She said, "All the land is owned! I can't just farm on someone else's land!"
And at the time, Jefferson was walking through a beautiful, untouched game reserve that the crown owned and used for enjoyment.
So taking them in context, they were both saying that there is a definite point where the disparity between the wealthy and the poor is too great, and that it is damaging to any free society to have such a gap.
And to be honest, the idea that if the rich don't get to keep it all, it will hurt the poor, that's a myth. During our most prosperous times as a nation, in the 1950s, the top tax bracket for the richest Americans was 92%. The numbers simply don't bear it out. Once someone is making billions of dollars, they aren't hiring or firing people for charity, they're hiring and firing people based on company needs. And the amount that CEOs get paid at companies, that's what they're taxed on. The company itself is taxed on its profits, and the more people who are employed there to make every dollar, the less the profits will be, and the less taxes they will pay.
Also, let's be cautious in what we put in the hands of the "publick". That same group would have the likes of you & me (motorcyclists) banished without a second thought...
He didn't say you can ban people from using land. They are saying quite the opposite. This is about INCREASING freedoms, not decreasing them.
I'm somewhat leery about "giving" the less fortunate anything beyond basic subsistence. Most lower income individuals have always lived hand-to-mouth, and know little about savings and investments. Since their environment is one of "easy come, easy go", government subsidies are often spent without caution, whether it's $10 or $10K. What these folks need are plans that allocate benefits in a very controlled manner (i.e. not cash). They need money managers more than money...
The US already runs the largest welfare programs in the history of the world. Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security dominate expenditures, and while I don't have the statistics, I'd venture to say they are comparable in size to that of other nations with heavily socialized programs.
The top 1% of income earners pay nearly 40% of personal income taxes collected (while earning just under 17% of all income), while the bottom 40% of wage earners pay little or no federal taxes. Raising the top tax rate should improve the total tax revenue, but there's a point where increases actually reduce the total tax yield. The US already has one of the highest corporate tax rates in the industrialized world (38%), so we may be on the precipice of maximum tax revenues.
Nerd's clarifications helped me understand Franklin's original statements. Democratic societies were forged when repressed or underrepresented groups took action against a standing monarchy or dictatorship. The main difference between Ben Franklin's world and our world today is not only were these people deprived of property, they were deprived of the very ability to acquire property. Democracies and capitalism were concepts that only a handful of individuals understood, as the "haves and have nots" were clearly defined and cemented in societies' expectations.
The inalienable rights are often summarized as life, liberty, and property (i.e. pursuit of happiness). The US today, while in an economically troubled time, still permits each of us to pursue all three. And while income disparity continues to broaden (and no amount of taxation will offset the massive population explosion of lower income families, which is the main contributor to the growing wealth differential), the federal government will only gingerly push the top tax bracket upward.
Fortunately, I'm not in the top bracket, but I will click my heels the day I tap that 36% threshold.
That is the fundamental difference between your system and that of all other wealthy industrialized nations. We see health care as a fundamental right and basic subsistence.
I've said it before in this thread. You guys already pay more per-capita on medicaid than we spend on our entire government run universal access health care system. Yet there's no universal coverage in America.
Why?
From a Washington Post article:
In many ways, foreign health-care models are not really "foreign" to America, because our crazy-quilt health-care system uses elements of all of them. For Native Americans or veterans, we're Britain: The government provides health care, funding it through general taxes, and patients get no bills. For people who get insurance through their jobs, we're Germany: Premiums are split between workers and employers, and private insurance plans pay private doctors and hospitals. For people over 65, we're Canada: Everyone pays premiums for an insurance plan run by the government, and the public plan pays private doctors and hospitals according to a set fee schedule. And for the tens of millions without insurance coverage, we're Burundi or Burma: In the world's poor nations, sick people pay out of pocket for medical care; those who can't pay stay sick or die.
This fragmentation is another reason that we spend more than anybody else and still leave millions without coverage. All the other developed countries have settled on one model for health-care delivery and finance; we've blended them all into a costly, confusing bureaucratic mess.
I, for one, totally believe the poster about the $700 tetnus shot. I brought my then 2 year old in to St. Mary's Clinic in Rochester MN (part of the Mayo Clinic, one of the best hospitals in the world) about 3 years ago after he fell and split open his forehead. Bleeding like a stuck pig, we were worried about a permanent scar, so we brought him to the ER to get it done right. After a 2.5 hour wait (one hour in the waiting room and 1.5 having three different people come in and ask him in a gentle voice how it happened - aka checking to make sure we were not beating him) they had a nurse and a doctor come in. The nurse held his wound shut, the doctor put on the glue. Doc was in the room no more than 3 minutes. Nurse was in for no more than 6 minutes. Discharged immediately.
I've got a great job with good insurance, so we only paid our $75 ER co-pay. The bill? $1,268 dollars. They called it surgery.
I travel overseas for work a lot, and talk to many people in other countries. They are absolutely shocked that people can be uninsured, get hurt, and lose everything. They're like "really?? you can really lose everything? So if you lose your job your whole family can lose your insurance? really?" and look at you like you're an alien.
For those of you who still don't think our system isn't f'd up, check out this chart. It compares per capita spending on health care, number of doctor visits per year, and life expectancy. Nah, we don't need any changes.
And Dr. Mark - I can shop for dirt bikes, cars, houses, dvd players, tons of stuff. You really think the solution is shopping for health care?
"so doc, tell me about your MRI machine - which manufacturer is it again? I've heard bad things about their image resolution, and you charging 20% more than the best deal I've found so far. Anyway, before I have you operate on the tib/fib that I'm sure you've noticed are poking out of my lower leg, could you let me know if you have a mulitple bone discount? Any limits on the pain medications, because the fourth doctor I interviewed this morning said they had a buy 3 pills get the 4th free promotion going on if I sign up today. And what about bedsheets - any extra charges for frequent changes? Any discounts if I bring my own? Do you have a freqent patient program?
Ok, thanks for your time, I've got three more hospitals to check out. I'll get back to you."
Give me a break.
The Shop
DeCal Works Huge Plastic Inventory of UFO and Polisport kits.
Free shipping: VITALMX
Luxon 4-Post Bar Mounts
$189.95 - $239.95
Plus Canadians are healthier. There, I said it. Canadians, on average, spend 35% less on health care each year than their US counterparts. Which means your older population is healthier as well. Plus you have fewer people below the poverty level to support on a national program. It's not even apples & oranges, it's apples and bowling balls.
In Canada the government pays about 70% of health care cost; in the US it's 45%. To meet Canada's level, that's an additional $525B (that's billion) in federal expenditures. Can I get a collective "DOH!"
Plus we have to finance that "situation" in Iraq & Afghanistan, dole out about $25B in foreign aid, and pad the pockets of every Pol Pot regime that crops up across the globe. It's a lot to deal with; do you think we have time to mess around with a national health care plan?
And, they spend more on health care because if you're a canadian and you have a health condition you immediately go and see the doctor as soon as you feel it, and treat it while it's cheap to treat. If you're one of the 45 million uninsured Americans, you take an asprin and pray it goes away. Then it gets worse, and you take more asprin pray harder that it goes away. Then it gets worse, to the point you can't take it, and you call 911 and have the ambulance take you to the ER.
Which do you think is cheaper?
http://www.mybudget360.com/top-1-percent-control-42-percent-of-financia…
As you can see, the top 1% controls 42% of the wealth.
The main difference between Ben Franklin's world and our world today is not only were these people deprived of property, they were deprived of the very ability to acquire property.
So are people who are forced to work at Wal-Mart because that's the only job in town where they live. They cannot make enough to buy anything. The only distinction being made here is one between whether it's the government or the private sector doing the bad stuff.
To me, there is no difference. Actually, it's worse for the private sector, because we can't vote there. When Wal-Mart is the only game in town, that's where you have to buy things when you need them.
The inalienable rights are often summarized as life, liberty, and property (i.e. pursuit of happiness). The US today, while in an economically troubled time, still permits each of us to pursue all three. And while income disparity continues to broaden (and no amount of taxation will offset the massive population explosion of lower income families, which is the main contributor to the growing wealth differential), the federal government will only gingerly push the top tax bracket upward.
No, the disparity is happening because today CEOs make something like 475x the amount of money their average worker makes, whereas 30 years ago it was 24x the amount. It's also happening because the rich get out of a lot of their tax burden and it leaves most of it on the middle class (us). And it's also happening because wages have stagnated for the vast majority of people while inflation has risen. That's why it's happening.
And in countries that don't have these problems, it's not happening.
We don't HAVE to finance those things. We just do. And 25B is NOTHING. Honestly. It's a drop in the bucket. People complain about NASA, but it's budget is literally less than 1/2 of 1 percent of the total US Budget every year.
Keep perspective, folks.
Look it up (per capita spending) and then feel free to edit your post. You'll want to.
The US spends more "per capita" to finance just the medicaid/medicare/veteran/etc system you have right now than we do to finance all the government expenditures under our whole system. And we have one of the more expensive universal coverage systems.
Pointing to other nations and saying "they're doing it right" is like putting up a screen door during a hurricane: it might make you feel better, but it doesn't address the situation. We can post links and facts supporting our arguments, but here's the bottom line: we all must live in the real world, and that world isn't changing anytime soon.
I'm not saying give up on advocating change, but it's much more productive to work with the system than against it. If Wal-Mart's the only game in town, then play that game to your maximum potential. If that's not viable, then find an alternative. Some will say "it's not that easy", but in actuality, it is. You just have to work at it. (And to quote David Pingree, if you have a motorcycle in your garage, chances are you don't have it that bad.)
By 2050 Americans of European ancestry will comprise less than 50% of the total population. This creates a management problem that has plagued nations throughout history, as population growth will concentrate on the lower income spectrum. I'm not trying to point fingers, just stating the facts. In 40 years we'll look back at 2009 as "the good old days" as America wrestles with maintaining momentum while caring for a population that receives more government subsidies that it contributes.
This forum points to countries that have greater control over health care cost, but our demographics move farther from that model every day (Rooster's valid point of per capita spending serves to support that argument). Like all empires, the United States of America will collapse one day under the weight of its own populace. But that day isn't here yet, so all we can do is make the best of our individual situations. Political theory is fun, and has its place in the classroom or D.C., but it doesn't pay bills or raise our standard of living.
One point about the US healthcare industry: it provides nearly half the world's R&D spending, and is the main engine behind most medical advancements today. The EU has fallen behind due to increasing cost of its public programs and a lack of private funding (and public R&D funding is highly restrictive). We must be careful when revising our nation's health structure, as the rest of the world rides on our funding the progression of medical care. The media often sets its sites on the pharmaceutical industry (with cause in many instances), but this is the same group of companies that invests billions of R&D dollars to help us lead better lives. National health plans are great for the basics, but when someone needs the latest and greatest care, they find it here.
Certainly not while people sit around saying nothing's going to change.
I'm not saying give up on advocating change, but it's much more productive to work with the system than against it. If Wal-Mart's the only game in town, then play that game to your maximum potential. If that's not viable, then find an alternative. Some will say "it's not that easy", but in actuality, it is. You just have to work at it. (And to quote David Pingree, if you have a motorcycle in your garage, chances are you don't have it that bad.)
Sometimes it's more productive to change the system once you know it doesn't work. And if the only work you can get is at Wal-Mart, you're never going to own property, and you are stuck forever, just like in France in 1780. What's the difference?
Our founders wanted to end that. They fought a war to do it. But you sit here saying that it's just too hard to change!
By 2050 Americans of European ancestry will comprise less than 50% of the total population. This creates a management problem that has plagued nations throughout history, as population growth will concentrate on the lower income spectrum. I'm not trying to point fingers, just stating the facts. In 40 years we'll look back at 2009 as "the good old days" as America wrestles with maintaining momentum while caring for a population that receives more government subsidies that it contributes.
Whoa, whoa, whoa, dude. Are you saying that with less white people our country will be poorer, as if money is tied to ethnicity? Holy crap, dude. That's absolutely insanely racist.
http://www.arthurhu.com/index/awelfare.htm
As you can see, us white people get the most "government assistance" per household than anyone else.
And before you go off on that graph including SS, remember that you brought up SS in a previous post talking about it being a type of welfare and a drain on government resources.
This forum points to countries that have greater control over health care cost, but our demographics move farther from that model every day (Rooster's valid point of per capita spending serves to support that argument). Like all empires, the United States of America will collapse one day under the weight of its own populace. But that day isn't here yet, so all we can do is make the best of our individual situations. Political theory is fun, and has its place in the classroom or D.C., but it doesn't pay bills or raise our standard of living.
It will collapse if people like you refuse to make it better, sure. On one hand, you're saying, "It's going to collapse" and then on the other, you're saying, "We may as well just ride it out and do nothing." More lunacy. We do something and maybe fix it, or we do nothing and it all falls apart. Those are the two choices.
And no, political theory doesn't change our economic standing. Economics does.
One point about the US healthcare industry: it provides nearly half the world's R&D spending, and is the main engine behind most medical advancements today. The EU has fallen behind due to increasing cost of its public programs and a lack of private funding (and public R&D funding is highly restrictive). We must be careful when revising our nation's health structure, as the rest of the world rides on our funding the progression of medical care. The media often sets its sites on the pharmaceutical industry (with cause in many instances), but this is the same group of companies that invests billions of R&D dollars to help us lead better lives. National health plans are great for the basics, but when someone needs the latest and greatest care, they find it here.
I'd love to see where you get your numbers you're talking about in the early part of that paragraph. Care to provide a link that cites both the numbers and causes with numbers?
Oh, and BTW, I don't give a crap about the rest of the world riding on our R&D. They can do their own.
And BTW part II, a WHOLE LOT of the R&D funding that those companies invest comes from US. The taxpayers. Grants, loans, etc. Because face it, if a company is interested only in making money, they make drugs for common things, such as pain, or headaches, etc., but when it comes to making a drug to cure a disease that less than 1 in 10,000 people ever get, there is no motivation to invest in that, so the government steps in and gives money to the company to research it. Then, afterward, the company gets to sell it at a huge profit (many times 5x more than what they charge for drugs they develop totally on their own dime).
Now if you'll excuse me, I have a wonderful life to resume. See ya, Vital...
Weave
You shouldn't be offended. You should own what you said, or say that's not what you meant and explain it.
btw, in this thread, what happened to the 20 year career military man that knows everything about the world outside the military?
btw, in this thread, what happened to the 20 year career military man that knows everything about the world outside the military?
Pit Row
Post a reply to: Under-insured Riders